Joshua Bernard’s Battlefield Death: The Photo You Aren’t Supposed to See
Posted by Mike E on September 4, 2009
(click for full picture) Friday, August 14, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was hit by by a rocket propelled grenade during a firefight in the village of Dahaneh, Helmand province, Afghanistan. Flown by helicopter to "Camp Leatherneck," Bernard died of his injuries.
Under Bush, the media was prevented for years from photographing the coffins returning from Iraq. Now, as the White House considers new escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates directly leaned on the head of the Associated Press to reconsider publishing the photo below — showing the fatal battlefield wounding of Joshua Bernard. It is clearly a threat against the entire media — including any journalist or media organization seeking Pentagon permission to cover this war.
Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer,
“Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed.”
“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
Through the Bush years, the concerns “of the families” was given as the reason for suppressing photographs of returning corpses.
Joshua Bernard (click for large version)
In fact, this new government kept the same Secretary of Defense, and pushes ahead with the same attempt to occupy and control Afghanistan — and (following the logic of imperialist war) does not want the “homefront” confronting the results of that — not the casualties among their own troops, and not the widespread suffering of the Afghan people (including from the repeated U.S. bombardment of villages.
The very rules of “embedded” journalists have been written to prevent coverage of casualties and death: Journalists embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan must sign a statement accepting these rules.
Joshua Bernard surveying the bazaar marketplace of Dahaneh village through the sights of his weapon. An hour later he was fatally injured in an insurgent ambush.
The rule regarding coverage of “wounded, injured, and ill personnel” states that the “governing concerns” are “patient welfare, patient privacy and next of kin/family considerations.”
“Casualties may be covered by embedded media as long as the service member’s identity and unit identification is protected from disclosure until OASD-PA has officially released the name. Photography from a respectful distance or from angles at which a casualty cannot be identified is permissible; however, no recording of ramp ceremonies or remains transfers is permitted.”
derek said
take the picture down asshole
Hope Wade said
This is really sad. Freedom, eh?
If I was to write something offensive regarding people of color or homosexuals it would be considered a hate crime, and yet we’re expected to not be outraged at the graphic image of a dear family’s loved one at their horrific death?
This is complete disrespect for the family. OH, but thats right — this is to further your cause of showing how bad this war is, right? So it’s OKAY for YOU to hurt a family when your cause is valid, but not okay to go to war when people are oppressed.
Nothing good comes easy. The civil war was brutal but it was something that was needed to bring our country out of such an inhumane time. We shouldn’t sit at ease until EVERYONE is offered the opportunity to live in peace and their choice of life restored.
Rene A Rios said
This photo makes my heart sink! It is such a travesty that this young man’s life was ended so early. And in such a tragic way. I’m so saddened for his family. This is the real cost of war. Although his father has expressed his opposition to the publishing of this photo, I am of the opinion that this country needs to see what is really happening to our most precious resource. I feel like too many people in this country are detached from what is going on and are resistant to that knowledge because it takes them out of their comfort zone. We need to be given the full story! Everyone need to see this! If this is worth fighting the war in Afghanistan, then so be it, but I for one will never agree with trading one drop of blood from our service members to fight this war.
I get it said
I get why you would want to post this. What are we doing over there? Seriously, this is a bunch of shit. Kids are dying for our freedom? Is that it? Is Afghanistan somehow related to the civil war now? They are over there for no reason, they are dying for no reason, and I commend you for showing us what it looks like when our children die for no f-ing reason. For money, for power, but not for liberty, not for justice, not for freedom. For oil, for money for power, for greed, for hatred.
Levi said
To show what the real war is about, we need to show these pictures. Lets release all the pictures of soldiers that are killed. This would be covering the real story. Release them all.
brn said
this photo is no doubt sad but it shows the real side of war. In war there are no winners just losers and the powerful that gambel with our countries young people. i say show more photos and show the real gruesome ones that way people will realize what war is all about. and maybe we can leave and let those towel heads just kill themselves because they will
Rob said
Pictures like this can save future lives. If, for example, all the dumb ribbon-flying, Bush-supporting Americans had seen what death actually looks like perhaps they wouldn’t have buried their heads in the sands so deep–instead of blindly “Supporting the Troops” in the name of patriotism, they may have sooner realized the true cost of the war and then would have been more open to the truth: that the Iraq war was manipulated and based on lies.
Hope Wade, your analogy makes no sense. Writing something offensive about blacks or gays is indeed offensive. Posting a photo that shows what war actually looks like helps show the truth.
tre said
take the pic down out of respect man.
Gebeka said
War is not sanitary, people die and the public needs to be informed of the cost of wars, especially the unwinnable ones.
FYI, the Taliban didn’t attack the U.S. and, although they are a horrible bunch of people, they are Afghan nationalists defending their country against the Karzai cleptocracy that is being propped up by invading Western, especially U.S. forces.
They are not “threatening our freedom or way of life” as we are constantly being indoctrinated, they just want the foreigners out of their country. Wouldn’t you feel the same way if, let’s say, the French or Argentine military would start throwing their weight around in the US?
BTW, how many foreign countries maintain military bases in the U.S.” None. How many does the U.S. maintain around the world? More than 125.
What does that tell you.
Ritchie said
at “I get it”:
I could at least see why people think we were in iraq for oil, although i disagreed. but afghanistan? a country with no infrastructure, no great natural resources (unless you consider poppy a resource), and not even real strategic value (except for attacking al-qaeda in pakistan–but they were chased there to begin with from our afghanistan invasion). i don’t think any you can come to any reasonable conclusion as to why we’re still in afghanistan 8 years after we first went there except for the fact that we are trying to destroy al-qaeda and the taliban–to prevent further terrorist attacks. seriously–what geopolitical benefit to we gain from being there?
Zack said
Taking the picture down doesn’t erase the dead, that’s not how reality works.
I wonder how many would protest over the pictures of the many dead Iraqi or Afghan people. What a bunch of thinly veiled racism/jingoism.
obama's war said
Right, LEVI, and I GET IT…these poor soldiers aren’t fighting for OUR freedom. They are fighting for Obama’s unholy war for oil and political pride. I thought Obama was going to bring the troops home.
This photo is totally disrespectful, well, publishing this photo is, over the objections of this Marine’s family it is. AP says that the photo is part of the history of this war. Hey, jerk offs, it’s also part of the history of this young man and his family, and their rights and wishes trump those of the “history of the war”. Hopefully, this embedded photographer and the politcal AP will not be permitted to be embedded anymore, just to hype the left’s propaganda.
Thanx said
Thanx for posting this pictures. People in general should realize of the truth of life and death, and then think for themselves when supporting wars and things like that. It’s so easy to support a war from the comfort of your apartment in 5th avenue when you don’t have to see a single drop of blood from neither side of the conflict.
Harold said
If people saw more photos like this they would be reluctant to join the military and fight wars for rich peoples interests.
That’s the real reason they don’t want this photo shown.
Chetuno Ebuwa said
For all the people who support war, take a good long hard look at what your bloodthirst has caused.
Zack said
“the left’s propaganda” = the war… that people are dying in? HAHA. What propaganda, right?
Kally said
I agree with Levi. Release all the pictures. Show the real side of the war. We’re there for no reason. We are so careful not to hurt families?? Are you serious? What about all the families that hear bombs and rockets in the background as they try to go to sleep? Why keep us so sheltered? WAKE UP PEOPLE! If you support the troops and this stupid war then be prepare to face the consequences. A LOT of people DIE when you’re in a war.
I get it said
Ritchie:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was just wondering what we were doing there. Like, what are the underlying motives. I can’t figure any out. Also, is this a war? They are saying this is the cost of war right, but is Afghanistan and official war, and what are we at war with? I just can never figure it out. I was sort of thinking what it could be out loud.
Also, look at his picture. That is a kid. He looks younger then my kid brother. How old was he? Way too young to die. my little brother is in the navy on a ship somewhere, thankfully not in Afghanistan, but if he died, I would not call him and adult. He hasn’t even had a girlfriend yet. He is a child. My little boys will be that age in a few years, and unless they join the military and become “adults” by doing that, I will still consider them 18/19 year old children.
Mike E said
First, richie raises an important question:
I’d like to dig into this some. First, let me note that I wrote a larger piece on this called “Obama: Oil, Afghanistan and the American Way.”
And yes, this is a war for geo-political benefit, and yes, Richie is right in this respect: the interests of empire and profit are easier to see in regard to the Persian Gulf. And this was true for those in power in the White House too — Cheney and Rumsfeld (in particular) were far, far more interested in invading and occupying Iraq than they were in entering Afghanistan. And in some ways, they had to launch a war first at Afghanistan (which had some relationship to the 9/11 attack) before they could launch their long desired invasion of Iraq.
However that does not mean that Afghanistan has not had strategic importance. Let me list a few:
1) First, strategic value is not just a matter of resources. For reasons every bully and gangster understands, an open challenge on home turf was (for the gangsters running the U.S.) not something they could allow to go unanswered — by the very logic of dog-eat-dog, they felt they had to “hit back” a thousand fold.
And who would they hit? From all available evidence the 9/11 event was carried out by a group formed and organized while living in Hamburg, Germany. They were overwhelmingly Saudi nationals. But for reasons that are obvious, the U.S. was not interested in targeting either Germany or Saudi. And so Afghanistan comes to mind — even though the fundamentalist forces there had been originally trained, funded, armed and organized with massive input from the CIA in the 1980s.
So one strategic value of hitting hard in Afghanistan (and for not leaving in humiliation) is the global dynamics of claiming to be the world’s dominant power.
2) The U.S. government, in aspiring to be a force dominating the world, has taken upon itself the problem of “failed states.”
There is, in fact, a sharp debate within the U.S. ruling class over the strategic value of preventing “failed states”: On one hand, it is argued that failed states (Somalia and Yugoslavia, invaded by Clinton, and Afghanistan invaded by Bush) are countries that the U.S. believes are a danger to its control of the world system, for a simple reason: states that have stable governments (like Iran, or Libya) can, at least hypothetically, be “contained” by all kinds of imperialist tactics: including military threats and economic embargos. However “failed states” which don’t have functioning central governments are impervious to threat, and so can be a space occupied by all kinds of “non-state players” who can, in various ways, target the U.S. (or other governments) without easy suppression.
So there has been a current (within the U.S. “security and defense” establishment) that sees important strategic value for entering “failed states” — this is the imperialist controversy over so-called “nation building.”
The problem (from the ruling class perspective) is that injecting U.S. military forces into “failed states” is (a) difficult, because the U.S. occupiers ahve the same problems controling this territory that the various previous local governments have, and sometimes even more trouble. and (b) it is seen as distrcting U.S. military efforts from controling the parts of the globe that are seen as much more valuable and profitable (especially the centers of oil production like the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf).
The irony of the Bush administration was that their main critique of the Clinton years was the focus on “nation building” in “failed states” — instead of focusing on oil regions of the Caucasus and Iraq. And yet, they themselves felt compelled to take up a Clintonian strategy of occupation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 events. And they ended up doing both: First invading Afghanistan (for particular strategic reasons), and then invading Iraq (for another set of strategic reasons).
But the short story is: the U.S. ruling class, precisely because they have extreme global ambitions of hegemony, consider even places like Afghanistan to be “strategic” because (on some level) they have believed they could prevent any part of the world from slipping out of a tightly U.S.-controlled world system. It was a level of ambition and hubris even beyond Hitler’s. (People used to say “Hitler wanted to take over the world.” But the truth is Hitler really wanted to take over Europe and parts of the Middle East — and never was as ambitious as the Bush/Cheney clique when it came to literal world domination.)
3) Afghanistan (despite its obvious lack of resources, exploitable labor etc.) has strategic value. It has been contested by any empire seeking to dominate Eurasia. And the politics of empire have often made impoverished border areas into key areas of strategic contest. Afghanistan was where the Russian empire collided with the British empire (in the 1800s). It was a place the U.S. empire collided with the Soviet social-imperialist in the 1980s. And in some ways the rise of the Taliban represented a continuation of the U.S/CIA attempt to create an anti-Russian government there.
So, given that history, no one can lightly claim that empire builders don’t see value in contesting Afghanistan.
Here is a short discussion of the value of Afghanistan: A key strategic region of the world is the belt of Turkic Central Asian countries south of Russia. They are extremely rich in oil and Natural gas. And they have no easy outlet to the world’s oceans (i.e. to the world market.) If their energy resources reach the world through Russian pipelines, this key resource falls into a soviet sphere of influence. If those energy resources flow south (through Iran or Afghanistan) to the Indian Ocean, then it becomes possible (in a long term way) to pull central asia away from Russian influence. IN other words a war for stablizing Afghanistan is (inevitably and historically) a war over whether Central Asia will be dominated by Russia (to the north) or by the West (at the end of the world’s shipping lanes.)
Anonymous said
In order to avoid a skewed perception of world affairs, I cast my ‘unpopular’ vote that any and all material captured by the news media or its affiliates should be accessible to everyone on this planet of ours. The pictures of horrible tragedies of this modern society as well as their polar opposites are not ‘owned’ by a family or anyone else. The purpose of journalism is to inform society of what is going on in it.
I find it interesting ‘Americans’ dislike communism so much while seemingly stopping at nothing to mold their society into one of socialism through selective censorship. Time to make a decision. Move to North Korea or to stay here.
If we censor certain information from reaching the mainstream due to our own or others emotions and agendas, we reduce the ability for all to take in the raw information, interpreting our own individual meanings from it which shape future actions.
We need more pictures like this as well as ones demonstrating the positives of the middle east endeavor so, as responsible citizens we can ask ourselves- is it worth it? And change future events through democratic process.
Justin N. said
Why are we fighting the Taliban, Afghans, Iraqis, etc. when more than half of the 19 terrorists from the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian? It seems kind of hairy that we just swept that all under the rug and never addressed that issue. People want to bring oil into the matter and say that’s the only reason we’re there. If that is so, why didn’t we go after the biggest oil reserves in the world? There are so many secrets about this war that no one knows about and stories like this enlighten the whole world on what’s REALLY going on. We deserve to know about this and everything else that’s going on.
phil gruden said
I am a Viet Nam vet. Not a big deal, but to publish a picture of a young man dying is still upsetting for me and I am sure so many others! Totally not appropriate.
Mike E said
Phil Gruden wrote:
It should be upsetting to you. And it is important for people to be upset about this war and its casualties. And that is why it is totally appropriate.
And i think you should look at the other pictures to be upset about. Visit our previous posts exposing the unjust nature of this Afghanistan invasion. Click here for the death and grief U.S. bombings cause. And here. And here is a larger discussion of U.S. massacres in Afghanistan.
All of these, Phil, should be upsetting. And all should be widely exposed and then discussed.
On the issue of the families of the dead: The death of Joshua Bernard does not “belong” to his family. This is death caused by a government policy, it is part of a vicious counterinsurgency war in an impoverished country. It is not up to his relatives whether this death should be known, or revealed or discussed. In many ways, this war is being waged “in our name.” The military says (in an outragous and unjustified way) that such young soldiers “died for our freedom.” (Which is a lie.) And the Pentagon says “they died trying to help Afghanistan’s people.” (Which is another lie.)
Such soldiers die for nothing but empire. It is a sad, worthless, and horrible waste of their lives and the lives of their victims– a death for nothing and worse than nothing. For an unjust cause. And for that reason, such pictures should be seen, their impact should be felt, and the brave photographers should be praised for daring to how the truth.
Tidus Sloan said
I’m appalled at the use of this photo as an excuse to bash Bush and Gates.
I wasn’t a fan of Bush and don’t agree with most of the decisions in this war but that’s just pathetic. This isn’t a vague issue of keeping photos out of the media because they put a negative emphasis on the war. The kid’s father specifically asked for the photo not to be posted so don’t bash Gates for sticking up for his family.
Manipulating the media to try to improve opinions about the war is wrong, but you just did the same thing using the photo as an excuse to bash Bush and the war when the issue is the family’s explicit wishes. You can’t call respecting the family’s wishes an excuse when his father specifically said please don’t post the photo. Don’t be such a hypocrite.
Mike E said
Gates is trying to manipulate and bully the press. It is well known that the Bush administration enforced a tight media control on war reporting — and it is important to expose that the Obama administration is continuing this policy (even as they escalate and justify this war). This is, in fact, about Obama (and his Secretary of Defense) muzzling the press. Not Bush.
It really is quite irrelevant what Joshua’s father thinks should be done (or more precisely what the Pentagon claims that his father htinks). Joshua’s father does not own his legacy, he cannot argue for the suppression of the facts of war. The lives of whole peoples and the fate of whole countries are bound up with these debates (and the struggles that should arise from these debates.) The injection of the “wishes of the family” is just a way that the warmakers protect their war.
Anonymous said
I don’t understand what the big deal is, people die every day, for no reason, some with reason. If I died today because an armed gunman with bullet proof clothing and fully automatic weapons blew my brains out I would hope my dead corpse would be in HD on every television screen in America, maybe that would show the need for better weapons for our police forces, or a myriad other lessons brought to mind. On the other hand, if I died for something I believed in, say the Afghanistan confrontation, I again would want my corpse displayed everywhere, what better way to be remembered as someone who gave the ultimate sacrifice for something he believed in? That’s just my two cents.
Thaddeus said
You’re absolutely right to show the photo. You’re doing this country’s citizens and electorate the greatest service. You’re furthering the concept of an informed electorate. There’s a reason why “freedom of the press” is written into the constitution. There’s no question that by showing the photo, you’re leveling the playing field by allowing more people to have equal information. Provided of course that the photo isn’t doctored or altered in any way and is in fact a true and accurate representation of the event. Let everyone know the game. If someone’s hawkish on war and defense spending, then clarify what that potentially entails. If poor and middle-class high school grads need money for college and have to listen to the sales pitch of an Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force recruiter, then please make it crystal clear what that potentially entails. It was just in the news last month about how the remains of a US Navy pilot shot down in the opening hours of the first Gulf War in 1991 were finally found and identified by DNA (the only thing left were bone fragments, not even any teeth to identify the guy by dental records) in spring of 2009. So by all means get hyped-up about the movie “Top Gun”, but also know that not only could you wind up a prisoner of war that can ultimately be released, but just as easily, as a naval aviator, you and your fighter could disappear into thin air and never be found.
Any argument, observation, comment, or opinion is going to have its inherent bias. People have emotions so bias is an unavoidable element that’s factored into any human comment or observation. But of course, the more information you have to form an opinion, the greater the probability not that you ultimately balance the opinion, but rather the greater the probability that you’re on the PATHWAY, heading in the RIGHT DIRECTION towards balancing the opinion. There’s no such thing as “half-pregnant”. What?? What kind of nonsense is that?? You either are or you aren’t. No, you should know that that’s a contingency before you commit to working your way between her knees. The same goes for combat. There might be such a thing as limited war, but there’s no such thing as “half-combat”. You either have to return fire or you don’t. If only one side ever opens fire, that’s a massacre. If one side can stand its ground and has to leave, that’s a retreat. And if both sides stand their ground and return fire, that’s combat. You’re either in it or you’re not. If a country grows the balls for combat, then it has to wear ‘em. So as voters who elect public servants, we’re all confronted with the questions, “What does this military campaign resolve??”, “Where are we supposed to be going with this military campaign??”, “Is it all worth it??” etc., etc. Would we get further by addressing the broader political circumstances that produced the photo of Joshua Bernard or would we get further by addressing the the broader economic circumstances that produced the photo of Bernard Madoff?? In order to decide where and how we should allocate the country’s time and energy, every voter needs to see the photo of Joshua Bernard no less than they need to see the photo of Bernard Madoff.
I get it said
Thank you for all the info Mike E. I feel way more informed.
Well put Thaddeus.
Thaddeus said
“I Get It”, I’m glad that at least some of us get it.
The only photo that most websites are showing, is J. Bernard in his white Marine Corps hat.
It took me a half-hour before I could pull up the photo with Mike E. It’s a weight off my shoulders to know that you’re out there, you’re making decisions, and you get it. The only thing more I could probably ask for is that Mike E gets it.
And I’m willing to bet money, that Mike E has got it and gone.
john said
if you had a problem with them posting this picture to show the people what is going on over there, then you should reconcsider your thoughts, and really press the government to pull our troops out of that sack of shit country! We should not be wasting lives on that king of bull shit!
john said
I think it’s funny, that the government acts like they have something to hide, by not showing us certain things that happen, or other events that take place other there. But it’s time to start focusing on our country b4 it goes to hell!
Karen said
I think the public has a right to see what really happens during war. I’m tired of the government hiding stuff like this from me. I don’t feel like this is disrespectful at all. I think this is more honest and truthful than we’ve seen or heard about war in a long time. We should see all of the gore and all of the dirty details of what war is really about. Then maybe people would stop supporting wars. These kids are are pawns and used by those in power to do their dirty work.
God bless you, Joshua Bernard. Thank you for being so strong, so brave and so powerful. I am sorry that you were put in this position to be in a war. I am sorry that you are gone. Your family will miss you. Know that those of us that didn’t even know you, thank you, and appreciate the beauty of the person that you are. Know that you will always live in our hearts. Please help this world overcome wars, overcome power struggles and overcome hate. Look down on us and pray for us.
We thank you and God bless you.
American used all of these toxic chemicals and not only injected them into the soldiers but the people on the other side of the war have also been poisoned and suffered. It’s 2009!! Isn’t there a better way?!
Show the TRUTH about war! These poor kids are DYING for us. Tell the world the TRUTH!
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Elephant in the room: This photo is not particularly disturbing. It’s blurry. You can’t see any graphic blood and gore. If you had told me it was a photo of a soldier who slipped and sprained his ankle, I would have believed you. Compared to the video of Nedi Solani dying or some of the photos of dead Iraqi children that came out in 2003, it’s tame.
So I would assume that this is a test case on both sides. Gates is setting the bar extremely low. No photo of a dying American soldier is to be published. And the press is feeling the Pentagon out. Let’s this one relatively mild photo through the censors and see if the Pentagon objects. The Pentagon objects. The press will back down. And that will be that.
The reasons the Penagon objects are obvious. This is an imperialist war. One American is worth 1000 Muslims the same way one Hobbit, elph or man is is worth 1000 orcs or one British soldier in a pithe helmet is worth 1000 black Africans. Show even this photo of a dying American, and there goes the myth of the invulnerable superman.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
if you had a problem with them posting this picture to show the people what is going on over there, then you should reconcsider your thoughts, and really press the government to pull our troops out of that sack of shit country! We should not be wasting lives on that king of bull shit!
Sack of shit country? Why, because they don’t have iPods and Starbucks?
I hate to agree with Ronald Reagan, but I think he hits the nail on the head.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/reagan.html
The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979.
In this three-year period the Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.
We must also recognize that the sacrifices required to maintain this resistance are very high. Millions have gone into exile as refugees. We will probably never know the numbers of people killed and maimed, poisoned and gased, of the homes that have been destroyed, and of the lives that have been shattered and stricken with grief.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon us as Americans to reflect on the events in Afghanistan, to think about the agony which these brave people bear, and to maintain our condemnation of the continuing Soviet occupation.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Ooops. I forget to do the search and replace.
The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the (American) Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the (United States) Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in (the fall of 2001) December of 1979.
In this three-year period the (United States) Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The (American) Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.
We must also recognize that the sacrifices required to maintain this resistance are very high. Millions have gone into exile as refugees. We will probably never know the numbers of people killed and maimed, poisoned and gased, of the homes that have been destroyed, and of the lives that have been shattered and stricken with grief.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon us as (humans) Americans to reflect on the events in Afghanistan, to think about the agony which these brave people bear, and to maintain our condemnation of the continuing (American) Soviet occupation.
Norm said
Images of war are the plain truth.
Look at it and consider the tragedy you don’t see. What happens daily to many of our young people as well as the many more innocent men, women and children who are killed in exactly the same way as shown here should be more familiar to us than any image our government would choose for us to see.
Juliana said
The truth is – we have an army full of young kids who go there to get education and to have everybody proud of them as they are prompted to feel by army recruters and their advertisings.
In reality then they are sent to the war for which they are not at all well prepared or trained. Then they die just like this picture shows, suffering immensely both them and their families.
What is that we are not supposed to see here? It is truth. We better see it.
In fact, I bet this is actually a mild version of what really happening and is not shown. How about all those young people (both boys and, forgive me god, girls) who are captured, tortured, raped, desmembered, beaten up and left to die a long death…
I feel immensely proud of people who make an informed choice to defend us and to make their sacrifices for it, but I would feel much better if I would see our army made of people who are very well prepared, trained and know exactly what they are doing and what choices they are making. I am seek and tired to see young kids inspired by army advertisings go to war and die awful death there without a clue about what they are doing. It would be much better if they would be getting “life experience” by making babies and working for benefit of our economy making our country stronger.
I have a son and I want him to be strong and brave and give his life if it is needed to protect what he belives in and loves. But I DO NOT WANT him to die because some general needs some live force, prepared or not, sent to be sacrificed because he think it would be good for his plan which he created sitting in his spa tub.
Well, I think people in our country are much better off seeing as much of these photos as possible. I aggree about not mentioning the names. Let parents grief in piece. But do put all those pictures out there and as much as possible. Let people see what is happening to these kids. Maybe more and more people will have questions about our protection ways. I hope they will.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Why not ask Pat Tilman’s family just how much the US government respects what they want?
Remember, Stanley McChrystal, the personal choice of Gates and Obama for the top command in Afghanistan, was part of the coverup of the fact that Tilman died from “friendly fire”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_tilman
Tillman’s family was not informed of the finding that he was killed by friendly fire until weeks after his memorial service, although at least some senior Army officers knew of that fact prior to the service.[13] Tillman’s parents have sharply criticized the Army’s handling of the incident; Tillman’s father charges that the Army “purposely interfered in the investigation” because of the effect it could have on their recruiting efforts, while Tillman’s mother charges that “this lie was to cover their image”.
His mother Mary Tillman told The Washington Post, “The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.” Tillman’s father, Patrick Tillman, Sr., was incensed by the coverup of the cause of his son’s death, which he attributed to a conscious decision by the leadership of the U.S. Army to protect the Army’s image.
(Stanley) McChrystal was also criticized for his role in the aftermath of the 2004 death by friendly fire of Ranger and former professional football player Pat Tillman. The day after approving a posthumous Silver Star citation for Tillman that included the phrase “in the line of devastating enemy fire,” McChrystal sent an urgent memo warning senior government officials not to quote the citation in public speeches because it “might cause public embarrassment” if Tillman had in fact been killed by friendly fire, as McChrystal suspected. McChrystal was one of eight officers recommended for discipline by a subsequent Pentagon investigation but the Army declined to take action against him.
Or why not ask the family’s of every soldier “stop lossed” what they think of the military’s respect for family wishes.
BringOurKidsHome said
For people wanting this picture being taken down out of “respect”, I’m sorry but this is war. There is no respect. The family knew that this could happen and unfortunately for them, their young son is gone. But guess what? This is the REAL story. Young American men and women continue to die in the middle east. And there is no hiding that. You can take down and banish all the pictures you want, but it is still happening. And it will continue to happen until these brave souls return home.
Karen said
A picture of a man dying SHOULD be upsetting. The picture should be the LEAST of your worries. The mans DEATH should be what we’re talking about. What is really important here? What’s really the issue here? Get to what really matters here. Let’s get our priorities straight.
Will God forgive the man that took the picture?
Will God forgive the man that published the picture?
Will God forgive the man for killing Joshua?
Will God forgive Joshua for killing anyone?
RIP – Joshua
Miles Ahead said
I think a huge problem in today’s world is that imperialist war has become so sanitized.
It rankles many to see a fallen U.S. soldier like Joshua Bernard, but it didn’t seem to upset all that many people at the beginning of the war against Iraq or Afghanistan, when U.S. pilots (under the command of the U.S. Defense Dept./govt.) were bombing Baghdad from upon high, killing untold numbers of civilians, by simply pushing some button, as if they were playing a computer game in some mall.
And the Pentagon has reached new heights, with their robot-run Drones, killing thousands more in Pakistan—some faceless masses, as if the Drones were simply targeting the Taliban or Al-Qaeda (yeah, right.)
People’s awareness and consciousness is pretty malleable. While the lengthy opening scenes of Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” were brutal (and certainly not propaganda-free), and while the advance publicity read like some warning label, these more realistic images were generally lauded. Then again, people could just return to the comfort of their home and sum things up like—“hey, that was 60+ years ago during WW II. Pass the nachos.”
The simple fact is, and without being disrespectful to Joshua Bernard or other rank and file U.S. military who have lost their lives or been permanently maimed, etc., these wars are not theirs nor are they ours. Be it for oil, hegemony in the region (or for world domination) under the guise of bringing “democracy” to the world, etc., these are the imperialists’ wars—for their political and economic interests.
(And if we look at history, surely we can see that the U.S. government’s allegiances consistently change to bolster their interests: e.g., Saddam Hussein friend then foe; the Taliban against the Soviets, ad infinitum.)
And how is the U.S. military treated once they return to U.S. soil? Are they given a “hero’s” welcome? A trip to Walter Reed hospital should dispel any notions of that? (The post on the Chicano Moratorium–http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/chicano-moratorium-39-years-later-the-struggle-continues/ is revealing in terms of just how disproportionate the make up/deaths of the U.S. military was, certainly with a draft. These days more the disproportion is exemplified by the fact that the U.S. military uses mercenaries like Blackwater, to do their bidding.)
In the 1990s Gulf War, reported statistics show that 100,000 Iraqi civilians died. In the current Iraq war, it has been reported that those figures have at minimum doubled.
According to antiwar.com, citing official numbers—since the war against Iraq began in 2003, 4,339 U.S. military have died, 3,479 in combat. Is anyone who is so keen on “protecting” the image of the fallen Joshua Bernard even counting? Probably the most famous casualty (besides Pat Hillman) on the U.S. side of the death scorecard is Casey Sheehan—and why? Because his mother, Cindy, dared to camp outside W’s ranch in Crawford, making public not only her beloved son’s death, but to spark some dialogue and call on the Bush administration to end the war against Iraq. Bush in his arrogant dismissal tried to ignore Ms. Sheehan, in hopes that she too would fade away. Instead, Casey’s death, and his mother’s willingness to expose some of the real machinations surrounding Iraq, even while suffering personal sorrow, helped educate people and help ignite an anti-war movement. Was Casey Sheehan’s life worth less than Joshua Bernard’s, or the lives of the thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, or Pakistanis who have been killed and whose names we don’t even know?
Just yesterday it was reported on the now “infamous” AP (oh please) and NYT that:
“NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90″
Just part of one paragraph: “Violence has soared across much of the country since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year, shifting the focus of the U.S.-led war on Islamic extremism from Iraq.”
[My emphasis--the latest propaganda as to why the U.S. is even in Afghanistan.]
We live in an age where information (and past attempts at secrecy) has gone viral. And we need to take advantage of that to both excavate, reveal and face the truth.
The outright murder of Oscar Grant in Oakland by the BART police would have been back-page news—just another police killing—had it not been for some passengers’ recording it on their cell phones. The brutal police beating of Rodney King, or the unprovoked beating of retired teacher Robert Davis in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, would have been squashed and sequestered had it not been for someone video taping these horrendous acts and making it public knowledge. (In the case of Robert Davis—the police tried to wrestle the camera away from the witness, and then arrest said witness.)
Stanley says in comment 33:
”Compared to the video of Nedi Solani [sic] dying or some of the photos of dead Iraqi children that came out in 2003, it’s tame.”
I see Stanley’s point, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the public murder of Neda Agha Soltan in comparison to the photo of Joshua Bernard was “tame.” IMO her murder was broadcast across the Western media to make the point that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a brutal regime, while at the same time the U.S. government tries to cover up not only the deaths in their latest wars (or photos of Abu Ghraib, torture, etc.), but their own brutality which is being carried out on a daily basis– and more so, their selective exposure is to numb public consciousness about their designs, complicity and actions.
Sometimes, this has the opposite effect—e.g. the famous photo of the public execution of “NLF Captain” Nguyen Van Lem by South Vietnam’s national police chief, Nguyen Ngoc Loan at the beginning of the Tet Offensive. This photo sent shockwaves around the world, and helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam war.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-888027-south-vietnamese-police-chief-general-nguyen-ngoc-loan-executes-nlf-captain-nguyen-van-lem.aspx
Miles Ahead said
I think a huge problem in today’s world is that imperialist war has become so sanitized.
It rankles many to see a fallen U.S. soldier like Joshua Bernard, but it didn’t seem to upset all that many people at the beginning of the war against Iraq or Afghanistan, when U.S. pilots (under the command of the U.S. Defense Dept./govt.) were bombing Baghdad from upon high, killing untold numbers of civilians, by simply pushing some button, as if they were playing a computer game in some mall.
And the Pentagon has reached new heights, with their robot-run Drones, killing thousands more in Pakistan—some faceless masses, as if the Drones were simply targeting the Taliban or Al-Qaeda (yeah, right.)
People’s awareness and consciousness is pretty malleable. While the lengthy opening scenes of Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” were brutal (and certainly not propaganda-free), and while the advance publicity read like some warning label, these more realistic images were generally lauded. Then again, people could just return to the comfort of their home and sum things up like—“hey, that was 60+ years ago during WW II. Pass the nachos.”
The simple fact is, and without being disrespectful to Joshua Bernard or other rank and file U.S. military who have lost their lives or been permanently maimed, etc., these wars are not theirs nor are they ours. Be it for oil, hegemony in the region (or for world domination) under the guise of bringing “democracy” to the world, etc., these are the imperialists’ wars—for their political and economic interests.
(And if we look at history, surely we can see that the U.S. government’s allegiances consistently change to bolster their interests: e.g., Saddam Hussein friend then foe; the Taliban against the Soviets, ad infinitum.)
And how is the U.S. military treated once they return to U.S. soil? Are they given a “hero’s” welcome? A trip to Walter Reed hospital should dispel any notions of that?
(The recent Kasama post on the Chicano Moratorium– is revealing in terms of just how disproportionate the make up/deaths of the U.S. military was, certainly with a draft. These days more the disproportion is exemplified by the fact that the U.S. military uses mercenaries like Blackwater, to do their bidding.)
In the 1990s Gulf War, reported statistics show that 100,000 Iraqi civilians died. In the current Iraq war, it has been reported that those figures have at minimum doubled. According to antiwar.com, citing official numbers—since the war against Iraq began in 2003, 4,339 U.S. military have died, 3,479 in combat. Is anyone who is so keen on “protecting” the image of Joshua Bernard even counting?
Probably the most famous casualty (besides Pat Hillman—killed by “friendly” fire—an oxymoron if there ever was one) on the U.S. side of the death scorecard is Casey Sheehan—and why? Because his mother, Cindy, dared to camp outside W’s ranch in Crawford, making public not only her beloved son’s death, but to spark some dialogue and call on the Bush administration to end the war against Iraq. Bush in his arrogant dismissal tried to ignore Ms. Sheehan, in hopes that she too would fade away.
Instead, Casey’s death, and his mother’s willingness to expose some of the real machinations surrounding Iraq, even while suffering personal sorrow, helped educate people and help ignite an anti-war movement. Was Casey Sheehan’s life worth less than Joshua Bernard’s, or the lives of the thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, or Pakistanis who have been killed and whose names we don’t even know?
Just yesterday it was reported on the now “infamous” AP (oh please) and NYT that:
“NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90″
Just part of one paragraph: “Violence has soared across much of the country since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year, shifting the focus of the U.S.-led war on Islamic extremism from Iraq.” [My emphasis--the latest propaganda as to why the U.S. is even in Afghanistan.]
We live in an age where information (and past attempts at secrecy) has gone viral. And we need to take advantage of that to both excavate, expose and face the truth.
The outright murder of Oscar Grant in Oakland by the BART police would have been back-page news—just another police killing—had it not been for some passengers recording it on their cell phones. The brutal police beating of Rodney King, or the unprovoked beating of retired teacher Robert Davis in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, would have been squashed and sequestered had it not been for someone video taping these horrendous acts and making it public knowledge. (In the case of Robert Davis—the police tried to wrestle the camera away from the witness, and then arrest said witness.)
Stanley says in comment 33:
”Compared to the video of Nedi Solani [sic] dying or some of the photos of dead Iraqi children that came out in 2003, it’s tame.”
I see Stanley’s point, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the public murder of Neda Agha Soltan in comparison to the photo of Joshua Bernard was “tame.” IMO her murder was broadcast across the Western media to make the point that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a brutal regime, while at the same time the U.S. government tries to cover up not only the deaths in their latest wars (or photos of Abu Ghraib, torture, etc.), but their own brutality which is being carried out on a daily basis– more so, to numb public consciousness about their designs, complicity and actions.
Sometimes, this has the opposite effect—e.g. the famous photo of the public/street execution of “NLF Captain” Nguyen Van Lem by South Vietnam’s national police chief, Nguyen Ngoc Loan at the beginning of the Tet Offensive. This photo sent shockwaves around the world, and helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam war.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-888027-south-vietnamese-police-chief-general-nguyen-ngoc-loan-executes-nlf-captain-nguyen-van-lem.aspx
Classwar said
Does god exist? NO
The point here is the government would happily feed the line “none of our guys are dying” to the general public, then no one would ever worry about the soldiers in the middle east…. their only killing iraqis after all, who cares right? the real question the world, especially blind america, should be asking is, what does this war hope to ahceive? Iraqi freedom, if that were possible it would have happened by now, militia is too established to to dismantled there, especially when most of them have financial backing AND reinforcements available from neighbouring countries, get out of the middle east and stop wasting everyones time, nothing can be done, just make sure the refugees can escape and let the fools who want to stay there try to sort things out, 90% of them will end up dead anyway.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
I see Stanley’s point, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the public murder of Neda Agha Soltan in comparison to the photo of Joshua Bernard was “tame.”
I meant the opposite. The video of Neda Soltani was graphic and disturbing. The above photo of Joshua Bernard is “tame”. You have to be told he’s dying in that photo in order to know he’s dying.
Note. I’m not placing Neda Soltani above Joshua Bernard or Joshua Bernard above Neda Soltani, merely commenting on the photo and the video.
It rankles many to see a fallen U.S. soldier like Joshua Bernard, but it didn’t seem to upset all that many people at the beginning of the war against Iraq or Afghanistan, when U.S. pilots (under the command of the U.S. Defense Dept./govt.) were bombing Baghdad from upon high, killing untold numbers of civilians, by simply pushing some button, as if they were playing a computer game in some mall.
And I think the fact that the photo of Bernard is relatively tame speaks to just how much the US military is idolized right now. I mean, come on. I can see a painting of Jesus being crucified but not a photo of a dead American soldier?
Right now, it seems that the only person in the US military it’s acceptable in the media to criticize is the Commander in Chief. The military is the only institution of the US government that isn’t looked at cynically. Even liberals like Barney Frank and Al Franken point to the VA to give an example of government run health care that’s “acceptable”.
In fact, even though my ancestors left Germany and Prussian Poland to come to the USA 150 years ago, I seem to find myself back in Prussia. The US military has been identified with the nation itself. Soldiers are not to be criticized or even thought of as mortal. And we all know where Prussia ended up.
Miles Ahead said
Dear Stan–I did get what you were saying re Neda S. and Joshua B. Maybe I wasn’t very clear…my point re this was–that the U.S. govt/miliary (which are synonymous) used the brutal murder of Neda footage to shore-up their own politics, while trying to hide the politics behind not just the killing of Joshua B. but all the killings and murders that have taken place.
“A pawn in their game”–ala Dylan, keeps running through my mind.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
“A pawn in their game”–ala Dylan, keeps running through my mind.
I don’t want to nitpick but when Dylan said “a pawn in their game” he was referring to racists. Racism makes you a pawn in their game.
I think Rudyard Kipling’s the go to guy for a quote on Afghanistan.
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!”
It’s interesing that for Kipling, the imperial soldier was human.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-young-british-soldier/
Britain was a clas society and the empires soldier’s weren’t necessarily supposed to be worshipped as supermen.
“When the cholera comes — as it will past a doubt –
Keep out of the wet and don’t go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An’ it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .
But the worst o’ your foes is the sun over’ead:
You ~must~ wear your ‘elmet for all that is said:
If ‘e finds you uncovered ‘e’ll knock you down dead,
An’ you’ll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . ”
I think we’re actually much, much less democratic than even the British empire. The empire’s troops were part of the empire, but not identified with the nation of Britain itself.
It’s only really in a banana Republic or an East European hellhole where the army = the nation and the nation = the army
So it’s notable that Kipling felt as if he were speaking up for the underdog.
Eric said
Thanks for maintaining freedom of the press!
Censoring the media only keeps Americans ignorant of reality. Do not bow to the pressure of those who think that it is even possible to “win” a war.
::badghir:: said
I’m always happy when an occupation soldier die. It is what they deserve. Victory to the resistance!
http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m57641&hd=&size=1&l=e
Thank you for publishing what your zio-nazi gvt and its puppet don’t want to show.
Matt said
I can understand the anger and anguish of relatives and loved ones at seeing photographs displayed prominently in the media of a son, daughter, sibling or spouse suffering and dying, and seeing those images used by different political forces to make political points.
What they must understand, however –and what, in their pain, many will not be able to understand — is that their loved one entered the public arena the minute they entered the U.S. military and were sent to fight wars paid for and waged in the name of the people of this country.
What they do in that war, and what is done to them, are public, not private, concerns, and highly important ones, at that.
War also is unavoidably political — “the continuation of politics by other means,” as von Clausewitz famously wrote. When has it been otherwise?
I lost plenty of friends in Vietnam. My father was a Marine at Iwo Jima. Those of us who have served in the military or who have friends and relatives who served in combat know better than most what is at stake. We need to say loud and clear that we serve the highest interests of the soldiers — who are overwhelmingly our working class sisters and brothers — when we expose and resist imperialist war. We understand their pain only too well. It is our pain, too, and we have nothing to apologize for.
Thaddeus said
That’s right, Matt. That’s exactly right. I was in the Army during the first Gulf War and what you say comes across so loud and so clear. Thanks for speaking up, Matt. Thanks.
DC said
Ya know, no one wants to actually see the faces of death. This photo did not need to be published no matter how strong your opinion, on what should be shown, is. This is something that not only this Marine’s family has to deal with, other than the death of their loved one, but the Marines that were there and saw this in person. These are the types of scars that will haunt them forever. this will never go away for them. Especially when it’s being thrown around the media like a publicity act. No one should ever have to see the things that SOLDIERS have to see while doing their job. If you want to see what really goes on, join the Military. If not then do not state your opinion if it doesn’t matter. If you’re older and have served, you understand the meaning of my opinion. If not, then I’m sorry for you. if you do not wish to serve, that’s perfectly fine. But do not try to put yourself where you are not. This is a picture that only should have been thrown away and remembered by only those who were there. This public attention doesn’t help the people who are trying to forget what they saw. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. Hurt for this Marine and his family because they got caught up in such a media circus.
Mike E said
This country sends soldiers overseas to kill and die (mainly to kill).
And people should see what that means. They should see the faces of the Afghani dead. They should see the soldiers who return cripplied, and see what it means when people don’t return.
I respect DC’s view when he/she says:
But I believe the opposite. And those who wage war, who volunteer for it, and those who send the soldiers to fight for empire — they should not “forget what they saw,” they should take responsibility for what they were part of.
Thaddeus said
“DC” wrote:
Come on, DC. You can’t be serious?? You don’t really believe the words you wrote, do you??
That’s the central point of the discussion. Nobody’s showing these kinds of photos.
The more information that the government withholds, the harder it is for voters to decide what the policies should be. Especially the Defense Department and the Justice Department, those two agencies retain most of the both the hardware and the expertise to literally decide who lives and who dies.
Unless the national guard is federalized by the President, it’s commanded by the indivdual governors and funded MAINLY by the individual states. True the state of California has something like the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world. But the California Nation Guard doesn’t launch nuclear subs. The Defense Department does.
Need I remind you that save for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, NO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES are publicly traded stocks. Which means that the goverment doesn’t produce a single good. Yes it provides critical services. And at every level. Federal, state, county, local. But the government is primarily a consumer. And every good that the government consumes, at least since the Civil War, is purchased through contract from among the goods produced by the CIVILIAN POPULATION. Dig it, DC. Dig it, man.
Let there be NO QUESTION who ultimately has the upper hand.
True enough, true enough any national government, not only the US government can borrow unlimited money from its own central bank, provided of course that it has one. Andrew Jackson busted up the Bank of the US in the 1830′s and the Fed wasn’t created until, I think, 1913. So the US govt. isn’t entirely dependent on the US taxpayer for money. But it is for something like 99% of both goods and personnel. Since when has the Defense Department run daycare centers across the country. Future soldiers, sailors, and marines have got to come from somewhere?? I know where they come from and so do you, DC. They come from daycare. Not from kindergarten, man. Future soldiers, sailors, and marines are 2 yrs. old and 3 yrs. old, they’re too young for kindergarten. They come from the CIVILIANS.
So the civilians ultimately have the upper hand in determining the Defense Department’s personnel policies. True or false?? Thank you. That’s what I thought.
In order to determine those policies and any other for that matter, the civilians need information. Documents, cartoons, presidential audio-tapes, whatever information we as voters need to make accurate decisions, we need to have.
So I guess that includes Dick Nixon, Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, John Yoo, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz.
None of them EVER ONCE dawned a US military uniform and they saw got to see EVERYTHING that soldiers have to see while doing their job. Do you know what you’re saying, DC, when you say “NO ONE shoud ever have to see”. Do you seriously mean NO ONE when you say NO ONE??
Because even if you mean private citizens who aren’t serving in government, don’t those goverment officials generally receive an education and absorb the US culture LONG PRIOR to securing plum, six-figured salaried positions as government officials?? Do you mean that neither Don Rumsfeld nor Secretary Gates ever received info from the media that increase their knowledgeability, shaped their character and made them MORE QUALIFIED to serve in a government position BEFORE they accepted the government position?? Thank you. Thank you very much. That’s what I thought.
Ya know, I don’t think we think that differently after all. At least on some things.
tainoaz said
The War on Terror? We would have to kill ourselves too if we are going to eradicate terrorist then since to millions of people ‘over there’ we are now the main source of ‘their’ Terror. No?
What damage did 911 do to U.S.?
Why don’t we unify our National Security under one Agency since our National Security failed us miserably due to the Individual Egos of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc!!!
What damage did Our Idiotic Response to 911 do to U.S.? How much more will our Fear Mongering cost us in Blood and Treasure before we satisfy our Blood Lust or the Bound Less Greed of the Iron Triangle? How do you define Victory if in the end we win this War but lose Everything in the process? How do we wean the Military Industrial Complex from the ‘Troth of War’? We are Self-Destructing as I type with policies based on the mind set of Iron Age Tribes, Unsustainable Life Styles, Moronic Energy Policies, Priorities that are Robbing every Present and Future Generation of the Comforts and the Beautiful Planet we enjoy.
Savages that inhabited this continent before us had a simple rule that would turn our government on it’s head…
‘On our every deliberation, we must take into consideration the impact that our decisions will have on the next seven generations’ From; The Great Law of The Iroquois Confederacy. Oh but Never Mind they were just Mindless Savages.
Phillip said
I am a CPL in the british army and would like to send my condolances to his family. However i am angered by this picture, do you have no respect for this hero and his family. RIP my fellow soldier.
Mike E said
I’m amazed by soldiers who proclaim that all freedoms are due to their imperial war-making, and who then insist (in a hateful way) that people have no right to document or debate that war-making.
How is this guy a “hero”? Why does respecting his family mean suppressing the fact of his death?
No romanticization of this war. No invention of “heroes” among those who wage it.
Save your anger for those who sent you to kill and die for this unjust cause of aggression and domination.
John said
The photo is disturbing. Such a tragedy; such a shame. I hate that he died but I guess I can see how it’s necessary for people to be able to see what’s going on over there.
I think the article is excellent. Very respectful as are the posts here. Thank you for that.
Bobby said
War is hell and to be awakened to it’s reality shouldn’t be a crime or a sin, but human decency should occasionally intervene and make us mindful of circumstances. That is my thoughts here.
I guess it is some comfort to the family that there was a person, though dead, that they could memorialize and be able to see that one last time. That’s not the case with most of those families that endured the murderous events of 9/11 in that some of those had nothing of their loved ones to hold on to except pictures and memories. Wake up America, if you want to hold on to what you got, be prepared to fight and die for it.
I sure that the current administration would have wanted to have dialogue with Hitler, pursue a peaceful coalition and forget the atrocities of the past. And why do I say that, seems we are doing the same with the Iranian leader now, a man who doesn’t even accept the holocaust as an actual event while at the same time building the framework for a nuclear arsenal. Oh, but don’t worry about that, the Soviets are going to make sure the uranium doesn’t become weapons grade. Is that the same country that we basically had to go in and spend millions of dollars just so they could destroy their arsenal……we are rapidly becoming the dumbest people on earth.
Mark said
I love it when people declare war is a viable means to resolving differences. Yet, if you take that down to a personal level – it’s not acceptable to kick your tyrant boss’s ass, or shoot the legs out of from under some CEO who pissed away hundreds of folks retirement. No…you’ll get in trouble with the law if you do that.
But, our elected war-mongers take young men and put them directly in the line of fire – while they all sit back in their leather chairs and plan their next move. They EXPECT casualties – and it obviously means absolutely nothing. Someone’s Dad, Son, Brother, Uncle…it doesn’t matter.
And that is why posting that picture is justified. What is the REAL LIFE cost of that “war”?
Mark said
There never has been, nor will there ever be, a replaceable life.
Roy said
To Mike E. Screw you!
How dare you not hold this man up to be a hero! Every man and woman in our armed forces are heroes.
They do not decide where they are sent to fight. They sign up to protect and defend our country against all enemies! They go where they are told and fight who they are told to fight. They put their lives on the line for all of us in America. That in and of itself makes them all heroes. No matter what your opinions of this war may be, it is completely unacceptable to talk down on the soldiers for doing their job!
To the people who agree this picture should have been shown…I hope none of you ever have to have the violent death of your children be shown to the public against your wishes. You never know…a gruesome drunk driving death may need to be shown to everyone so they know about the horrors of what happens when you drink and drive. Just because this is a soldier in a war zone makes no difference!
We all know war is hell, it is gruesome and it is unfortunately a necessary evil. Do we really need pictures to back that up? Do you think we could have just talked Hitler out of what he was doing? The types of people we fight against are not reasonable people. They are not open to dialogue. They are hell bent on destroying us and everything we stand for. We don’t need to see the sacrifices in such gruesome detail or even at all for that matter. I think our soldiers would all be much better off without the media tipping our strategy to our enemies!
Mike E said
Roy:
Those who fight in this army are not “heroes.” And the U.S. Army does not “defend us.” It defends an empire. Which is why people around the world hate it (and by extension, hate us.)
It is important to make sure that the crimes of this army are not done “in our name.” I.e. that people all over the world understand that many of us, in the U.S., oppose this empire and such invasions too.
Roy writes:
It is interesting that Roy has to go back over 60 years to find a U.S. opponent where the moral question seems clear. That is because all the imperial wars since WW2 are so grim and clearly unjust.
“The types of people we fight are not reasonable.”
This is hardly true. The Sandinistas were quite reasonable and justified. So was Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese resistance. The Chinese Volunteeers were quite justified in opposing a U.S. occupation on the mainland of Asia — during the Korean war.
In fact it is the U.S. that was “not reasonable” — but rather aggressive, unjustified.
Look at Hiroshima and ask whether the civilians killed by the hundreds of thousands thought that was “reasonable.”
I think it is a telling remark to say:
“They are hell bent on destroying us and everything we stand for.”
This equates the people of the U.S. with the world system that the U.S. dominates.
First: it is not true that anyone is “hell bent” on “destroying” the people.
Second: it is a false assumption that we all have something common “we stand for.” In fact, many of us (here in the U.S.) don’t support the system here in the U.S. (capitalism, imperialism, white supremacy, traditional male-dominated social relations etc.)
Really “everything we stand for” — if the “we” is the U.S. army — is empire, exploitation, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, expansion, and more. From the Indian wars to the invasion of Iraq — it is a story of unjust expansion and mass murder.
William Rios said
We are Not pulling Out of Afghanistan-A Train Wreck in Progress?
First of all I want to Commend our Joes and Janes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don’t make Policy, They Follow Orders.
Second most of you know how I Feel about Religion. I have no Special Exception for Radical Islam or any of their Minions.
Now that I have made that Clear. I Have To state the Obvious…
1 The Taliban are not Restricted by The Geneva Convention at all.
2 The Mujaheddin Spirit is Strong and they wrote the Book on using Gorilla Warfare in Rugged Terrain.
3 Time is On their Side and they Know It.
4 They are Fueled by the David Versus Goliath Complex.
5 They have the Home Team Advantage they have No Time Frame for ‘Withdrawal’.
6 Radical Islam is like a Perpetual Motion Machine and Their Fighters/Soldiers are Cheap.
7 The Sexual Repression of their Younger and Poorer men makes the Lure of 72 Virgins a Strong Recruitment Tool.
8 Here is a Little Quote that Speaks Volumes…
“You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.”
Ho Chi Minh
Mike E said
William Rios writes:
Obediance in an unjust cause is not commendable.
William writes:
That is particularly ironic given that it is the U.S. that unilaterally and quite publicly abrogated the Geneva Convention (under Bush).
William writes:
Perhaps the U.S. should stop invading other people’s countries. This is a problem for empire builders and conquerers, not liberators.
This is the kind of quotes attributed to communists — that bounce around the netherworld of rightwing politics. Sometimes they are real but taken out of context. More often they are just invented.
So William… give us a simple source citation. Where did Ho Chi Minh say this? In which of his famous speeches and articles? And if you can’t discover where, perhaps you could consider how you are fed a diet of misleading soundbites?
More to the point, the willingness to fight and die, in the face of the world’s modern superpower, is not a sign of immorality or injustice. The Vietnamese beat the U.S. precisely because their cause was just and because they understood that deeply.
Joey said
Mike,
Have you been over there? Have you actually seen the situation with your own eyes, and worked together with the men that are fighting? Or have you just developed your ideas by listening to leftist ideas thrown out around the dinner table? Hmm… I am nauseated by your lack of vision, and determination to point the finger of injustice at those of us who fight specifically to END injustice. You are a fool.
This young man sacrificed himself for what he believed to be a greater cause than free healthcare and socialist rhetoric. He, like so many of us who wear the flag on our uniform, believed that we can help these people escape the oppression of the taliban.
If you’re not ok with American soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen, then get out of our country. Go be an expatriot in Sweden. Don’t make me defend your right to be a fool.
Rangers lead the way!!!
Bitch.
Mike E said
I’m impressed by the tone of many posts by military types in this thread. “I’m nauseated..” “I’m disgusted…” and more.
You get the feeling that some people are trained to crush those who disagree as if they are bugs.
To them, other people are dirt, especially opponents. Anyone who opposes their military are simply and obviously “evil” and deserving of death. And as for other Americans: Honor us or get out.
And note the interesting twist on “identity politics”: If you haven’t been there, Joey insists, you have no right to an opinion.
Think of the logic here: ONLY soldiers (apparently) can judge wars. And (others say) the soldiers don’t judge the wars, they just obey orders.
So, by extension, no one really (not soldiers and certainly not civilians) have any right to condemn wars. So shut up everyone. The anti-democratic essence of this argument should be clear.
Obviously military training and the experience killing civilian villagers and U.S. opponents overseas trains people to be fascists toward internal dissent.
One note worth clarifying:
Joey writes:
The issue here is the war, not the soldiers. And it is deception to constantly confuse the issues of war with the issue of the soldiers.
The wars are unjust. And they should not be fought. The fact that there are American soldiers in danger should not quiet antiwar politics — it should help give it urgency. But the real urgency comes from the understanding that this is aggression for empire — and the soldiers of empire are committing crimes against the people that are targeted.
People should not sign up for these wars and for this military. And those who have volunteered should not participate in aggression, occupation and war crimes.
And certainly those who obey unjust orders in an unjust war should not be hailed as “heroes” (for their mix of blindness and obedience). The heroes are those who refuse to fight, and who help expose the crimes of these wars and this vicious empire.
Joey writes:
The only rights you “defend” are the corporate right to exploit and rob. And who is then the fool?
Don't turn your back on the soldiers said
Soldiers Don’t want to be there any more than you do. But that is what are goverment tells us to do so we have no choice. If you don’t support the war or are Goverment thats fine, YOU DO NEED TO SUPPORT THE SOIDIERS There are the ones that will be Defending the US Home ground and dieing for the one You voted into office. As for the pic I do see both sides I have been there and see it first hand I wish I never had the chance to see it But I did and if seeing the pic will help you under stand what the soldier are going thru thin so be it. Stand with are troops
giving them support wont make you a supporter of the war Just are troops.
Mike E said
Soldiers exactly have a choice. They can refuse. They can oppose an unjust war — and that opposition (throughout history) has been a particularly powerful and influential statement.
Does that take REAL courage? of course. That is why such resistors are honored. It is why they are the real heroes of all unjust wars.
We remember with great respect the GIs who deserted in Vietnam, the young men who refused the draft, the soldiers and sailors who fragged and mutinied. And those bold few in Vietnam and Korea who went over to the liberation forces.
Talk about honor and respect!
Note: we agree.
No.
They are not “defending” any of us.
Take the war in Iraq: that is an unprovoked aggression. It has nothing to do with defense. And it has to be called out. And those send to kill and die in that cause should speak out too.
And we should not support soldiers doing unjust and immoral acts — like killing in the cause of empire. We should speak out to them — and help them see what they are doing, and should be doing.
The talk of “support the soldiers” has been used (for twenty years now) as a slogan for suppressing antiwar thoughts. “Whatever you do, at least support the soldiers.” But it just ends up being a means of supporting the war. It has to stop.
With all respect to you and your views, this is where we disagree. And where I believe you are mistaken.
And i am impressed by how much this has been turned into a flashpoint issue. It is now DEMANDED that EVERYONE must “HONOR” soldiers. It is considered necessary. And the refusal is considered subversive and immoral in some intolerable way.
Well, we do not and should not honor people who (with arms in hand) invade countries all over the world. We should not and will not.
And if they want honor, they should stop their criminal acts.
The Republican Right talks about “personal responsibility” all the time — well here it is… take some responsibility for what you are doing.
Johnny said
Im going to be joining up with the military soon and all I gotta say is that if I am killed or hurt in action I would not mind having my photo posted on newspapers. This is the first photo I have seen of a wounded soldier in Iraq and it really makes you think.
William Rios said
Rachel Maddow made an excellent argument today to which I will add…
There is nothing that unifies a Peoples as a Common Enemy specially a Foreign One. If any other Foreign Power had invaded the USA during our Civil War and even attempted to ‘Settle In’ and tell us how to do or run Anything our Citizens would have likely put their Differences aside and Rallied Together Against Them.
We had to Exorcise our Own Demons, (we are still at it). I feel Horrible that there are People over there that want to; keep girls from getting educated, force people into a theocracy, execute people arbitrarily and summarily,but, lets not forget we were not too far from this a mere century ago.
——————————————————————————————————————-
An Eye for an Eye, Pretty Gruesome? I think NOT!
Pretty Gruesome Picture don’t you think? Or is it?
If I Grieve you One Eye, You Take One of my Eyes?
If ‘They’ Kill one of ‘Ours’ we can Kill one of ‘Theirs’ as Retribution?
Well after the last 8+ years that is Starting to Look like a Pretty Reasonable Equation.
HEADLINE: Baitullah Mehsud, Taliban Chief, Reportedly Killed In US Missile Strike
QUESTION… If any Foreign Entity were to Kill or Assassinate any of our Leaders (Elected/Politician/Military/Religious) and we knew who the Perpetrator/s how would we react?
Would we care what Specific Political Views our ‘American’ Leader held (Left/Moderate/Right)?
Would we not Rally Cohesively against that Foreign Entity?
How many Volunteers would seek to Enlist in Our Armed Forces the next day?
How many ‘Enemy’ Combatants, Not so Innocent Bystanders, Civilians (including totally innocent women and children) have died (or been maimed) as a result of our Response to the Attacks of 911?
Or should I say; The War on ‘Terror’.
So far The War on ‘Terror’ has Terminated between; 62,000 (Conservative estimate) and 180,000 (Liberal Estimate) Human Lives.
I will leave to your Imagination how some of the Survivors/Wounded are Faring Today (Physically/Mentally).
SO what is my Point?
Eye for an Eye doesn’t Look So Crazy from this Vantage Point.
We Lost 3000+ Lives in 911 and an Estimated 2 Trillion+ Dollars in Material Loses including Real Estate, Rescue Equipment, Clean Up, Infrastructure, Damage to Markets World Wide? We will never Know Really.
Our Military Reaction is at the Present Time Passing the 900 Billion Mark. Every Forecast places the Future Total at an Excess of 2 Trillion Dollars.
Oh! NeverMind Keep Killing We a Winning!!!
Joey said
You know, it’s funny how Mike throws around his anti-war rhetoric, tries so hard to insult us personally, and generally attempts to skew the scenario to fit his views. All he ends up doing is exactly what he accuses us of doing.
So I’ll clarify- I am not saying that ONLY soldiers can have an opinion on wars. I AM saying that it’s foolish to ignore the opinions of so many of our men who have been over there and put their lives on the line. But then, I guess we’re a buncha dumb ol’ rednecks, ain’t we?
I suppose my masters doesn’t mean much compared to a berkley student…
Iraq is over- Quit whining about it. Yeah, the intel was shady when we went in. Nearly ALL of your precious democrats voted IN FAVOR at the time. Nuff said.
Afghanistan was claimed as “a just war” by Obama, the all-glorious savior of the liberals. Now that he actually has to commit, he’s lost his nerve (as liberals tend to do when faced with less-than-ideal situations) and is now stalling on the decision he originally pledged to make, to bolster the war and see it through. Suddenly, the liberal media comes out with all these “afghan conspiracy” stories and claims of…what was it, mike? Evil Imperialism? Lay off the star wars, kid… It’s all trying to make the public forget about why we’re there.
As for the killing of civilians, I certainly have never shot a non-combatant. None of my men (to my knowledge) have ever opened fire on a group of small children. Yet we are accused by the liberal fanatics of being baby-killers and marauding pirates. As I said, you make these assumptions and then defend them most passionately, without ever actually having seen what we do.
I only ask that you ACTUALLY be informed rather than spout liberal ideologies you heard around the dinner table.
If this country is indeed a ‘vicious empire,’ then why on earth do you still enjoy the benefits that it affords you…? If we truly are such an awful, spiteful nation, why do you live here? Why don’t you defect to a nation like France or Sweden…?
I never once demanded that we not be open about opinions and all subscribe to a specific train of thought. But if you hate America so badly, why are you still here?
Future 68W said
I am about to join the Army soon as well Johnny… I’ve seen other photos of wounded soldiers though, it really jogs your mind. In the end though, I still am committed to going. I will be joining as a 68W Healthcare Specialist. Which basically means I will be a combat medic. I will be patching up our wounded soldiers, Iraqi civilians caught in the middle, and god damn it, I intend to help and save as many of those poor souls that I can. I am not signing up with the ARMY to defend this country, or our freedom and your a fool to believe so if you do. I am signing up because my heart bleeds for the women and children and men that are dying DAILY over there. If I can help save just one of their lives I can say that I contributed positively in this cause. I don’t want to kill people, I don’t want to shoot kids or dogs and cats or any of that shit. I am a medical student here in the states and I have wanted to become an EMT or a doctor since I was a kid. Now if I am dishonorable for wanting to relieve some other soldier so he can go see his family then shoot me now. If I am dishonorable for wanting to go over the the most dangerous area of the world presently to help heal and save lives of both civilians and soldiers, then put a bullet in my head now. I get so angry with both sides of the table in the debate. One side screaming PATRIOTISM AND FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!>!?!!? and the other screaming BABY KILLERS< RACISTS< CRIMINALS< FOOLS!?!?! Your all fucked in the head in my opinion. If your really opposed to the war then join the fuckin peace corp instead of sitting in safety thousands of miles away from danger, bloating your self-righteous ego in front of your computer while thinking that you are actually making a god damn difference by blogging! Oh, and to all you over-zealous "patriots"? SHUT THE FUCK UP and open your eyes. Stop parading your slogans. If any of you people reading this set foot on the streets of Iraq or the dirt of Afghanistan, and saw with your own two eyes the suffering that is taking place for the civilians and the soldiers, I guarantee you that your opinion would undertake a radical change. There are a lot of good people in the military that are having egg thrown on their face because a couple of morally corrupt and malevolent people are fucking up it for everyone. For every ten good deeds one bad one will cast a black shadow on all of it. I advise everyone to shut the fuck up and start doing something. IF you hate seeing people getting their heads cut off and women and children getting slaughtered in the streets, then either start helping to fix the situation or keep your feeble opinion to your self and stop complaining that the world is fucked up, because while your complaining in security, PEOPLE ARE DYING and not one blog will stop a bullet.
*whew*
Now that you've read this, go do something instead of coming up with a response that will re-affirm your half-witted opinion. Go do something that will bring a little more love and compassion into the world, just go do ANYTHING to help!??! All your whining and complaining won't do a damn thing, only ACTION gets things done.
Future 68W said
One more thing, I think a lot of Americans don’t deserve the freedom they have been blessed with. I sure as hell wouldn’t lay my life down for yours if I knew you were just going to walk over my corpse and belittle my actions.
Mike E said
Future: If you die in Afghanistan, it will have nothing to do with defending us. The U.S. soldiers there (and in Iraq) are fighting for a corporate empire, not for ordinary people. The same military that invades other countries is a powerful political force against freedom and political change within the U.S.
We are not belittling you, but do have a clear view of the wrongness of your planned actions.
Future 68W said
Then what is your plan Mike E? What are you doing to change things for the better? What the fuck are you doing about it? I hope your doing something, because blogging ain’t gonna do shit.
Mike E said
The answer is yes.
James B. said
Just wanted to chime in and say I think Mike Ely has done a tremendous job throughout this thread in not belittling U.S. soldiers, while at the same time bringing out very forcefully that the peoples of Iraq and “AfPak” are still the far greater victims of Amerikan imperialism. I have a tendency in my own arguments to bend the stick in the direction of denying the humanity of U.S. troops, in an overreaction to a popular culture (including most of what passes for an antiwar movement) in this country that simply erases the colonized peoples entirely. How Mike can remain so patient, restrained and empathetic in the face of so much imperialist chauvinism as well as plain stupidity (I’m thinking in particular of Joey who laughably assumes this to be a pro-Democrat blog and spins his arguments likewise) still confounds me.
Thaddeus said
James B., I’d like to echo your sentiments. Mike E’s self-control is nothing less than stunning!!
I want to respond to some of the posts, but some of the disconnects to points Mike raises make my blood boil to the point where I can’t think straight enough to organize my thoughts.
I mean you don’t have to read Marx and Engels to understand what Mike’s getting at in this thread, but it would help. Actually, the 2 key texts to read that defend Mike’s position are the document that built up popular support for the ratification of the US Constitution, “The Federalist Papers” by T. Hamiliton (1st Treasury Sec. and the face on the $10 bill), J. Madison (I’m pretty certain the 4th President, but don’t quote me), and J. Jay (I really don’t recall what he did. I think he was on the 1st Supreme Court and I know for sure he was one of the signatories to the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War.) and the US Constitution itself. The more important of the 2 to read and understand Mike E’s position in this thread is “The Federalist Papers”.
You have to understand that the articles and amendments of the Constitution each support on another. The Constitution is a single negotiated contract with different sides making concessions to get a single contract that everybody with sign. So eventhough one article is dealing with one subject and has a clause that says “etc., etc., etc. . . . shall promote commerce . . .”, and an entirely different article says, “shall support and defend the Constitution” those are both clauses of a single negotiated contract. And let’s be clear about the definition of the words. “Shall” doesn’t mean “should” or “will” in the vague future sense of some unspecified time, maybe 100 yrs. from now, “I’ll get around to it, if I ever find the time”. No. No, “shall” in the Constitution means “must”. “Shall” in the Constitution means any timeframe is irrelevant, whatever has to happen has to be made to happen. So understand that the Constitution not only requires that US commerce be promoted it requires that US Commerce be promoted by the SAME MEANS that protect and the defend the document. Because promotion of US Commerce is PART OF THE DOCUMENT. And what protects and defends the US Constitution. Thank you, James. Thanks. You’re reading my mind man. A nuclear arsenal to the tune of roughly 10,000 warheads and half as many intercontinental ballistic missles to carry ‘em. The problem with the Constitution is that you have to understand that England was only able to keep up with the military technological advances on Continental Europe by having the MONEY to copy or improve upon shipbuilding, cheaper gun production, cheaper iron production, medicines, etc. If England isn’t militarily on the ball, France or Spain whip up some claim to the English throne and invade. The only way to get the money keep continental Europe from invading England is to sell goods to continental Europe. For a long time handguns and cannon where only auxilary weapons because they were so unreliable. But when European warfare switched PRIMARILY to handguns and cannon is a MAJOR reason and roughly about when England had to export or be conquered. It’s not the only reason, but it’s the biggest reason. So that’s what mid-1500′s early mid-1600′s. The Constitution is 1789. So the mindset that economic reality required England to have was transferred to the colonies as part of England and written into the US Constitution. The US was dependant on export to militarily prevent European invasion until the early 1800′s when the NORTHERN states built up a powerful manufacturing base. That’s when the North doesn’t need export to survive. The Southern states (especially Alabama)don’t begin to catch up to the North in manufacturing until around the 1840′s and 1850′s. The South’s going to overtake the North in manufacturing due to slave labor. The North wants to protect its manufacturing base and begins to undermine slavery, namely by not allowing any new states to enter the union as slave states. That prevents the South from promoting commerce. The South cries “Foul play!” and secedes. You know the rest.
I didn’t mean to go into a history lesson. I simply wanted to say that Mike is backed by a lot evidence. And he’s not just taking his position in this thread justice to be stubborn. So Mike, I wasn’t able to write as much as I wanted to write in support of your position, but I did read most of your posts and I agree with 98% to 99% of what you said in this thread.
Cultural Animal said
Can’t you find a photo of somebody whose family doesn’t object? How you gonna build a revolution by disrespect?
Thaddeus said
I went back and took a look at the Constitution. The exact words that are relevant to this thread are found in Article 1, Section 8.
“The Congress shall have power . . .
(1) to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
(2) to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed onthe high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”
First we address the 1st clause:
Whether you’re in business as a tobacco plantation owner, a silversmith, or a fisherman, you have operational expenses which are either rising or falling and sales which in turn are either rising or falling. In the end, you rarely break even. You generally either have enough profit to make the effort worth the time or you have a loss, which wasn’t the business plan when you started. So let me get this straight, US voters elect candidates to Congress in the hope that those candidates will pass laws that run US voters out of business?? What?? The preamble to the Constitution clearly states, ” . . . promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty . . .” Come on now, I know that language is vague but that’s gotta mean at least making enough profit to make the effort worth your while. The blessings of liberty sure the hell can’t mean hunger and homelessness?? Well, alright then. At least we got that part straight. The US Constitution doesn’t have jack to do with either breakin’ even or goin’ bankrupt. And if it doesn’t mean those two there’s only one thing left. If it doesn’t mean breakin’ even or goin’ bankrupt, I guess that pretty much narrows it down to what the US Constitution is all about. Well, alright.
And before we go any further, lets clarify a few things. According to Adam Smith’s arguments efficiency CREATES greater efficiency. Any division or specialization of labor causes a further division or specialization of labor to support or replace the original division or specialization of labor. And the creation of anything BY DEFINITION cannot mean on balance and as a whole a reduction, loss or less of anything. By definition the creation of anything must mean on balance and as a whole the EXPANSION, GAIN, or MORE of something. There’re different forms of capitalism. But since the publication of the “Wealth of Nations” in 1776, British and US capitalism both have been expressly shaped and formed around what were considered to be the most useful ideas of that publication. True enough, whenever there’s been a bank scare, an economic depression, or a competing economic model (e.g., socialism, communism), both countries made ever greater modifications to reequip the basic 1776 model of Anglo-American capitalism to weather the series of economic and political threats the two countries have had to confront (twice as enemies) since then. But let’s be clear. The basic 1776 model is the half-guiding doctrine/half-arbitrary defense of what is right and wrong and what is fair and unfair as it regards distribution and possession. If Anglo-American capitalism were purely and solely an economic ideaology, then the US and Britain wouldn’t ‘ve had to change their minds every 20 or 30 yrs. about what it means, in order to keep it consistent with practical policy. What?? You’re supposed to think before you act?? But half the time since 1776, Anglo-American capitalism has acted and then arbitrarily changed their mind about what capitalism means so that the thought remains consistent with whatever ADDITIONAL political exceptions they think they’ll need to make to economic policy for the next few generations. But the 1776 model REQUIRES EXPANSION, EXPANSION, EXPANSION.
So export for security reasons did start off as the biggest reason UNTO ITSELF for England to pursue its economic policies. But by the time we get to the US and the Constitution, the security reason for both the US and England has an economic ideaology embedded in it.
Now we address the 2nd clause:
The library’s about to close so I have to make it quick. To define not only what “piracy” is but also to define what “offence” is and the “Law of Nations”. We won’t even talk about the “punish” part because that’s all too obvious. But the Constitution says Congress as sovereign power will define what’s right and wrong in its eyes anywhere in the world. And that includes business opportunities and whether or not the deals themselves have been broken. At any rate business must expand, and if necessary by any means necessary.
RBizzie said
At the time of the photo he was enlisted in the Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, and he was ALIVE. They should not have kept the photo from the American public because what happens to OUR MILITARY, IS OUR BUSINESS As a veteran of the war in Iraq I saw MUCH MUCH MUCH worse on both sides and I think if what was really happening there was made public like the Iraqi woman who was dead in the street and her head crushed by an M1A1 abhrams tank, or the small boy who was burned beyond recognition and killed along with his father for driving through a checkpoint when their vehicle was blown up. I am sure that there are like casualities in afghanistan.
I am not one to be pro war or anit war as I am a veteran but what I am is certain that myself or anyone else who took an oath to serve our country is sent in to harms was as a LAST resort and for the right reasons….not that reasons for most military makes a difference because we are doing our jobs for much smaller reasons than the ubiquitous “fighting for our freedom” mostly reasons like survival because people in these places ARE trying to kill you and for each other to take care of the soldier to the right and left of you. That is what WAR boils down to for the combatant. I can PROMISE you I was not out there thinking “Wow I am preserving the freedom of Americans and all of those who love freedom everywhere!” I was thinking about how can I get through this day without being hurt or killed, how can I get my mission done so that the soldiers forward of me have adequate communications so that they do not get killed, and how can I make sure the health and welfare of those in my charge is being met on the very basic of levels. Like cracking a joke just so I can see my soldiers faces form a smile instead of just looking at apprhension, fear, and raw nerves on those faces.
War is truly hell and I think that there should be photos of Americans getting killed because it may make people think twice about who they vote for…because who you put in office wether you like it or not determines your stance on war. If you put a person into office who wants to send americas youth off to war and then act like its a video game and the dead just fade away then that is how you wanted it to be. I am sorry for his families loss but I have to real about this and I think I would embrace the photo and use it as a way to really wake people up and make them think before they allow the government to control the media and cover up the truth.
Mike E said
Thank you, RBizzie
future68w said
I concur with RBizzie.
Thaddeus said
Here’s a third vote for RBizzie.
Robjzgtr said
Freedom of the press is a guarantee of the constitution. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it or read it. It’s obvious that the politicians don’t want this freedom because it goes against their interests and their agendas. If politicians sons were sent home in coffins how long do you think a war would last?
Marine said
You wouldn’t know that he was dying unless somebody told you that? Obviously you’ve never taken incoming fire, much less seen anybody violently killed. Its completely obvious that his wounds are in all likelihood fatal, and the expression on his face is one of complete agony and of one who is already losing his grip on life. You’re freaking disgusting. The American people have no need to see images like this except those few who derive some sort of pleasure from this, or those who want to use these images for their anti-war dogma. Go ahead, steal this picture, tout it as the unbearable cost of war. Those of us with balls will continue to fight for your freedom to do so.
William said
I have a Picture of an American Eagle on my facebook Wall with this inscription under it…
You Little Inferior/Insignificant Life Forms will Cow Tow and Comply with Our Every Demand or Else…… We will shun you, demean you, humiliate you, crush your homes and imprison your children indefinitely until you Cry Uncle!! When ever we can Craft an Excuse we will Kill You, War is Peace/War is Peace/War is Peace ♥
Christopher Rickman said
Bernie… I heard about these pictures in 2009, but only just saw them today. Bernie was the purest soul I have ever met. It’s a bleeding shame that of all the Marines in history to get dealt a bad blow by the media, it had to be Bernie. Against the wishes of his own family! And the Secretary of Defense!
Sure, this is the real, grim side of combat. This is about as true as it gets, to catch the sudden, final moments of a warrior’s life on film. But these are among the most sacred moments warriors can have together- the final ones. To have these moments blown up all over the media in this fashion is absolutely deplorable and, as one of my junior Marines said, voyeuristic.
Bernie, I’m sorry. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there with you. I’m sorry this animal was right there with his camera. I’m sorry for the way you’ve been dishonored. While I’m sure a great majority of us will eventually end up in Hell(where they have a special seat for the publisher of these photos), I can take some comfort in knowing you have a place next to the Heavenly Father.
Semper Fidelis, Bernie.