Prev: Glass quality and f stop question.
Next: The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
From: J. Clarke on 8 Sep 2009 09:47
> Son, I bet you never served or saw war face to face. If you had, you
> would like it so much.
Nobody likes it, but propaganda intended to promote "bring our boys home
regardless of the cost" agenda isn't serving anybody but those Iraqis who
want to be the next Saddam.
> In <h84dfl$225$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>, on 09/07/2009
> at 08:53 PM, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> said:
>> Igetrightwingersangry(a)nospan.com wrote:
>>> ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your
>>> children would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>> Yes, absolutely. But I would like for the people showing it to note
>> that I died to prevent the atrocities perpetrated on the
>> innocent 9/11 victims from happening again. Absent that,
>> I would expect my family to point out to my children
>> how the left wing scum had used my image for their purposes.
>> Doug McDonald
From: J. Clarke on 8 Sep 2009 09:51
> On 2009-09-07 18:46:25 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>> Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> DG wrote:
>>>> If people are upset about the photo then they should blame the
>>>> politicians for the war, not the photographer for the image.
>>> NO! They should blame the scum people who print it against
>>> the family's wishes, and the people who
>>> started the war: al Qaeda and the Taliban.
>> That's a rightard lie. It was Bush and the neocons who started the
>>> There is nothing
>>> wrong with the photographer taking it ... if the family
>>> had agreed, publishing it would have been OK.
>> The soldier was there on the taxpayer's dime. The taxpayers have the
>> right to know how their money is being spent.
> As a refugee of the 60's with a draft number of 54, "spent" is not
> what I would have said. I would think the term used in my war would
> have been more appropriate, "wasted!"
It's only "wasted" if that Marine's life was spent to no purpose, and if the
US pulls out before there is a stable government in place that is strong
enough to keep the lid on then that Marine's life _will_ have been wasted.
That's the real tragedy of Vietnam, that so many lives were spent delaying a
result that would have just happened 10 years sooner if there were no US
From: ^Tems^ on 8 Sep 2009 10:28
> In article<g5oaa5dod6i4k5nfou0ikibsemv74pdqpd(a)4ax.com>, real-address-
> in-sig(a)lineone.net says...
>> Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
>> marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much
>> news here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the
>> I'm all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on
>> may occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So
>> I'm in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern
>> on showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?
> I think the photographer is lucky to be alive. If you were trying to
> snap a photo of *my* dying buddy, I'd blow your head off on the spot.
You must really care for your buddys if they are dying in front of you
and you and you are more concerned about someone with a camera 50 feet
away over trying to save their lives.
From: J. Clarke on 8 Sep 2009 10:33
mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME wrote:
> Twibil wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 9:49 pm, "steph...(a)yahoo.com" <steph...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your
>>>> children would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>>> Of course I would. Since when is dying for your country something to
>>> hide or be ashamed of?
>> Not that I've died for my country yet, but as an ex infantryman thanx
>> for that anyway.
>> The wrenching photographs that have come out of wars ever since the
>> camera became portable enough to make them possible have let the
>> public see what war is really about, and right up until the end of
>> Viet Nam such photo-journalism was simply considered to be an
>> important -if risky for the photographer- part of history. (See Ken
>> Burns' Civil War documentary for a striking example.)
>> Then after Viet Nam the US military decided that it would be better
>> if the US public was not allowed to see such photos, as it might
>> prejudice them against supporting a future war -as the military felt
>> had happened in Viet Nam.
>> Ever since then, the military -and the rest of the US government as
>> well- have frequently tried to make it difficult to take such photos,
>> or to allow them to be seen by the public if they *are* taken.
>> Call it "editing history in advance", and you won't be too far wrong.
> But before Vietnam the press never actually **supported the enemy**
> as they do now.
Remember all the coverage Hanoi Jane got? How about all the coverage of
antiwar rallys? How about the daily body count? Sorry, but the US press
was played expertly by the North Vietnamese.
From: Giftzwerg on 8 Sep 2009 11:45
In article <rroca5t3ughqimligo14aebo10f0ebkv1g(a)4ax.com>,
> >I think the photographer is lucky to be alive. If you were trying to
> >snap a photo of *my* dying buddy, I'd blow your head off on the spot.
> And you'd wind up in Leavenworth.
Photographer in middle of firefight catches bullet. Oops. Fortunes of
war. How'd that happen.
Here, lemme get some nice shots of photographer with through & through
gunshot wound in his eye.
It'll look great in the papers! Won't it? I'm sure the photographer's
family won't mind.
"Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
- Rassmussen Reports