posted
The hanging uniform is stating that the only thing coming from this war is a death list, a photographic display is different as Dagonee said because of the abscence of a effigy. Though a photographic display may only show one side of a story, it is a least showing part of the story, and is not just a blatant statement of opinion.
posted
Scott is right that there is a difference, and I think it is dangerous to confuse the difference.
Do you believe that all war is above protest? Do you believe that criticism of the Bush administration is disrespectful of the bodyguards, secretaries, or cooks in the White House? Should we never speak out against policies and actions we feel are dangerous to our country because that would be disrespectful of the men and women who simply work there?
I think it could be argued that the display in question was actually acutely respectful of our troops. I think the protest is stating that our soldiers lives are being squandered. That might be disrespectful to those who think all the American deaths in Iraq have been offset by the gains. And some soldiers might believe that too. But isn't it actually respectful of our soldiers and their sacrifices to question if their ultimate sacrifice isn't actually being squandered?
Now you might think that this was a distasteful way to pose the question, but I believe that the shock value was necessary for it to even be noticed. Current zeitgeist, at least in this administration, has so discounted the value of the opinion of nearly half the country that this guy probably felt he needed something that would scream from his rooftop just to be heard at all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I was a United States Maring for seven years, and I fought on the ground in Iraq, and have recently returned home. I lost my left leg below the knee due to an IED Improvised Explosive Device. As a soldier in Iraq I saw things I thought I would never see, the birth of a free nation, I saw schools built, infrastructure, I saw the Iraqis joining together as one person to rebuild their nation from the ruin it had become in the years of dictatorship. This mans statement is one of the singularly most insulting things I have seen in the last few years. I was proud to be there, the civilians I met were glad that I was there, they took us into their hearts, and gave us a home away from home. Each man in my unit would have been glad to give up his life for those civilians that we knew. We grew to have such a bond with those around us, they became like family. On the day I was wounded, I was saved not by my fellow soldiers, they too were all out of action as we were on patrol far from help. The villagers came out to us, put out the fires, and carried us on sleds to the nearest hospital, I owe them my life. I would be proud to give up my life for any of those people. And yet even those this man who knows not what we do due to one sided reporting by the media slanders the loss of life by my friends both Marines and Iraqi, I would also gladly die to defend his right to slander me.
posted
What's wrong with a blatant statement of opinion? That criticism baffles me WAY more than the controvery being discussed here.
I think the protest could be read in more than just ONE way, anyway. It's an image of a dead soldier. The body is hanging. Where have we seen images of hanging bodies before and who hung them? Maybe he's saying that the war is only serving to increase hatred of the US and animosity toward our troops. The "Tax Dollars" quote strikes me as an indictment of us as citizens. Clearly not enough people who now are critical of the war were vocal enough about it to have prevented it. Maybe this guy is saying "and for you who don't care that our soldiers are dying (or think it's a noble sacrifice) maybe you should consider that it's hitting you in the pocket book. Will THAT get your attention?"
NOTE: I'm not stating any of that as my opinion. I'm simply stating what I think might be the opinion of the protestor assuming he thought deeply about how he delivered his message.
Personally, though, I'm not that offended, but principally because I don't see this as an affront to our soldiers at all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanging typically denotes intentional death inflicted on the hung person, with that person being a passive actor with no choice.
You really don't see the difference between a statement that the government is intentionally killing soldiers for the purpose of killing them and presentations demonstrations of the cost of the war in human lives?
It's disrepsectful because it removes the element of choice and volunteerism from the soldier, turning him into a mere victim.
posted
My last post is all I really have left to say on this subject, but I might as well say this. It is his right to say whetever he wants, it's not our business. Vote.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now I'm pretty sure trespassing is crime. I like this part of the story. "There's an Iraqi flag in a window and the homeowner also put up a Palestinian flag in the front window, which has his jewish neighbors across the street perplexed. Marque Cohen/Neighbor said "Both my wife and I are jewish we found it very offensive." What's offensive about a Palestinian flag?
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
HOS, if I say that although some good might ultimately come from the war, I firmly believe it was ill advised and untimely and sets a dangerous precident for international relations and was thus a mis-use of our troops, do you feel that I have personally insulted you?
I don't in any way discount your experience or your sacrifice. It's good to have the confirmation that people are generally good everywhere, regardless of the particular trials they have to suffer. I think it is heroic that you chose to serve and stuck with your obligation during a time of war. I was an airman in the USAF for 6 years and did two tours of duty in South Korea. I have great respect for US soldiers. But even heroes can report events with a certain myopia.
quote: As a soldier in Iraq I saw things I thought I would never see, the birth of a free nation, I saw schools built, infrastructure, I saw the Iraqis joining together as one person to rebuild their nation from the ruin it had become in the years of dictatorship.
From most accounts I'm aware of, we're the ones who necessitated much if not most of the rebuilding. Certainly we're the ones who made it necessary to rebuild themselves as a nation. Whether that is a "free" nation and how long it will remain so remains very much to be seen. I hope it does remain free. I hope the Iraqi people prosper. I hope the troops come home quickly. That does not close the debate on whether the war was the best choice to have made at the time, nor whether any individual lives lost on either side weren't too high a price to pay if other means might have worked.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest difference between that and a photo display is that fact that this man's neighbors have to put up with it day in and day out.
You have a right to have whatever opinion you want to have, but I have the right to hold my own opinions, and I resent that fact that he would feel free to impose some dort of one way "conversation" with the public in this manner.
I don't care what his views are, nor will I ever.
Does he have the right to do this? Yes
Should he? If he really wants to, as long as he accepts the fallout from it.
You can't make a contraversial public statement like that and expect everyone to accept it without question. He did this for shock value, plain and simple; there would be no other reason to do it. So if he (or anyone else) complains about the repercussions it rings false.
If you expest people to be civil to you and respect your opinions you have to be the same to them. If you feel you MUST make this type of statement, that is fine..you have that right.
But that right goes both ways. To do this and then complain about harassment is disingenuous at best.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Karl I found no offense from you, but from the mans blatant direspect for our soldiers sacrifice. Your arguments have been objective for the most part. An as to the rebuilding of a nation, no, where I was there was little to no bombing during the war, but during the reign of Saddam Husseing and his nefarious cohorts, where there had once been three schools, there were now none due to no funding and conscription of the educators, there was no power, no infrastruture, and seventy percent of their crops went to a government storage facility leaving them starving, and no these were not Kurds. During my year there, we built five schools with our own hands, with help from the civilian poulation and the army corp of engineers. We brought in electricity, new farm equipment, and now due to our efforts there are two elementaries, one middle, and two high schools, the second middle is under way, and they now are more than substenance farmers, they now sell theirs goods for great profit in markets near Basrah.
quote: You really don't see the difference between a statement that the government is intentionally killing soldiers for the purpose of killing them and presentations demonstrations of the cost of the war in human lives?
Presumably this was in response to my post. I wrote:
quote: Where have we seen images of hanging bodies before and who hung them? Maybe he's saying that the war is only serving to increase hatred of the US and animosity toward our troops.
I don't see where what I've written parses with your re-statement of my supposed opinion. You do underscore the ambiguity of the statement by the protestor, however. It quite possible that he didn't mean anything I suggested and that he was in fact trying to be offensive. I'll grant that's possible, but I don't think it's patently offense.
I don't think this is at all a statement that the government is "intentionally killing soldiers for the purpose of killing them". I think you have to make a very giant stretch to reach that conclusion. I don't think anyone has even remotely suggested this. What has been suggested, though, is that perhaps our government has wasted our soldiers lives and our tax dollars in an ill advised and very possibly unnecessary war. Does this protest express this? I think it might. Is that a legitimate opinion and one I could respect? I think it is. Was the method appropriate to the message? I think it might have been done better and with less ambiguity, but I don't find the method patently offensive.
quote: It's disrepsectful because it removes the element of choice and volunteerism from the soldier, turning him into a mere victim.
Our soldiers exercise their volunteerism when they enlist. Beyond that, they have very little element of choice. When they volunteer, they trust that their lives will not be squandered. If they are put in harms way unnecessarily, they have been turned into "mere victims" by the very people they trusted not to do so. Whether this applies to the war in Iraq is precisely the subject of the protest. This also underscores that the protest was more about the WAR than about any individual soldiers.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He chose a symbol of inentional murder. That's what is offensive. Whether he meant that or not, the symbology is there. He used a symbol most associated in this country with the lynching of black people - the complete denial of due process or even meaningful access to this country's civil processes.
It doesn't matter if he intended to adopt that baggage - it's present in the display.
That's why people (at least me) find it offensive.
quote: Our soldiers exercise their volunteerism when they enlist. Beyond that, they have very little element of choice. When they volunteer, they trust that their lives will not be squandered. If they are put in harms way unnecessarily, they have been turned into "mere victims" by the very people they trusted not to do so. Whether this applies to the war in Iraq is precisely the subject of the protest. This also underscores that the protest was more about the WAR than about any individual soldiers.
Every marine in my platoon reinlisted the day they were eligible to do so, and at that time we had all been in Iraq for several months with pretty regular combat as well as the death of several friends behind us, each of us had to opportunity to get out, but none of us did. And I would be there still but for the abscence of a neccesary body part.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
HOS, thank you for your last post. [edit: penultimate post] I agree that this sort of news is drastically under-reported. If the people are as appreciative of your sacrifices as you say, then you have done a great service not only to them but to our country in terms of "winning hearts and minds".
I do truly feel for you in the loss of your limb. I can't imagine the difficulties you have and will face because of it. This also underscores that the sacrifice of our soldiers goes on and on well after the wars are over. All the more reason to hold our leaders supremely accountable for how they are used.
[Edit: as to your last post, that is laudable of you and shows your support of your work and belief in what you were doing. This sentiment is not universal among the troops, your experience notwithstanding. In this war, I can't blame any soldiers who would have been glad to leave as soon as they could, any more than I'd disparage you for staying.]
posted
My thanks Karl, I am getting along fine, the military provides top notch prosthetics and I am using the GI bill to go to college to beocme a police officer, hell I can still out run my brother in a footrace so I should be fine.
But anyway, yes I agree our leaders should be held responsible, but in this case I believe that our soldiers were used to do the right thing, WMDs or not, Iraq was a bad off as Bush made it out to be, and withthe elections, I truly hope that they can create a self sustaing free state.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I don't doubt you and many others find it offensive. I clearly see how it might be found offensive, especially now that you've clarified what you take away from it. I just don't think it is patently offensive and I didn't see what you saw when I first saw the pictures. What you have expressed is much more thoughtful than most of the "I'm offended" posts, however. You might be right that he intended the message that offends you, but I'd bet he simply didn't think about it in that way, precisely.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the soldiers are not 'dying for us?'
If there is no threat to America. . . if the war is a cover up to gain wealth for Bush and his cronies. . . if the White House lied (as opposed to merely being mistaken) about our purposes there. . .
posted
Get real, Jay. You like Dubya killing off US troops. Makes ya feel like a real man "rah rah"ing way up in bleachers and taking credit for their bravery.
posted
I doubt they were caught. If they were, trespass and petty larceny - misdemeanors, probably no jail time assuming no priors.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apectre, I was there, he didnt kill us off, we fought with honor and with pride and we do so still.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
If I'm reading the guy's intent correctly, I think what he was trying to say was pretty close to what punwit first said. If so, I think it's an important point that is being suppressed* in most official channels. However, the guy's choice of ways to express it was very poorly made. It comes across initially as him wanting to hang soldiers and then, even on deliberation, still is (as Dag pointed out) a pretty bad symbol for his complaint (unles h'es trying to say that the American government or it's people are trying to get the soldiers killed.
* The factual reporting is there, but the emotionally resonant images like what this guy seems to be going for have been excised.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope Dag I believe Squick was referring to Hermocrates of Syracuse as BC/Jarhead etc. As I recall he slipped once and signed Bean Counter to a Hermocrates post.
posted
I went back and searched where I thought it was, but several posts have been edited and it could have been deleted. I wish I had facts to back up my recollection though. If the accusation is false I would deeply regret it.
posted
Nope, I didn't see that. If we deleted all the stuff up to my initial post and BC hasn't seen them yet, I might be able to show you what I'm talking about, but I'm pretty sure that chance is gone. *shrug* No big deal really.
posted
To be fair, I was never quite sure that BC “admitted” that. Right after someone accused him of being Disgruntled Postman, he posted something along the lines of, “yeah, I’ve been lying about what I do this whole time, I’m really an upset postal worker from [some town]. If you want to send mail I’m sure this guy would be glad to get it.” Followed by a name and armed forces mailing address. I think the post may have been an attempt at sarcasm based on the “Disgruntled Postman” accusation.
I didn’t post at the time, or the last few times this has been brought up, because I think he was an inconsiderate and disruptive poster and I’m glad he’s gone. But I’ve been feeling a little guilty about that. I know he was using at least two IDs, because I (along with others) saw him accidentally sign the wrong name to one of them, and he was definitely using the two IDs to manipulate conversations. I still think he was a troll, but he might have been an actual military troll rather than a civilian impersonating a soldier troll.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's in poor taste. My first impression is uncertainty as to the meaning of the gesture. It very clearly (to me) can be interpreted the way that Trisha did. In fact, that's the direction I lean toward. I can understand how others view it differently, but the very ambiguity makes it a poor choice.
I agree with those who have said that they recognize their right to protest like this, but would reply with their feet or their dollars (or their own voices). I don't think this is contrary to the principals of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not equate to lack of consequences for speech. The government should not interfere. The neighbors shouldn't vandalize his property. The law should not be broken. But if people want to express their opposition to this message in other ways, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having taken a day to ponder on this topic I see several areas of discussion. Originally I was under the impression that the outrage was fueled by disgust at the message that the Pearcys were sending. I wasn't surprised that some saw it as an indictment of our troops but I surely don't see it that way and unless we hear it from the horses' mouth we won't know for sure.
Following that line of thought leads us to Dagonee who said,
quote: I assumed it was about the government, and I still found it offensive.
So now we see that at least some of us don't hate the message but, rather the vehicle.(I'm assuming this was what Dag meant, although I could be wrong) I'd suggest that this falls under the category of poor choice. I can see this line of reasoning but I am still perplexed at the amount of anger generated.
I guess the point I'm getting at is that the level of greivance must be a combination of the vehicle as well as the message.
*ends blundering about blindly trying to make some sense*
Edit to clarify that the poor choice comment was directed at the Pearcy's method of protesting and not Dag's opinion.
posted
I am offended by the style of the message, but not the substance, assuming that the issue is the misuse of the American military for selfish or foolish purposes rather than any misconduct on the part of the troops. I agree that there are so many better ways of expressing this, some of which are sufficiently thought-provoking. The "Your Tax Dollars at Work" on a flag-draped coffin, for example.
The hanging American soldier leaves too much open to interpretation, and the desecration of the uniform is distasteful to me. Sure, there are some soldiers who do horrible things, but many (I'd guess most) are good and honorable people. If you're going to hang an effigy, hang someone who deserves it.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, that isn't all that happened. He signed BC to disgruntled postmans post, and then a few posts later said, oops I guess the secret is out now.
The he went on to "admit" that he wasn't a soldier and wasn't about to head to Iraq, as he claimed to be doing.
Then he posted saying that he didn't know why people were saying that, could they please get back on topic....with a snicker at the bottom.
He was Disgruntled Postman as well as BC, although he never admitted he was Jar Head.
No doubt about it.
I have no idea if he is currently posting as anyone else here, I must have missed it.
One thing I do know, as my aunt was a Marine for years, and was one of the highest ranking Rapid Deployment Officers .........the Marines missed their recruiting goals for the first time since Vietnam this year. At least that is what she told me.
Also, the Marines retention rates are lower then they have ever been, and re-enlisting is a moot point....the Marines aren't letting people go any more than the other branches are, they are forcing people to stay in even though their term of service is up.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
