United States death toll in Iraq hits 4,000

[ingi]

I think that picture will be the Pulitzer Prize winner for 2008.

John Moore recorded an image of Mary McHugh at the grave of her fiance Sgt. James John Regan





The above photo is an important human document. In a moment, it clearly communicates undeniable and compelling love. It will be important 100 years from now. If a similar Civil War photo existed of a woman at the grave of her fiancé, it would be immeasurably valuable to our cultural experience. If a similar WW II photo existed of a English widow at her deceased husband’s grave, the artwork would be a timeless and important image about the realities of war and universality of grief.
The most memorable scene for me in viewing “Saving Private Ryan,” Steven Spielberg’s 1998 Academy Award winning film, was the quiet scene of Private Ryan’s mother falling to her knees on the porch, unable to stand, in the moment she realized there would be losses for her that would never end in this lifetime.
Should Spielberg have shown the depths of her grief? Yes, I believe his efforts were honorable and good. Was he being patriotic? Yes. Should he have shown the reality of the violence and inhumanity on both sides of the war? Yes. Should Spielberg’s Free Speech and artistic visual portrayals of the realities of war have been censored? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_private_ryan
Art has the rare and sometimes irreplaceable ability to communicate truths and emotional weights that are difficult, if not impossible, to convey without using multi-sensory mediums.
The above photo is not going to disappear from the consciousness of considerate human beings around the world. Like the photos also posted today of Katherine and James Cathey, and like Nina Berman’s humane and caring photos of Ty and Renee Ziegel, the photo of Mary McHugh at James Regan’s grave will not be forgotten if it is suppressed.
I cry sometimes seeing the perverse and stupid ways the Executive Branch have been inconsiderate and unprepared to keep our military men and women safer. I cry seeing the Executive Branch also disregard the honorable and important principles in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

[Sweetie]

Yeah, it is a heart wrenching photo but non military people have hearts too. If my husband died, I would just as bad off as this woman.

[ingi]

The one that won the Pulitzer last year almost feels too personal. I feel like the cameraman is intruding on her privacy or emotional state at the time...
The night before the burial of her husband’s body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of her husband and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch all night as she slept. “I think it would be kind of nice if you kept doing it,” she said. “I think that’s what he would have wanted.”

[Grimmlok]

omfg fix that post

[witchcurlgirl]

Originally Posted by purewine

Do we really what "100 years of war" McCain? NO!

While not a McCain supporter, his remarks about having troops in Iraq for the next 100 years did not appear out of thin air, and they are not incorrect, misguided or idiotic either.

He did not say we would have war for 100 years, but that there may be a US military presence there for that amount of time.

We still have over 30,000 troops in Korea today, 55 years after that war ended.

We still have over 70,000 troops in Germany and 50,000 in Japan today, 63 years after that war ended.

The Dem candidates jumped all over him for it, but he has a valid point. He spoke based on realities, as opposed to the dems who were promising instant withdrawl there for a bit. They have backed away from those claims now.

[purewine]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

While not a McCain supporter, his remarks about having troops in Iraq for the next 100 years did not appear out of thin air, and they are not incorrect, misguided or idiotic either.

He did not say we would have war for 100 years, but that there may be a US military presence there for that amount of time.

We still have over 30,000 troops in Korea today, 55 years after that war ended.

We still have over 70,000 troops in Germany and 50,000 in Japan today, 63 years after that war ended.

The Dem candidates jumped all over him for it, but he has a valid point. He spoke based on realities, as opposed to the dems who were promising instant withdrawl there for a bit. They have backed away from those claims now.

The Korean War and WWII were already under way when the US became involved. The Iraq War was started by US for spurious reasons. As long as we continue to have a military presence there, there will be a war. McCain has not shown any interest in withdrawing US troops. In fact, he wants to send more. This is not a war we can win because we don't even know what we're fighting for. Once the objectives of war have been lost, the war has been lost.

Under McCain, more troops will be sent, the war will continue, and more soldiers will come home in flag-draped coffins. If this is what you want, by all means, keep defending him.

[Sweetie]

The war will continue no matter what. The people we are fighting want to fight and have made it a religious battle that no one will ever end.

[witchcurlgirl]

Originally Posted by purewine

The Korean War and WWII were already under way when the US became involved. The Iraq War was started by US for spurious reasons. As long as we continue to have a military presence there, there will be a war. McCain has not shown any interest in withdrawing US troops. In fact, he wants to send more. This is not a war we can win because we don't even know what we're fighting for. Once the objectives of war have been lost, the war has been lost.

Under McCain, more troops will be sent, the war will continue, and more soldiers will come home in flag-draped coffins. If this is what you want, by all means, keep defending him.

Yes, I want thousands of more dead. I have made that quite clear from my many anti-war posts here on GR. You are very quick with your condemnations of me. Perhaps you are to anyone who doesn't agree with you, I don't know. I am not as quick to judge you.

I understand that the war is fucked. But that doesn't change the fact that it exists, and the realities of what now exists must be taken into consideration in coming up with a solution.

I can be opposed to someone politically, and still understand that not everything they say is wrong. I was not debating the origin of the Iraq war, but there is a need to understand that what he said has been taken out of context. The dems bitch about the repubs for this kind of thing, but they do it right back.

I don't demonize all the political opposition just because I don't agree with them.

[HWBL]

What are you all talking about? Those death numbers are all commie
propaganda. Everybody knows our great president declared the war
over back in 2003: Mission Accomplished!

[purewine]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

Yes, I want thousands of more dead. I have made that quite clear from my many anti-war posts here on GR.

Then you might not want to take the words of the man who wants to keep us there indefinitely at face value and support him on it.

I understand that the war is fucked. But that doesn't change the fact that it exists, and the realities of what now exists must be taken into consideration in coming up with a solution.

The reality is the aggressor in a war cannot be the one to bring order and maintain peace. That has been true all throughout military history. Our military presence in Korea, Japan, and Germany aren't comparable because the US did not start those wars. To argue that the US should maintain a military presence in Iraq is akin to saying the Germans should have maintained a military presence in France after WWII. The military presence is the war. (Of course, by now it's disintegrated into a civil war which we shouldn't want any part of anyway.) If we stay, there can be no chance of peace. If we leave, there can be some chance of peace.

McCain's position that we may only have a “military presence” for 100 years there really translates into war for another possible 100 years. According to him, how are we going when it stops being a war and starts being a “military presence”? Because if it hadn't been for us invading them, there wouldn't be a war.

I don't demonize all the political opposition just because I don't agree with them.

Neither do I. I just disagree with them.

[MrsMarsters]

Sad, this is them before the...accident.



The face of war | Salon Life

[NicoleWasHere]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

We still have over 30,000 troops in Korea today, 55 years after that war ended.

Actually, that war isn't technically over. There was never a peace treaty between the North and the South. They're still at war, but it's sort of like a Cold War thing... just nothing has happened in a while.

Doesn't mean it won't, though, Kim Jung-il's fucking nuts.

[witchcurlgirl]

Originally Posted by NicoleWasHere

Actually, that war isn't technically over. There was never a peace treaty between the North and the South. They're still at war, but it's sort of like a Cold War thing... just nothing has happened in a while.

Yes, I know An armistice, like at the end of WW1

Although American soldiers have been killed in the DMZ there since the cessation of hostilities. And lots of both N. and S. Koreans as well.

[celeb_2006]

Originally Posted by NicoleWasHere

Actually, that war isn't technically over. There was never a peace treaty between the North and the South. They're still at war, but it's sort of like a Cold War thing... just nothing has happened in a while.

Doesn't mean it won't, though, Kim Jung-il's fucking nuts.

YouTube Video

[pacific breeze]

Depending on who's doing the counting, 80,000 to a half-million Iraqis, mostly civilians, have also been killed. Most of them weren't doing any fighting, much less "eager" to fight.