This is so wrong!

[cloudy]

Families have contributed photos to "Faces of the Fallen," Cloudy.

You must have a deep-seated reason for not wanting these pictures published, if you think their families were insulting their dead by contributing photos to the site.

If their families contributed to them, fine and good, that's for them to decide.

As for as my "deep-seated reason", please re-read my first post.

 

[ruminator]

That tribute on the Washington Post site is not political, manipulative or negative in any way. It's a record and tribute of the ones lost, by date, from the beginning. It's also organized into the seperate branches of service.


Destinie ~
Thank you.

 

[shereads]

What this site has done is conscripted the dead, those who can no longer make their voices heard, in an effort to turn public sentiment against the war.

-Colly

Colly, don't tell me that you, too, have never seen a newspaper obituary with a photograph of a fallen soldier.

I'm amazed that you think the only reason to publish the name and photograph of someone killed in war is to turn public sentiment against the war.

Please, if I ever do anything noble and get killed in the process, conscript away. Publish a picture of me where I'm smiling and having a good hair day. My family will be proud.

Edited to add: Are the names on the Vietnam memorial also "conscripted" to make us feel bad about the war? Is it now wrong to acknowledge our war dead in any public forum?

Is the Lincoln Memorial an insult to the memory of Lincoln? What is it with Republicans and this war? Out of sight, out of mind?

 

[cloudy]

Edited to add: Are the names on the Vietnam memorial also "conscripted" to make us feel bad about the war? Is it no wrong to acknowledge our war dead in any public forum?

Is the Lincoln Memorial an insult to the memory of Lincoln? What is it with Republicans and this war? Out of sight, out of mind?

The main difference between the memorials you mentioned above, and the site with the "Faces of the Fallen" is that those memorials were completed after the fact, and those names couldn't be used for those looking for a way to sway others to their side.

It may be intended as a memorial.....all well and good. How long, exactly, is that all it will be? As ruminator stated above, he'd found a picture of Bush made up of pictures of our lost soldiers.....am I supposed to believe that's a memorial too?

I'm not attacking you personally, please believe that, its just like Colly said, I find it repugnant that people presume to speak for those that can no longer speak for themselves.

Who ever said I was a republican? Assumptions, assumptions.

Edited to add: Shereads, the reason I reacted the way I did to the "Faces" thread, was due, in large part, to what you said in your first post:

"I'd like to think that Dick Cheney and Ahmad Chalabi and Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush look at this site every day and check for new faces, but I doubt it. I'd like to think that at least one among them thinks, "I did this. I lied to accomplish this." "

If that's not linking the faces of the fallen with "down with Bush", I honestly don't know what is.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, don't tell me that you, too, have never seen a newspaper obituary with a photograph of a fallen soldier.

I'm amazed that you think the only reason to publish the name and photograph of someone killed in war is to turn public sentiment against the war.

Please, if I ever do anything noble and get killed in the process, conscript away. Publish a picture of me where I'm smiling and having a good hair day. My family will be proud.

Edited to add: Are the names on the Vietnam memorial also "conscripted" to make us feel bad about the war? Is it now wrong to acknowledge our war dead in any public forum?

Is the Lincoln Memorial an insult to the memory of Lincoln? What is it with Republicans and this war? Out of sight, out of mind?

No Sher,

A photograph with an obituary is perfectly acceptable. I would say it is honoring the dead.

A memorial like the vietnam memorial, the Iwo Jima memorial, and the new World War II memorials are also honoring the dead. They are solemn places, with a hallowed ground feeling that transcends the politics of the wars and commemorates the memories of those who gave all they had for the country they loved.

Does this faces site have the feel of hallowed ground? Does it commemorate the scarifice they made? Does it transcend the politics of the war they fought in? Or is it making a statement akin to Look at all these poor kids killed in this needless conflict?

Which is it? A memorial to those who gave their all or an attempt to make us all see how many are dying? It is perhaps a judgement call. But the fact that Coludy sees it as dishonoring the dead and I see it in the same way does show there is room for interpretation of its purpose.

I am not sticking my head in the sand. More than anyone I want us out of Iraq. We did what we should have, but each day we stay smacks more of imperialism than liberation. You know me. You know I am not a rabid neo-con. I am however intensely aware of propaganda, its origeins, nuances & uses. Of all the people here I am propbaly the only one who has spent months getting translations of Der stummer and other german nationalistic & anti semetic magazines done so I could study the methods as they evolved. I think my judgement, that this is being done in the spirit of propaganda rather than memorializing is as valid as your judgement that it isn't.

If you are right and the intent is memorial, then I sincerely apologize. But if I am right, then it amounts to conscripting the dead for an ulterior motive. And that is very low.

-Colly

 

[Green_Gem]

Cloudy,

I've never posted on a thread related to the War, but I couldn't let this one go by without endorsing all that you have bravely said and offering you my support.

Oggbashen, while I have read many of your posts, I have not responded and I wish to say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for your well thought out posts, and especially the very wise words you posted here. I subscribe totally to the sentiment you expressed:

"Once the war had started despite their opposition and doubts they take the stance that almost all UK politicians take - Whatever the cause, once our forces are in place, it is dishonourable NOT to support them."

Green_Gem

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Whatever the cause, once our forces are in place, it is dishonourable NOT to support them

The only way to not support them is by looking away.

 

[cloudy]

for Green Gem

Thank you - it means very much that others can see, and understand, my point in this whole thing.

Thanks again!

 

[shereads]

No Sher,


Does this faces site have the feel of hallowed ground? Does it commemorate the scarifice they made? Does it transcend the politics of the war they fought in? Or is it making a statement akin to Look at all these poor kids killed in this needless conflict?

If you can read dishonor into a site that makes no political comment at all, but simply posts the names, faces, and a single-sentence statement provided, presumably, by the military about how the person died, then I'd love to know how you arrive at that conclusion.

I guess we not only dishonor the troops by protesting the war, but by looking at their faces and reading their names.

Maybe there should be a full-scale media blackout so nobody can insult the dead by saying the word "dead."

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I finally looked at the site in question, thought about it and read through the various thread posts.
So I guess this is my two penny thought.

I don't look at it as a political thing, a memorial thing, I see it as a chance to look at the faces of our children, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers. We need to attach a face to tragedy sometimes to remind us that real people, not numbers, have given lives for a war some may or may not see as justified.

I would rather see the face of a soldier who died an honorable death, and I say that because they put on their uniforms and went to war, they could have run away, but they didn't. I would rather know the face of some one much braver than I, then the face of a murderer or a terrorist or some pretentious celebrity.

Twenty years down the road, school children researching the war can find the hometown hero that died in a war, a war that they will be trying to understand then as much as we are now.

Just another opinion.
~A~

 

[shereads]

Re: for Green Gem

Thank you - it means very much that others can see, and understand, my point in this whole thing.

I sure wish I understood.

I assume you're also going to complain to your local newspaper the next time they publish a soldier's obituary. You might also let the families know that they shouldn't provide photos to the newspaper or to Faces of the Fallen. Tell them there's a hidden political agenda. If you can find it.

God help this country and the world if we're reduced to this state of denial.

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: for Green Gem

I sure wish I understood.

I assume you're also going to complain to your local newspaper the next time they publish a soldier's obituary. You might also let the families know that they shouldn't provide photos to the newspaper or to Faces of the Fallen. Tell them there's a hidden political agenda. If you can find it.

God help this country and the world if we're reduced to this state of denial.

Now you're just being deliberately dense.

Please read my post above where I added the reason why I was so upset with the "faces" thread.

Actually, never mind.....I'll copy it here:

Edited to add: Shereads, the reason I reacted the way I did to the "Faces" thread, was due, in large part, to what you said in your first post:

"I'd like to think that Dick Cheney and Ahmad Chalabi and Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush look at this site every day and check for new faces, but I doubt it. I'd like to think that at least one among them thinks, "I did this. I lied to accomplish this." "

If that's not linking the faces of the fallen with "down with Bush", I honestly don't know what is.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Ladies, in the words of the Black Eyed Peas......"Where is the Love?"

 

[Guest]

I don't see Cloudy and Sher getting each other (based on all their above posts). I commend Cloudy for not hijacking Sher's 'faces' thread. I commend Abby's humourous but sincere question. I commend myself for resolving to stay out of pol. threads.

love from Perdita

 

[RenzaJones]

I'm confused so riddle me this is all this "debating" going to change anyones opinion?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I'm confused so riddle me this is all this "debating" going to change anyones opinion?

No but its a good exercise in futility. I think it's time for neutral corners and a change of topic.

Cloudy and Sher...let me just say that if I were on trial, I would want you two on my defense team.

 

[cloudy]

No but its a good exercise in futility. I think it's time for neutral corners and a change of topic.

Cloudy and Sher...let me just say that if I were on trial, I would want you two on my defense team.

I don't think we could agree long enough to keep you out of jail, sweetie.....but to you anyway, thanks.

 

[shereads]

That tribute on the Washington Post site is not political, manipulative or negative in any way. It's a record and tribute of the ones lost, by date, from the beginning. It's also organized into the seperate branches of service.


Destinie ~
Thank you.

Well thank God somebody finally looked at the site.

It's in perfect taste.

There's not a single political comment on it.

It's an OBITUARY for God's sake. Ever hear of obituaries? Not a new invention, not an insult, but a traditional means of honoring the dead.

Next time you're going to make accusations, find out what you're talking about first. Or don't. This way works just great for most people, which is why we're in this mess to begin with.

 

[shereads]

Maybe the agenda thing was something I felt rather than anything else, because so many people here are against the whole Iraq thing,

No, I don't know your motives, they may be absolutely the most innocent. However, I can't say that about the site with all those faces, can I?

You could have, if you had looked. You click on the little code thing with the line under it, and then you're entitled to say whatever you want about the site.

Please don't patronize me. You're not that good at it.

 

[cloudy]

Well thank God somebody finally looked at the site.

It's in perfect taste.

There's not a single political comment on it.

It's an OBITUARY for God's sake. Ever hear of obituaries? Not a new invention, not an insult, but a traditional means of honoring the dead.

Next time you're going to make accusations, find out what you're talking about first. Or don't. This way works just great for most people, which is why we're in this mess to begin with.

Sheesh......did you even read what I said about why this whole thing was so awful to me? It's not the site, per se, but people using it for their own ends.

Now I understand why most people here just f*ing give up!

 

[shereads]

If their families contributed to them, fine and good, that's for them to decide.

That was generous of you, by the way.

This has been educational.

 

[Guest]

Sher,

I don't think Cloudy started out speaking against the site as much as your comment about Bush when you posted the site in your thread.

I think there's a good chance that if you had posted about the site without the Bush reference, this thread might not have been created.

Personally, I see Cloudy's point. If you want to honor the dead, just leave Bush completely out of it.

Twice now, she's clarified... and so far, you've ignored it.

 

[cloudy]

You could have, if you had looked. You click on the little code thing with the line under it, and then you're entitled to say whatever you want about the site.

Please don't patronize me. You're not that good at it.

Don't patronize me, either. It's annoying and absolutely not constructive to what you're trying to say, not to mention petty.

 

[cloudy]

Sher,

I don't think Cloudy started out speaking against the site as much as your comment about Bush when you posted the site in your thread.

I think there's a good chance that if you had posted about the site without the Bush reference, this thread might not have been created.

Personally, I see Cloudy's point. If you want to honor the dead, just leave Bush completely out of it.

Twice now, she's clarified... and so far, you've ignored it.

thank you!

 

[shereads]

See previous post. She changed her story.

I think a good way to honor our dead is to ask our government to be accountable for why they sent them to die.

If I could save a living 18-year-old from dying in Iraq to save some politician's ass, by dishonoring our dead, I think I'd have to give it serious consideration.

Would you?

No?

That doesn't make you a better American. Just a more cooperative taxpayer.