4,000 troops have been killed in Iraq

[Publius]

imo it's tacky and in bad taste, but not illegal.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

And i'm not so sure these pictures don't fall into public domain since they were employed by the military.

I have worked places where I had to sign my likeness away to the company, but that was certainly to protect them in case they used something for profit.

what is your reasoning for thinking this?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Almost as shameful as using the faces of the dead for propaganda and sensationalism. As King has said, this is tasteless.

I certainly don't like the use of it either however I have a question for you:

Is it not equally tasteless when either side tries to tell us how to "honor" their deaths? They are exploiting the deaths for political currency - the republicans being the biggest offenders

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I certainly don't like the use of it either however I have a question for you:

Is it not equally tasteless when either side tries to tell us how to "honor" their deaths? They are exploiting the deaths for political currency - the republicans being the biggest offenders

I don't know how Republicans exploit the deaths of servicemembers? Maybe you could provide an example.

For fairness sake, here is what I found to be a tasteless quote from President Bush, two weeks ago:
"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."

I was suprised that this was not played up in the media and I found it somewhat offensive.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I don't know how Republicans exploit the deaths of servicemembers? Maybe you could provide an example.

For fairness sake, here is what I found to be a tasteless quote from President Bush, two weeks ago:
"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."

I was suprised that this was not played up in the media and I found it somewhat offensive.

Saying phrases like "cut and run" would dishonor the dead soldiers? How is that not exploitation if I follow JaJae logic?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Saying phrases like "cut and run" would dishonor the dead soldiers? How is that not exploitation if I follow JaJae logic?

there is a difference between fighting against a call for retreat and the image that was posted.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

there is a difference between fighting against a call for retreat and the image that was posted.

I am not condoning the post - I am merely asking is it not exploitation when politicians say things like that? To the degree it is can certainly be debated but in the end its still exploitation

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I am not condoning the post - I am merely asking is it not exploitation when politicians say things like that? To the degree it is can certainly be debated but in the end its still exploitation

not if the debate is:

one side saying we have lost too much and thus must give up and other side saying we shouldn't give up because of those losses and we must fight on in spite of them.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

not if the debate is:

one side saying we have lost too much and thus must give up and other side saying we shouldn't give up because of those losses and we must fight on in spite of them.

Your injecting other elements into the discussion. To you the debate may seem so, to others no, but in the end all I am simply asking is using soldiers as political pawns (from both sides), not exploitation? I think you would agree it is

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I certainly don't like the use of it either however I have a question for you:

Is it not equally tasteless when either side tries to tell us how to "honor" their deaths? They are exploiting the deaths for political currency - the republicans being the biggest offenders

When I said "almost as shameful as..." it was meant to be a figure of speech, not that one was actually worse than the other. I hadn't contemplated which was worse, it was more of a point of saying they're both bad.

But in retrospect, if I had to pick which is worse I think I would decide based on what was the most personal exploitation. Using the faces of the dead would be worse than referencing to them. It's similar to using pictures of grieving families at military funerals. Both sides have used it for their purpose, that's worse than referencing in my opinion.

Rhetoric is rhetoric, no matter which side it comes from. A conservative exploiting the deaths as an excuse to further their political ends is no better or worse than a liberal exploiting the deaths as an excuse to further their political needs. But, creating that collage makes it personal to the individual soldiers and their families.

[7960]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I certainly don't like the use of it either however I have a question for you:

Is it not equally tasteless when either side tries to tell us how to "honor" their deaths? They are exploiting the deaths for political currency - the republicans being the biggest offenders

Again, it's hugely insanely different to invoke "soldiers" and "lost troops" and "their memory" as it is to insert the picture of a specific dead soldier.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Your injecting other elements into the discussion. To you the debate may seem so, to others no, but in the end all I am simply asking is using soldiers as political pawns (from both sides), not exploitation? I think you would agree it is

I think I am putting it in context.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

there is a difference between fighting against a call for retreat and the image that was posted.

It's really the same thing

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's really the same thing

that is your civilian opinion yes, however I disagree. Perhaps it is a disconnect with relating the war efforts to the majority of Americans.

[motivez]

My civilian opinion is every bit as important as your military one, you just have a different perspective. Trying to use civilian as some sort of negative qualification doesn't work.

Obviously someone of conservative political leanings is going to take more offense to the images of fallen soldiers used to make a point, whereas someone of more liberal political leanings is likely to take more offense to people like Bush using their memory to prop up their foreign policy agenda.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

My civilian opinion is every bit as important as your military one, you just have a different perspective. Trying to use civilian as some sort of negative qualification doesn't work.

This is why I have military people on ignore, any 18 year old that signs a piece of paper automatically becomes an expert on Arabic and Islamic Studies, and has greater authority to speak on issues involving any military action

It's stupidity to the extreme, and if you call it out, you're being "disrespectful"

Like we'd give two shits what some French soldier thought...even if they were an American citizen now...it's an American-centric and military-veneration aspect of this forum that should be done away with...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This is why I have military people on ignore, any 18 year old that signs a piece of paper automatically becomes an expert on Arabic and Islamic Studies, and has greater authority to speak on issues involving any military action

It's stupidity to the extreme, and if you call it out, you're being "disrespectful"

Like we'd give two shits what some French soldier thought...even if they were an American citizen now...it's an American-centric and military-veneration aspect of this forum that should be done away with...

He isn't talking about Arabs or Islamics or the French or your perspective that people serving their country are stupid and extreme or even your desire to make yourself ignorant to the views of those serving our country. If we stay on target to what King said rather than discuss our personal prejudices we can come to a more developed discussion. What I think he's saying is that as a member of the armed services he views the notion of respect and disrespect of fallen soldiers from a different perspective than a civilian would. I think that's a fair statement. Even if people disagree as David does, by being in the military they bring a different perspective on this issue... even if ultimately two people come to the same conclusions.

I didn't find offense in his post as motivez seemed to do, nor did I find ignorance in his post as you seem to have found and want removed from the forum along with other statements that come from the unique military perspective. It was a fair statement that brings up an interesting point. He didn't say his opinion was superior for having served, nor did I get that out of his post.

It is possible to compare and contrast military and civilian perspectives without being ignorant or rude.

[Kytro]

The picture of the soliders is supposed reach people on an emotional level, and is therefore not a argument of reason.

As such it should be ignored - the picture is a blatent attempt at mainpulation, and it is the attempt which is distasteful because it attempts to circumvent real analysis.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I didn't find offense in his post as motivez seemed to do ...

It is possible to compare and contrast military and civilian perspectives without being ignorant or rude.

It's one thing to compare opinions and talk about how perspectives differ, it's another to add some kind of negative connotation and qualification to "civilian" .. like somehow, it's less important or informed, and thus somehow less valid.

I dismiss that position entirely, and think it's pretty rude.

[Tessy]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's really the same thing

I completely disagree!

It's an image! It says NOTHING at all. Since it's a picture it requires YOU to
attache meaning to it. To one person it might mean one thing and to another a
completely different thing. I certainly do NOT get a "cut and run" message from
it. I get the messages that the men in the small images died for the men in the
"big picture". If those big pic guys are bad or evil to you then I guess you could
extrapolate something evil or bad from it. If to you they are righteous then you'll
likely extrapolate something righteous from it.

Given the opinions expressed here about it so far I would have to say that almost
everyone thinks the big pic guys are "bad or evil"!!

Originally Posted by motivez

It's one thing to compare opinions and talk about how perspectives differ, it's another
to add some kind of negative connotation and qualification t