Monday May 28, 2012

After 18-year ban, media see return of U.S. war dead

World ( 89 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

89 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    likeitis

    Too late.

    But at least Obama respects our war dead enough that he allows the country to see what their decisions have wrought, instead of hiding the bodies in the closet like a dirty little secret.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    What an insult to the families of those who died.

    No class.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Media coverage will be on a permission granted basis, nullifying teleprompter's comment.

  • 0

    cleo

    The sudden trip can also be expensive and logistically difficult to arrange.

    The richest nation in the world can afford to wage two unnecessary wars (one and a half, at least) but it can't afford to fly a handful of family members to meet the mortal remains of the people who pay the real price of war?

  • 0

    LoveUSA

    Now many people can share the sadness and the tragedy of the hero's family and see that war is not a game but a untimely loss of a young life. Hopefully many people will understand that USA and other countries shall stop the wars.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    As long as the families agree, I don't see a problem with it. I think if I had a son who died in a war, I would allow this.

    The richest nation in the world can afford to wage two unnecessary wars (one and a half, at least) but it can't afford to fly a handful of family members to meet the mortal remains of the people who pay the real price of war?" Are you telling me that the military won't fly family members to a funeral of a serviceman or they won't pay for the remains to be flown to a place of choice?

  • 0

    cleo

    Are you telling me that the military won't fly family members to a funeral of a serviceman or they won't pay for the remains to be flown to a place of choice?

    The article says Few families now choose to attend, in part because doing so means leaving home and the support system of friends at a difficult time. The sudden trip can also be expensive and logistically difficult to arrange. I was asking if it was true that the military leaves the bereaved to struggle through on their own. I would have thought the least they could do is fly the family to meet the fallen soldier, if that's what they wanted.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Cleo, the article says families aren't paid to attend, "the brief, solemn ritual in which honor guards carry the caskets off a plane." You said, "I was asking if it was true that the military leaves the bereaved to struggle through on their own." Naturally your statement is an embellishment so no, it's not true.

  • 0

    cleo

    the article says families aren't paid to attend

    No, it says, and I copy-paste again, The sudden trip can also be expensive and logistically difficult to arrange. That sounds to me like the family is left to make their own arrangements and foot the bill themselves. If they want to meet their loved one off the plane but can't afford it, then tough. I was asking for confirmation of that. It was a question, not a statement. Are you stating that the military does make all the arrangements for the bereaved family, and picks up the bill? If so, then the article is misleading.

  • 0

    cracaphat

    If you can stomach the realities of war,don't start one under false pretenses.You can't have it both ways.

  • 0

    cracaphat

    can't*

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    Everyone of our war dead a heroes welcome and not hidden from us. These men and women who served and died need not be shelved but be respected. They need to return home with honor and our respect. They died in our name and we must show them what they deserve, a heroes home coming!

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Cleo: That sounds to me like the family is left to make their own arrangements and foot the bill themselves.

    Which is exactly what it is, if they choose to go.

  • 0

    cleo

    Which is exactly what it is

    So, if the family can't afford to make the trip to meet their loved one, they get no financial help from the military. That's what I said in the first place. Where's the embellishment?

  • 0

    timorborder

    This is crxpola on a grand scale. If the country (the politicians, the people, public opinion) are going to put young men and women in harm's way, they also be open to the sometimes unsavory results that such policies bring. While giving the utmost consideration to the thoughts of the next of kin, what are they really worried about? A negative impact on recruiting? I went to my first military funeral at the ripe of age of 4 years old (my fathers). Although I didn't really know what was happening, the event did not traumatize to the point of not seeking a career in the military. I have been to a number of similar occasions since, including funerals for people who were killed following orders I had giving. No skin off my nose. By sanitizing the fact that people get killed, I think the country is both dishonoring the dead and the next of kin who have made these sacrifices. Indeed, when the military starts blacking out such events, then you have to be worried.

  • 0

    Nessie

    No dead for 18 years, and now dead people. Thanks for nothing, Obama, you monster.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Good. So long as the families agree to it then I think it can be an important and valuable lesson that war is tragedy, plain and simple, and this is the result; youth as simply meat packed in a box... and for nothing.

    Sorry, but there is no valid reason for war, and I'm glad that some people will choose to let their children bear that lesson. If people want to honour the fallen and be proud, that is of course their choice, so long as their are no misconceptions like they died for some grand cause and/or their sacrifice was 'worth it', etc. Hopefully some young people will see it an get scared off of joining.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    And by the way, I know people are going to jump on me for that comment, but believe it or not I am not dishonouring the troops themselves, but saying how stupid the governments are. In the case of most troops they are taking orders when they die. Many probably believed they were fighting for a cause, and all were tricked into thinking it.

    Anyway, it IS honourable of the families to do this... those who do. Those who do not, it is within their right and I respect that, too.

  • 0

    likeitis

    teleprompter: What an insult to the families of those who died. No class.

    I am completely at a loss to understand this. Can someone help me out? They are not televising autopsies. Its flag draped coffins.

    I suppose putting the names of fallen soldiers on a memorial wall is equally insulting???

  • 0

    adaydream

    These men and women have given the ultimate. They have gone and served for their country and people want to bring their dead bodies back into the country under the cloak of darkness. < :-)

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Some on here are far to sensitive to this issue, and it's not your permission to give -- it's the FAMILIES'.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Some on here are far to sensitive to this issue, and it's not your permission to give -- it's the FAMILIES'.

    The hell it ain't Smith, I'm a veteran, I KNOW, we all are a FAMILY, the last thing thing they want to see is being used by folks like you to score political points.

    Fact Sir.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: Sorry, bud. I don't care if you once worked at dinky donuts and you want pictures of things that went wrong in the fryer up on billboards; if Johnny Jenkin's parents want his casket shown, that is their right, and sailwind has ZERO say in it -- ZERO. If one of your family goes off to Iraq and Afghanistan and heaven forbid gets killed, you can choose then to hide their bodies in the dark and show what happened to the world.

    Until then, I'm sorry, but you have bubkas to say about the people who actually CAN choose. Opinion is one thing, saying you have the right to choose for someone else is completely different.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "the last thing thing they want to see is being used by folks like you to score political points."

    Wrong. They want the message to go out that war is wrong, and an ultimate waste of human life, resources, and whatever else. They don't want to hide the bodies in some media blackout so that no one can see what happens in war, and so the government can condemn these boys and girls to death and simply cover up the nasty bits. They want to score HEAPS of political points... it won't bring their kids back, but it could help the kids of others from making the same mistakes.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "war is wrong"

    Even if it means being subjugated or killed?

  • 0

    sailwind

    Wrong. They want the message to go out that war is wrong, and an ultimate

    waste of human life, resources, and whatever else. They don't want to hide the bodies in some media blackout so that no one can see what happens in war, and so the government can condemn these boys and girls to death and simply cover up the nasty bits. They want to score HEAPS of political points... it won't bring their kids back, but it could help the kids of others from making the same mistakes.

    Nice POLITICAL POINT SMITH.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sarge: "Even if it means being subjugated or killed?"

    like in war? dumb question, sarge.

    sailwind: "Nice POLITICAL POINT SMITH"

    I couldn't care less if you think being anti-war and the fact that unlike you, it seems, I would rather have these young believe alive than die in said wars = being political. It sure as hell beats the political points YOU'RE trying to score! (don't show these young boys' caskets! That might make people not want to fight!).

    Give it a rest, sailwind. I'm sorry for whatever you've suffered in war, but if you want to take that out on someone, take it out on the fools who led you on the fool's errand. You bought into their spiels and 'political points', as did these young people duped into dying overseas for naught. You were fortunate to survive, while they paid the ultimate price for their leaders' stupidity. If the parents want to bring that point home, instead of hiding it, that's their right -- not yours. Bottom line, and indeed, 'fact sir'.

    Anyway, to get back to the article directly, I think these people are amazing for letting the bodies of their loves ones (or caskets, anyway) to be shown coming back home -- to send home the grief in that hopefully others will not make the same mistake and commit to war when they should be celebrating life. And no, they are not celebrating life because others allowed them to; people who think that suffer from the same delusions that allow for war in the first place (and hence they believe justify that line of thinking).

  • 0

    sailwind

    You bought into their spiels and 'political points', as did these young people duped into dying overseas for naught.

    I'll let how insulting that is speak for it itself.

    Moderator: Readers, enough of this petty sniping at each other.

  • 0

    Madverts

    smith,

    When you're in the army you go anywhere you're ordered.

  • 0

    moonbeams

    What an insult to the families of those who died. No class.

    Um..

    After receiving permission from family members, the military opened Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to the media for the return of the body of Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Va.

    Myers’ family was the first to be asked under a new Pentagon policy whether it wished to have media coverage of the arrival of a loved one at the Dover base mortuary

  • 0

    Sarge

    "dumb question, sarge"

    Really? And if we hadn't gone to war ( or, as I prefer to say, fight back ), say as recently as 2001, we'd have the Taliban and Osama still prancing around Afghanistan at will, and we'd have been attacked again and again.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "I'll let how insulting that is speak for it itself."

    Anyway, sailwind, if it's not true, show me the proof. I can show you a casket (thanks to these honourable folk allowing it to be).

    "The ban was put in place by President George H W Bush in 1991, at the time of the Persian Gulf War. From the start, it was cast as a way to shield grieving families."

    This is when the REAL political farce began. It was to 'shield potential soldier candidates from seeing the true horrors of war'.

    "There have been some exceptions since 1991, most notably in 1996 when President Bill Clinton attended the arrival of the remains of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 32 others killed in a plane crash in Croatia. In 2000, the Pentagon distributed photographs of the arrival of remains of those killed in the bombing of the USS Cole and in 2001, the Air Force distributed a photograph of the remains of a victim of the Sept 11 attack on the Pentagon."

    Why is it the Republicans, who start these wars by the way, are so against it, and Dems make the exceptions? (now THAT is political!)

    "But critics argued the government was trying to hide the human cost of war. President Barack Obama had asked for a review of the ban, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the blanket restriction made him uncomfortable."

    Good on Obama. You should never hide the human cost of war. (partly political)

    "Under the new policy, families of fallen servicemen will decide whether to allow media coverage of their return. If several bodies arrive on the same flight, news coverage will be allowed only for those whose families have given permission."

    No more can be said. No naysayers have any right to declare that this is wrong if the families say it's okay. Bottom line. They can be against it in terms of opinion, but they cannot change anything these families choose to do as though it were a 'right' of theirs.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sarge: "Really? And if we hadn't gone to war ( or, as I prefer to say, fight back ), say as recently as 2001, we'd have the Taliban and Osama still prancing around Afghanistan at will, and we'd have been attacked again and again."

    I'm going to let the others rip you up for this one. I'll just point out that both Osama and the Taliban are alive and well, now not only in Afghanistan (well, in the latter case anyway, although it can't be disproven that Osama is not there), but in Pakistan, and a whole lot of other places they weren't before.

    So yes, dumb question. Even worse follow-up.

    I will add, though, that the ultimate folly of thinking such as yours is that you assume that by my condemning war in general I saw 'no one should be fighting against "the enemy"'. That's not the case, I say (and I'm sounding like skipthesong a bit here), that the SAME goes for "the enemy", and as I said before the logic that allows for war is the logic that leads terrorists to do what they do. War is not one-sided, and both leaders/groups are more or less the same when it comes down to it -- they are willing to destroy what is good and pursue it with what is bad (war).

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    madverts: "When you're in the army you go anywhere you're ordered."

    I know, that's why I said that I don't dishonour the soldiers, but think it's the leaders who are fools. The only thing foolish is that they join to fight, and that's usually because they are lied to, or at least not told the truth. Part of the truth is being shown with the footage now being allowed by families, no? Do you think when they set up the video game combat simulations are recruiting stations they WANT these kind of pictures floating around? NO! They want to paint a rosy picture of war and cover up the corpses it leaves in its wake.

    I don't blame the grunts for coming home dead or scarred; I blame the morons who put them there.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Well then it's un-fair to say a lot of them were duped. I imagine the large majority of soldiers sent to Iraq were already enlisted men and women.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    madverts: "Well then it's un-fair to say a lot of them were duped."

    Fair enough. Only those duped into joining AFTER the fact.

    "I imagine the large majority of soldiers sent to Iraq were already enlisted men and women."

    And I have ZERO doubt it's a coincidence that the US military has seen its highest suicide rate and AWOL stats in the last few years than in numerous years before that combined. Well, until Obama came in and promised a time-table.

    If you think I like any of what's happening in the ME or the military, you're mistaken. I don't like US servicemen/women being put on trials for executing prisoners, or young men and women dying in places and situations that have pushed them over the edge and/or killed them. I hate it, and I hate everything else about war, too. And therefore I'm happy there are people willing to show some of the 'ugliness' of, and it must be especially hard for them to admit it and show it because what is in the casket was once their flesh and running blood.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Alright, I'm outta here for the night. Sorry if I set some people off, but I stand behind everything I said, though I did make an addendum after Madverts' comment.

    Look... this is a way for the dead to speak, and so they should. I do not believe that if they could actually use their voices they would say, "Hide me! War is good! I'm happy I died young and spent my final moments in agony!", etc. They would want it to be shown what a waste war is. Thank you to these brave families for allowing them a voice.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    "Liberals" in the mainstream media and Hollywood and academia are hoping that this, and their concerted effort to downplay or altogether ignore these last seven years the many acts of bravery and the those who perform them, will, you know, make us stronger. Yeah. We can end the War on Terror, and focus of the War on Prosperity.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    smithinjapan: Only those duped into joining AFTER the fact.

    My guess is that sailwind objects to your "duped" vocabulary, which is pretty insulting if you ask me. Obviously one can disagree on the invasion, there were reasons for and against it. So saying one was "duped" is insulting to them. On top of that I think Madvert's point is that soldiers go where their ordered to go, meaning they didn't all volunteer to go Iraq because they "believed" in whatever it is you think they believed in (or conversely were "duped" into believing.)

    In layman's terms, you're just telling those who disagree with you that they're stupid. Since he's a soldier who has been in war my guess again is that he's talked to other soldiers who believe in what they're doing. Some probably don't, but I don't see him going around calling them idiots. Like I said there are justifications for an against the invasion and it's not black and white. But I think you've argued for so long that in your mind it is black and white so you're left to simply assume those on the other side must be so stupid that they were tricked into believing they should support the invasion.

    For me personally, I think the caskets should be shown if that's what they always do. It looks like Clinton didn't do it either so if you want to blast the policy then please include him. You'll probably find some heated responses because if I'm not mistaken people such as yourself and daydream painted some pretty unflattering portraits of US soldiers during the war so it might be hard to believe that your motivation is to protect and respect those you had little to no respect for before. So what caused the change of attitude? Politics is my guess.

  • 0

    Taka313

    That's my boy, teleprompter, doing what he does best. Making zero sense for our entertainment value.

    I mean, seriously, look at this gem:

    "Liberals" in the mainstream media and Hollywood and academia are hoping that this, and their concerted effort to downplay or altogether ignore these last seven years the many acts of bravery and the those who perform them, will, you know, make us stronger.

    So, what he's saying is, "Liberals" are trying to ignore the bravery of the troops by no longer allowing their dead bodies to be ignored by the media.

    Comedy savant!

    Taka

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    SuperLib: "My guess is that sailwind objects to your "duped" vocabulary, which is pretty insulting if you ask me."

    Since the 'duped' comment came AFTER the 'bull$$$$' and 'jerks' comments, then he really has no grounds feeling insulted for insulting.

    "On top of that I think Madvert's point is that soldiers go where their ordered to go, meaning they didn't all volunteer to go Iraq because they "believed" in whatever it is you think they believed in (or conversely were "duped" into believing.)"

    I already agreed to that, and amended my point.

    "In layman's terms, you're just telling those who disagree with you that they're stupid."

    Wrong. I said that war is stupid. I said that the people who send men and women off to fight in wars is stupid. I also said I think it's stupid to start wars, show the corpses of enemies, but hide the corpses of your own so as to avoid scaring away potential candidates for fighting. I didn't say anywhere that any who disagrees with me is stupid at all, not once.

    "Some probably don't, but I don't see him going around calling them idiots."

    Nah, he's just calling those who don't believe in covering up the media as being 'jerks' and... oh, I've said it enough times.

    "Like I said there are justifications for an against the invasion and it's not black and white."

    You guys are hilarious! I'm referring to war in general, and you proclaim that I'm talking about the invasion of Iraq! Read ALL of my posts and you'll see I talk about WAR (most specifically saying in general). And you say I'VE been arguing it in my mind for so long?!?

    " so you're left to simply assume those on the other side must be so stupid that they were tricked into believing they should support the invasion."

    Since you're wrong in what exactly I'm talking about, your point is irrelevant. BUT, in the case of Iraq, were people not tricked into agreeing to the invasion based on WMDs and other 'intelligence'? Or did they know the truth that they did not exist and simply went along with it, proclaiming later that they were lied to? Hey, you brought it up! I was just talking about people being recruited for war in general, and going off to fight under the imperatives of fools.

    "You'll probably find some heated responses because if I'm not mistaken people such as yourself and daydream painted some pretty unflattering portraits of US soldiers during the war so it might be hard to believe that your motivation is to protect and respect those you had little to no respect for before."

    Still angry as ever about war -- I just try to direct it more at the leaders who send them instead of the poor little tuckers on the field who are fodder for the government. And anyway, what you call 'unflattering potraits' was often exactly that which I just said -- a stance against war and the folly of it all -- but since it didn't conform to the view of some that I need to praise any and all decisions by leaders, without question, or that I am the enemy, it of course comes off as being 'heated', etc.

    I stand behind all that I said on this thread.

    Anyway, I just came back to quickly check on updates, and lo-and-behold here I am again posting. Good night.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Let me put it to you like this, smith....

    -

    daydream in a previous thread, pretending to be US Army: "Yeah, they're militants. They all have wrapped heads. Fire!!!!

    daydream today: These men and women have given the ultimate. They have gone and served for their country and people want to bring their dead bodies back into the country under the cloak of darkness

    -

    smith in the same previous thread: 'We got trigger happy fingers, they got wrappings on they heads.. FIRE!"' Yeah, seems to fit into the typical mental retardation of the US army.

    smith today: I just try to direct it more at the leaders who send them instead of the poor little tuckers on the field who are fodder for the government

    -

    Your characterization of the troops depends on the political point you're trying to make on that particular day.

    Case closed, move on.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    If it takes a picture of a dead body to make one truely understand the seriousness of war, then I don't think that says much about such a persons cognitive ability. In many ways, a picture does speak louder than words. However, unless you are interested in politicizing war for partisan gain, there is nothing to gain from making death into PR sport. A country should always treat those who have sacrificed with respect. The press uses the images of dead bodies as a way to generate revenue for this business. If the families would like to invite the press to their family funeral, then that is there own business and is fine by me. But the government shouldn't be making a circus of such a serious matter. That is what Obama and the Democrat party would like to do with the military. They have never truely respected the role of the military and the mostly conservative people that make up the services. At least leaving it up to the family members doesn't force all American soldiers that have died in war to be partisan props for the Democrat party.

  • 0

    Sarge

    smithinjapan - "I don't blame the grunts..."

    And here we see smithinjapan's attitude toward the servicemen and women who protect him - they're just "grunts."

    "... for coming home dead or scarred; I blame the morons who put them there"

    Yeah, it takes a real moron to order soldiers into combat against the scumbags who would torture and kill smithinjapan without hesitation or remorse.

    "the only thing foolish is that they join to fight"

    What fools the grunts are for joining the fight against the scumbags who would torture and kill smithnjapan without hesitation or remorse!

    And this, from Madverts:

    "Well then it's un-fair to say a lot of them were duped. I imagine the large majority of the soldiers sent to Iraq were already enlisted men and women."

    Sure, Madverts, insult the enlisted men and women who fight the scumbags who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.

  • 0

    memyselfI

    These men and women who died for their country needs respect and honor. Their casket should be shown. It's sad because alot of these men and women can't see their family again.

    It is an honor to show them coming back to their " HOME " If the family agrees. flag-draped transfer case should be shown. It shouldn't be hidden !!! They are back " HOME "

  • 0

    timorborder

    Pretty sad that this debate has deteriorated into a cat fight between the "liberals" and the "neo-cons." Just for a change it would be good if you guys could share your toys in the sandpit.
    As I wrote earlier, I think that (with the family's permission) it is a good thing that coverage is given to returned remains. While certain conflicts must be prosecuted (the War on Terrorism, etc.), it is important that folks back home have some appreciation of the outcomes of such policies. These outcomes are not just limited to reigning, with immunity, death and destruction on one's enemies. There is more to it than that. Deciding on conflict means that lots of people are going die, your guys, their guys, and the civilians in between. It might not pretty, but it should not be sanitized just because certain people want to put a nice gloss on things. Indeed, if the institutions of a country are so fragile that it cannot accomodate the exposure of such matters, then the country in question has some serious issues.

  • 0

    sailwind

    My final say on this mirrors exactly what, VFW National Commander-in-Chief Glen Gardner said when he addressed the Dover media ban.

    My organization, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, supports the ban because the return of America's fallen warriors is not a media event. Yet the final say on the ban did not to belong to the VFW or the Defense Department or the news media; the final say rightfully belongs with the families. How they choose to honor the life, service and sacrifice of their fallen loved ones should be their decision and their decision alone.

    Critics of the photo ban have maintained that the issue at stake is whether the American people are getting a full picture of the costs of war. In a country where only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the population wears the uniform, I maintain that those Americans who are in this war – the military and their families – know the true picture.

    Critics have also contended that the ban is a form of censorship. I prefer to call it exclusionism. A free press serves a great purpose in a democratic society, but with that constitutional right is a public responsibility to not blur the lines with parochial agendas.

    But regardless of the thrust and parry between policy critics and defenders, the focus must still return to the families of the fallen.

    Unless you have worn the uniform, no one in America can ever fully appreciate the sense of purpose – and of oneness – that exists within our armed forces. The families of our fallen know that no one treats the return of their loved ones with more tenderness or reverence than their brothers and sisters in uniform. No one.

    The arrival ceremonies are solemn and dignified, and one of the final steps before a fallen warrior returns home. Allowing the press to cover these arrivals at Dover is an unnecessary complication – an unnecessary intrusion – with no value added.

    For the media, I want to know how these fallen warriors lived, not about how his or her flag-draped transfer case was indistinguishable from the others that may have been aboard the flight. Tell me about the flag-lined boulevards and patriotic escorts they received in their hometowns, and about their families, whose hopes and dreams have been reduced to photographs and memories.

    Just don't tell me your story is incomplete because you could not get into Dover.

    http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4938

  • 0

    likeitis

    sailwind, a bit you quoted:

    In a country where only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the population wears the uniform, I maintain that those Americans who are in this war – the military and their families – know the true picture.

    And the fat question that leaves is just how much leverage those seven-tenths of 1 percent who know the true picture have in getting a futile war shut down.

    Welcome to democracy where if EVERYONE does not know the true picture, then we get duped by leaders intent on painting a false one, and sending a minority to potentially get killed, maimed, or psychologically scarred.

    Yes, we will get people trying to score political points. Again, welcome to democracy where ANYTHING and EVERYTHING has be discussed and viewed and thought about by EVERYONE or it all goes to crap. Yes, the media will seek to make a buck, as well as score political points, out of the coffins of dead soldiers. But trying to shut that down is clearly to oppose democracy and a free press. Now, there are some reasons to set limits. And it seems that we agree on the limit of having the consent of the families. But this ban that started with Bush I is WAY OVER THE LINE. CLEARLY. And anyone who backed that up disrespected democracy, something which we are told time and again that our servicemen are fighting for. Nice lip service to democracy there while taking a big crap all over real democracy I would say.

    It seems as clear to me as it does with Smith, that the whole thing was primarily cooked up to the dupe the nation into full (fool) support of a war and avoid one of the things that got our involvement in Vietnam shut down.

    And more about being duped: Its not just the servicemen who get duped. It can be most of the country. Even highly intelligent people can get duped. Fabricate, or oh yes, HIDE, relevant information and you can dupe people. It helps a great deal when there are a great many factors, such as with a war, so that even the intelligent fail to notice blank spots in the big picture. Its easy to forget the human cost of war if YOU NEVER SEE IT. And that is PRECISELY where most of America has been, not only with coffins coming home, but the very shallowness of our media dressed up as tact from the very beginning. You want video footage of tanks rolling strong across the desert? Fine. You want grainy night-vision footage of our troops firing at something over there that you cannot see. Fine. You want the aftermath of that fire fight the following morning? No. You want to see our troops enforcing martial law? Ok, maybe just a little bit, but then its back to tanks rolling across the desert. You want footage of a humvee that just got nailed by an IED? Try YouTube. But only because we have not found a way to shut that down yet. As if any American worth his salt is getting entertainment value out of that.

    Mind you, I have been in Japan for a few now, and I understand that media coverage has changed since the beginning. But as I said in my first post, this thread: Too late.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Likeitis,

    But this ban that started with Bush I is WAY OVER THE LINE. CLEARLY. And anyone who backed that up disrespected democracy, something which we are told time and again that our servicemen are fighting for. Nice lip service to democracy there while taking a big crap all over real democracy I would say.

    The ban was put in place by **President George H W Bush in 1991, **at the time of the Persian Gulf War. From the start, it was cast as a way to shield grieving families.

    Could you at least get your Bushes straight in your rant? Makes the points your trying to make a little hard to follow. Are we talking your upset because the ban was put in place during 1991 or that Clinton and GWB continued the same policy???????

  • 0

    sailwind

    Also Likeitis how much more diginity do you want to strip away from a fallen soldier to satisfy your 'desire in saving Democracy' by getting a picture of a flag draped coffin arriving at Dover?

    Leave Politics out of this. The fallen deserve that much, they made the ultimate sacrifice not you.

  • 0

    likeitis

    sailwind,

    Could you at least get your Bushes straight in your rant?

    Sure thing buddy. Now please figure out which one is Bush I and which one is Bush II. I think you will note that I have not mentioned Bush II in any of these threads.

    how much more diginity do you want to strip away from a fallen soldier to satisfy your 'desire in saving Democracy' by getting a picture of a flag draped coffin arriving at Dover?

    How does a picture of flag draped coffin strip a soldier of his dignity? Is that anything like chiseling his name on a memorial wall?

    If it were me, I would want such pictures distributed widely. I would find hiding me away, like I was some gay porn mag that would embarrass the owner, to be the far greater stripping of dignity.

    Leave Politics out of this.

    In Soviet Russia, you need not worry your pretty little head about politics. When they want your politics, they will give them to you.

    Nope. I will not leave politics out of this. Democracy you see. Does that mean I seek to remove the right to choose? Of course not. That would be undemocratic you see. But removing one's right to information and truth is almost as undemocratic. The politics remain, and I will not apologize for them. If seeing flag drapped coffins gets a war shut down, then that was a matter of choice by informed people. If it deters a young man from joining up to fight a war that I KNOW his recruiters are lying about, then that is the choice of an informed person. Democracy is all about informed choices. A smack in the dark is for Soviet Russia.

    But do not think for one second that I support any sort of indignity done to that soldier. So much so, that I do not think it should be the exlusive right of his/her family to decide (but its better than just banning it outright, CLEARLY). I think every soldier should be asked this upon joining, and should they fall, their request honored first and foremost. How is that for the freedom and rights that the people of any democracy should have? What dignity is that!

  • 0

    sailwind

    The politics remain, and I will not apologize for them. If seeing flag drapped coffins gets a war shut down, then that was a matter of choice by informed people. If it deters a young man from joining up to fight a war that I KNOW his recruiters are lying about, then that is the choice of an informed person.

    You should pass that on the family of Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Va.

    I'm sure your message would be appreciated.

  • 0

    sailwind

    One point that really got lost here likeitis.

    The 30-year-old airman was killed April 4 near Helmand province, Afghanistan.

    AFGHANISTAN.........I suppose you want that war shut down also. Obama is just starting to ramp it up there as we speak. Most of the world approves of that, enjoy your flag drapped coffin pictures, as there will be alot more of them in the future, as the extra combat troops are sent there under this administration's Afghanistan policy.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Sure, Madverts, insult the enlisted men and women who fight the scumbags who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse."

    Uh, sarge....kindly have the common sense to read people's posts. Heh, I was atually defending US troops.

    Nevermind....

  • 0

    SuperLib

    It probably should be left up to the families, but I really don't have a problem with the military banning it. It's a private matter, in my opinion.

    Likeitis, this isn't the 1930s and we're not living in caves. Saying that we just can't understand the cost of war unless we have photographs of this one brief and specific event doesn't hold water, not in this day and age where in less than 30 seconds you can be looking at graphic photos of dead US military or even see videos of them actually dying on the battlefield. If anything, the reach of independent media coverage these days shows the cost of war to a much greater extent than it ever did so democracy overall isn't threatened, but you've been duped into believing that it is.

    I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say the importance of photographing this one event is to discourage others from going to war. You're angry at the government for going to war and I think you generally will take any position where you can be against them. In that light I think the soldiers are nothing more than weapons for you to attack the government with. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's your main motivation, and my guess is that at least some others on here would agree with me.

    The thing that reeks most of politics is that I've read dozens of stories about this topic, maybe hundreds of posts, yet this is the first time I've heard that Bush Sr. started the practice. To be honest with you I thought Bush did, probably because I've never heard criticism of any President besides Bush. Again I'll guess that most people here didn't know that either and that's a big concern for me. I think it's become a symbolic thing for Bush and now I'm forced to believe that it evolved in such a way because the media intentionally left information out of their reporting.

  • 0

    likeitis

    Likeitis, this isn't the 1930s and we're not living in caves. Saying that we just can't understand the cost of war unless we have photographs of this one brief and specific event doesn't hold water, not in this day and age

    You believe what you like. We may not be living in caves and this may not be 1930, but humanity has not evolved much since then either. My understanding is that Vietnam vets quite often came home saying how they did not think it would be quite like that when they joined up. Just because the information is available, and there was plenty available during the Vietnam War era, does not mean it is being perused, much less properly understood. Young men so often think they are made of steel right up until they get a leg blown off. Its not that hard to convince a great many young men to take the risk by stoking the fires of glory. Men are born suckers for violence.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Newsflash,

    The Department of Defense announced today the death of an airman who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

    Staff Sgt. Phillip A Myers, 30, of Hopewell Va, died April 4 near Helmand province, Afghanistan of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 48th Civil Engineer Squadron, Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom.

                For further information related to this release, please contact the RAF Lakenheath UK Public Affairs office at 44-1638-52-2151.

    He DIED FOR NATO. He was to to BRITISH. Have a nice day, enjoy your picture of his casket.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12430

  • 0

    likeitis

    sailwind: Have a nice day, enjoy your picture of his casket.

    For someone who was whining about stripping a fallen soldier of his dignity, it is gobsmacking to see you doing it above and beyond anything I could imagine. Comments like this are most unwelcome. Have some respect.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "My final say on this mirrors exactly what..."

    Doesn't matter one iota what 'your final say' is in regards to if the pics can be distributed or not; it's the right of the family, NOT YOURS, and that's all that matters. I say, again, good on the family for not being ashamed and hiding your son away from everyone as though he were a dirty secret, and as if the war were 'great'.

    sailwind, you alone have shown a great deal of disrespect for the fallen here but ranting that it shouldn't be the rights of the family that BORE and raised them to decide what becomes of their untimely remains (instead suggesting that '1% of the population' -- and only those who support the ban -- should have the final say).

    War is hell, and I don't have to be in it to know that (nor would I join simply to find that out the hard way -- that is utter stupidity), and I don't believe trying to hide it from the media simply to increase the number of recruits later is the answer. Show the people what's at stake, and what a tragedy it is, and then if others choose to still represent their nations in the folly of war, so be it -- at least they went in with their heads intact instead of being duped.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    smithinjapan

    What you fail to realize is that sailwind is the spokesperson for all the allied troops not just all of the American troops. I have to say that it is the family's right to make the decision of who is to see and who is not to see the remains of their loved one. Who is to say that some military personnel would not want to be honored by a public return of their remains? It is not the government's decision to make. It is a family matter or if someone in the military were to request that their remains be returned in a public display then neither the family or the government should interfere with an executor carrying out those wishes. It was the policy of the U.S. government prior to lifting the ban (including Clinton, I might add) that even the soldier, sailor and airman could not override the ban. It is wrong for the government to ban the public display of an airman's coffin upon its return to U.S. soil if that airman explicitly expressed their desire to have a public display of their coffin upon their death.

    But smithinjapan, you know as well as I do if the chief spokesman of the Allied Forces, that we have the pleasure of knowing here on JT, makes a decision then we must abide by it.

  • 0

    likeitis

    Its not that hard to convince a great many young men to take the risk by stoking the fires of glory.

    And of course, hiding the caskets.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers

    I honor your service Sir and know that you made your family proud of you.

    May you rest in peace and never know that the media and some bloggers were more interested in commenting of the media ban of taking a picture of your flag draped coffin at Dover Airforce Base, rather then the media who always could take a picture of your flag draped coffin as it was on display in your hometown, as your family and loved ones mourned their loss.

    They are more interested in that then on you. May the place that your spirit resides be shielded the pettyness displayed here on this thread and may your family always walk with the pride and honor knowing that thier son was a member of the Air Force and died in service for all AMERICANS, no matter what political stripe.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    goodDonkey: "It was the policy of the U.S. government prior to lifting the ban (including Clinton, I might add) that even the soldier, sailor and airman could not override the ban."

    Just as a point of order, Clinton allowed it, despite the ban, on at least two occasions... I think it's mentioned in the article.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "May you rest in peace and never know that the media and some bloggers were more interested in commenting of the media ban of taking a picture of your flag draped coffin at Dover Airforce Base, rather then the media who always could take a picture of your flag draped coffin as it was on display in your hometown, as your family and loved ones mourned their loss."

    I like how you follow your 'I honor you...' with complete political bias (since I was accused of that earlier). Yes, you clearly 'honor' the man by making a mockery of his 'cause' in the next few lines.

    You don't even realize you're doing much of the sullying yourself.

    "They are more interested in that then on you."

    Not really. If someone dies in a drunk driving accident I'm not disrespecting victims by bringing what happened to light in order to show the results of drunk driving.

    There are of course going to be politics involved, like it or not, and you have proven that more than enough yourself with what I quoted above. It's WAR, and war is usually started by politicians deciding to go there. Asking people not to make political comments is, quite frankly, being naive at best.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    It will be well worth getting the boot compared to being muzzled!!!!!!

  • 0

    sailwind

    A Face to go with the name.

    Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Va.

    http://www.hopewellnews.com/article_2080.shtml

  • 0

    likeitis

    smithinjapan: Asking people not to make political comments is, quite frankly, being naive at best.

    Yep, so naive in fact that they will support the next war, and the next war, and the next one. All the while whining about how we should honor sacrifices rather than try to prevent extreme waste of life.

    I never met Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers, but I will never forgive those who got him killed, particularly those that sent him off to war or even condoned it.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    I imagine the very last thing Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers would have wanted was the faux sympathy of most the people here cheering the mainstream media's one-sided and essentially suicidal handling of the war on transnational militant Mohammedism. These posters regard him and his fellow soldiers as dupes, and as 'baby killers.'

    What's more, I doubt he believed we live in a world where, as in the case for the Left, people are all victims or 'oppressors.'

  • 0

    sailwind

    I never met Air Force Staff Sgt Phillip Myers

    Maybe you should have looked into the man himself before you commented. He wanted coverage for the complete opposite reason you do. I doubt that he wouldn't be to pleased for the reason's you present.

    Myers' wife, Aimee Myers, permitted the coverage because her husband believed in his role overseas and would want the public to witness the dignity with which the war dead are returned home, Hamilton said. Aimee Myers was unavailable for comment.

    "It was all very well done," Hamilton said of Sunday evening's ceremony in Dover. "It was very respectful."

    Myers, a 30-year-old father of two children, had been scheduled to leave Afghanistan in mid-May and would have been moved to Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, Hamilton said.

    She said her son told her last week that he wanted to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery if he were killed, a request he had made previously. She said yesterday that Myers will be buried there but that a date had not been set.

    Myers was assigned to the 48th Civil Engineer Squadron with the Royal Air Force in Lankenheath, England, a base that is used by the U.S. Air Force.

    He was a member of an explosive ordnance disposal team, and part of his job was to disarm improvised explosive devices, his mother said. She said she didn't know whether he had been trying to disarm the IED that killed him.

    "It took a lot of courage and nerves of steel, because he was constantly handling explosives and on the lookout for explosives," Hamilton said.

    She said Myers had served in Iraq and Kuwait, as well as in Afghanistan, and that he had conducted bomb sweeps in Washington to protect then-President George W. Bush.

    Myers attended Hopewell High School and joined the Air Force in 1999, Hamilton said. Relatives described him as a dedicated military man who believed he was protecting his friends, his family and his country.

    He was especially protective of his children and would make sure his daughter, 5-year-old Dakotah, wouldn't watch TV shows with bad language,

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/military/article/HOPE07_20090406-222303/250466/

  • 0

    likeitis

    sailwind: Maybe you should have looked into the man himself before you commented. He wanted coverage for the complete opposite reason you do.

    Maybe you should have looked up the word "opposite" before you commented. My reasons do not conflict with his reasons and are not at all opposite. Nor do I have any issue whatsoever with his reasons. He and I may have different reasons, but there is no reason at all why they cannot go together except in a mind actively searching for conflict.

  • 0

    sailwind

    likeitis

    You said,

    If seeing flag drapped coffins gets a war shut down, then that was a matter of choice by informed people. If it deters a young man from joining up to fight a war that I KNOW his recruiters are lying about, then that is the choice of an informed person.

    His Family said,

    Myers' wife, Aimee Myers, permitted the coverage because her husband believed in his role overseas and would want the public to witness the dignity with which the war dead are returned home, Hamilton said. Aimee Myers was unavailable for comment.

    I'm really having a hard time how that is not exactly opposite of the families view. He believed in his role overseas you don't, that is about as opposite as you can get.

  • 0

    adaydream

    These dead are heros.

    Now I don't know where you come from, but where I come from we don't bring our heros in under the cloak of darkness. < :-)

  • 0

    sailwind

    Now I don't know where you come from, but where I come from we don't bring our heros in under the cloak of darkness. < :-)

    You bring them home when the Airport is at full flight operations during the daytime where your from? A bit noisy and distracting from the seriousness of this event don't you think?

    I'd like it to be the only aircraft that Dover would handle at that time and when her engines shut down the airfield is totally quiet at the time of the ceremony and transfer. That's why they do it at night adaydream, nothing 'nefarious' about it.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    The Left wants ROTC and military recruiters banned on our campuses but they want Vietnam-era body counts on the news and every flag-covered coffin to be available for propaganda purposes.

    So transparent.

  • 0

    likeitis

    teleprompter: So transparent.

    It almost sounds like you had some difficulty arriving at the conclusion that they are against the war and war in general. LOL! I don't think they were trying to hide it!

  • 0

    likeitis

    sailwind: I'm really having a hard time how that is not exactly opposite of the families view.

    Because you interpret my reason as being chiefly a means to shut this specific war down. Actually, it is chiefly a means to keep people informed of the actual cost of this and all wars, ie what we sacrifice. I would hope that if they knew this well much sooner, the war would have gotten shut down sooner or perhaps, not have happened at all, but it still would have been their choice. As this war is ALREADY GETTING SHUT DOWN, a lifting of the ban is hardly a victory for my side at this time anyway.

    He wants people to know of his sacrifice because he specifically believed in this particular war. I want people to know of his sacrifice, because we cannot believe in ANY war if we do not know the cost. And knowledge of his death driven home by pictures of his flag covered coffin hardly does anything to prove the waste of this specific war anyway. Only the cost becomes known. And if that hurts the cause, then it was not worth it. I can only hope that people will learn and make the right choice next time.

    I said: then that was a matter of choice by informed people.

    That is the part you should focus on. It does not conflict. But if his reason had anything to do with taking away the choice of the people by keeping them uninformed...well enough said.

  • 0

    sailwind

    likeitis,

    Nice post but a small point you missed.

    As this war is ALREADY GETTING SHUT DOWN, a lifting of the ban is hardly a victory for my side at this time anyway.

    Iraq is GETTING SHUT DOWN.......Afghanistan is just getting started to RAMP UP.......Obama's surge is just getting started, sorry he died in Helmand provence not in Iraq, we are going to see many more coffins in the future as our military performs President Obama's mission and his surge in Afghanistan.

    No worries though likeitis, the military will always follow the orders of the President, his orders is to take the fight even now higher in Afghanistan, Iraq is pretty much stable and we can start to withdraw now.

  • 0

    Den Den

    Why do we need family permission? Soldiers are paid by and work for, their nation. They are owned by US citizens and US citizens are responsible for every single civilian killed.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all