Friendly Fire in the Foot

[JMHX]

Taken from my Useless Knowledge column. As usual, please discuss.
-----

I believe it is high time we decided just what’s going on. With news of Pat Tillman, the all- around hero of the United States and advanced Ranger being slain by friendly fire, I am left to wonder about the state of our War on Terrorism. I completely understand that friendly fire cannot be eliminated from battle, and the fog of war is often a fatal one for troops involved in a heavy firefight. My peeve here is pretending death does not happen in war.

The amount of time the Bush Administration has invested in making sure Americans do not see – or hear – the cost of the War in Iraq, or the War on Terrorism in general. While we have our breakaway news anchors that devote time to listing all of the dead from the War in Iraq, it is largely stifled as to exactly what is going on.

A smart Bush Administration, pardon the oxymoron, would have been the first to jump on to the reading of the war dead. They would have joined the nation in mourning, and through that appeared to care more for the dead than for the preservation of this “bloodless war” the Administration seems to be gunning for. They would have left the liberals nothing to rag them on.

But that, in the most secretive administration since Richard Nixon as many have indeed said, was not the case. Instead, they lobbied to have the show not aired, and when pictures of caskets coming home from Iraq were splashed across newspapers and television screens, the photographer was fired and the White House asked for no more pictures to be shown.

The White House refused to let the casket pictures out publicly because, as they said, it defied the privacy of the families. Now, as the caskets were wrapped in American flags and pictures taken from a distance, how am I supposed to tell that casket 7-A is Bob from Winnipeg? This runs a bit deeper than that.

The Administration realizes the quagmire in Iraq was a bad decision. If they would simply come out and say this, the public would be more than willing to forgive, as we do to those who make mistakes and admit them. However, instead of admit that President Bush may be wrong; the Administration is doing its best to warp the facts in order to prove him right.

Why ban the caskets from the media? Because it shows the American people exactly what the cost of war is. Ten caskets speak more for the anti- war movement than 100 positive progress reports do for the pro-war side. Why? Because, since Vietnam, the visual media has played a massive role in shaping public opinion on American foreign policy and conflict.

“Vietnam” is a word the Administration would love to censor. It’s a thorn in their side on so many, many fronts. However, as they crack down on reading lists of war dead, on showing pictures of those who died so valiantly for the twisted cause of the Bush Administration, that word seems only to reverberate off the walls.

Had President Bush served in a war, he would know that war dead are not taken lightly. Perhaps the next casket photographed will be his re-election attempt.

[True-Lies]

Disgusting...just disgusting. With such a bad example being set by our own leader, how can they not know why the nation is going down the proverbial toilet?

But even if Bush isn't re-elected next year, we'll be stuck with Kerry (i.e. Bush Lite). Once again, we're forced to make a choice.

[Jlop985]

Winnipeg is in Canada.

Anyways, I have a feeling that ever since Desert Storm, Americans have thought of war as a one-sided affair. Lots of footage of smart bombs blowing up bunkers made Americans desensitized to the fact that war is an ugly, bloody thing that should not be entered into lightly. This was the reason that Bush found it easy to raise public support for two wars, one of which should not have been fought in the first place.

[The-King-of-Wolves]

They're trying to keep anyone knowing about it because they don't want another situation like Vietnam. People saw too much of it and knew a small fraction of the carnage of war. It's easier for the people to accept a war if it's all diluted. You can't fight a war without the peoples support.

[RedSkunk]

It's pretty obvious that the government has maintained a death grip on the media ever since the Vietnam War, for fairly obvious reasons.

[DrxFeelgood]

So it is true that it was friendly fire?

[swive]

At 5/30/04 01:34 AM, -Dr_Feelgood- wrote: So it is true that it was friendly fire?

If the Pentagon says so, he was probably killed by his own comrades.

[DrxFeelgood]

At 5/30/04 01:00 AM, Jlop985 wrote:

Lots of footage of smart bombs blowing up bunkers made Americans desensitized to the fact that war is an ugly, bloody thing that should not be entered into lightly.

Shit, there isn't enough blood and bombs going off as I was hoping (blood as in us killing the sallah mallahs of course).

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/30/04 01:38 AM, -Dr_Feelgood- wrote: Shit, there isn't enough blood and bombs going off as I was hoping (blood as in us killing the sallah mallahs of course).

You disgust me. How can you talk about people dying like that?

[JMHX]

At 5/30/04 02:06 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 5/30/04 01:38 AM, -Dr_Feelgood- wrote: Shit, there isn't enough blood and bombs going off as I was hoping (blood as in us killing the sallah mallahs of course).

You disgust me. How can you talk about people dying like that?

I stand behind BCC and ask this question as well.

[DrxFeelgood]

At 5/30/04 02:06 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

You disgust me. How can you talk about people dying like that?

Well sorry you can't handle it. It's either us or them, and it certainly won't be us.

[FatherVenom]

There's always a third path.

[PruneTracy]

Kerry = Bush Light... wake up man, do your own research and don't just turn to local news to do your thinking for you.

Bush VS Kerry on the issues

If you don't find them on opposite sides of the spectrum on political lines at least, you're out of your mind. Kerry stands for freedom, Bush doesn't, no matter how many times he says "So and so HATES freedom" so does he buddy, you'll see that wherever you look on his stances on any issue, unless of course it comes to the environment, of which he gives not a flying f#ck.

Ch-Check it out.... Lord that song blows =D

Peace

[GooieGreen]

why do they call it friendly fire if it hurts?

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/30/04 02:12 AM, -Dr_Feelgood- wrote: Well sorry you can't handle it. It's either us or them, and it certainly won't be us.

How about we do it the bumcheekcity way? Neither. It's the fantastic way, managed by countries such as Denmark and Sweden, of not having people hate you and try to kill you! As a result, they don't need to kill anyone else.

Great isn't it?

[CapitalistSocialist]

At 5/30/04 12:57 PM, Gooie wrote: why do they call it friendly fire if it hurts?

Agreed
Firendly Fire has to be one of the worse euphenisms of all time! Although its normally you Americans shooting us British :D

[BAWLS]

At 5/30/04 04:17 PM, CapitalistSocialist wrote: Agreed
Firendly Fire has to be one of the worse euphenisms of all time! Although its normally you Americans shooting us British :D

Aw man. I was expecting something like, "It could bloody well be you Yanks jabbing at us Britons!"

[GooieGreen]

At 5/30/04 04:36 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 5/30/04 04:17 PM, CapitalistSocialist wrote: Agreed
Firendly Fire has to be one of the worse euphenisms of all time! Although its normally you Americans shooting us British :D

Aw man. I was expecting something like, "It could bloody well be you Yanks jabbing at us Britons!"

You know, we give them the chance to speak to us in pure english, but they never do. You brits miss all of your great moments...

*crazy brits*

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/30/04 10:06 PM, Gooie wrote: You know, we give them the chance to speak to us in pure english, but they never do. You brits miss all of your great moments...

*crazy brits*

I could say "That's just not cricket" if you like...