Bush Admin Bans Media Coverage of Dead Soldiers Returning..Why?

by Valis 71 Replies latest social current

• 

  Zoewrex

  "Whenever we go into a conflict, there's a certain amount of guidance that comes down the pike," said Lt. Olivia Nelson, a spokeswoman for Dover. "It's a consistent policy across the board. Where it used to apply only to Dover, they've now made it very clear it applies to everyone."

  YEA! I went to the Public Affairs Officers Course with Olivia and am glad to see she's doing well. This policy is across the board and it's for many reasons, let's include politial as the most obvious, but add in there morale of the troops overseas along with their families watching the TV 24/7. Fallen Soldiers will get local media coverage in their hometowns, where they will be remembered. Some will have parks names after them, other will have other types of memorials. It not necessary for the national outlets to sit at the Dover runway taking photos of Americans in mourning.

  Soldiers are doing the job they have been training to do. All the while people in the States are wondering why we're 'there', Soldiers don't have the luxruy to wonder - They made the decission to join and are proud enough to say they risked their lives for their country - What did you do?
• 

  Valis

  What did I do? What kind of question is that? I'm speaking up on a subject that bothers me. If you imply that because I haven't served in the military, I shouldn't have a say, you need to think real long and hard why you joined the military in the first place. I think the policy is bad and that's it.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  expatbrit

  I just think the idea that no one sees the bodies and everything gets glossed over...we hear about the deaths, but it appears that hasn't shaken enough US citizens to do something about the dead piling up.

  5,000 people a month were dying when the Saddam regime was in power. That's a lot of dead piling up, yet it would seem not enough for the left wing to want to do anything about it.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Valis

  expat...I don't know why that would be an issue. if you want to go down that road we could talk about 5k dead versus all the people that die in Africa every day, and how far billions spent on war already could have gone in regards humanitarian aid. BUT, this is about a particular piece of policy, not what the vague term "left wing" or "right wing" did or could not do.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  SanFranciscoJim

  5,000 people a month were dying when the Saddam regime was in power. That's a lot of dead piling up, yet it would seem not enough for the left wing to want to do anything about it.

  Tell this to Hans Blix.

  It's not a matter of not wanting to do anything about it -- it's how it was done. The noblest of intentions are corrupted when overshadowed by exaggeration, prevarication, and deceit.

  A plan of action was in place and being acted upon. Our government took it upon themselves to nullify that plan and replace it with their own, based upon misinformation received and/or given. Now, we are paying the price for that decision with our children.
• 

  expatbrit

  Valis, I think it's an issue because anti-war people will try to use dead soldiers as reasons to disengage from Iraq and from the Middle East in general. The US doing this would be a disaster. I also can't fathom the selective reasoning of certain of the anti-war critics (and I don't include you here, btw) who can squeal so loudly about 100 dead, yet complacently stand aside and allow hundreds of thousands to die in the name of "peace".

  If it's worth anything, I think that the West should be far more pro-active toward the developing world, both in terms of economic development and in terms of military intervention. In fact, if I suddenly had my way with politicians, the West would be involved in at least a dozen wars right now in various parts of the world, to get rid of regimes just like Saddams.

  I think in the future, in hopefully more advanced times, historians will condemn the West, not for what it did, but for what it failed to do in the developing world.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Zoewrex

  Valis - You're right I should have placed ' Rhetorical' behind the question. This is a heated subject for me and I appologize for any offense my post may have cause anyone. I joined to pay back student loans, not to get shot at in Haiti or Saudi. But there I was, oh well, it was my decission. Basically the article just states the media is not welcome at Dover & Germany. There are updates every day with the latest casualities and remembering the Soldiers as people vs. a boxes being brought out of a C-130 is more effective.
• 

  SixofNine

  Expat, did you wish for America to step in to stop the bloodshed in Rwanda?
• 

  Valis

  expat, I was actually in favor of removing Saddam, and I am no fool. I know we can't just disengage from the middle east, but if we are to sacrifice lives then lets have it all out in the open so no one forgets it aint all pie in the sky. I'm not a war monger either, but would prefer to stay pragmatic about the US and foriegn policy, and yes sometimes that means going to war, good or bad.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  expatbrit

  Jim:

  If tomorrow Georgey Bush and Tony Blair got up on the podium and made a speech which basically said "ha ha suckers, we fooled you into thinking that Saddam had WOMD's, when all we really wanted was the oil" I would still hold the position that the war was the right action to take, simply because it resulted in the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

  I'm not naive enough to think that politicians conduct themselves based mainly on enlightened principle. But nor am I naive enough to think that the ends never justify the means. Sometimes they very much do. And if (and that's an if) it turns out that there was indeed prevarication, deceit and exaggeration, then the end result justifies those means, in my opinion. Indeed, we should be asking ourselves why it took such means to convince us of the necessity of war. Why was not the suffering of fellow humans enough? Are we that self-centred now in the wealthy West?

  As for there being a plan in place, I have no idea what you are referring to. UN sanctions? The UN sanctions that killed half a million kids? Perhaps another 17 resolutions would have done the trick? Sorry for the sarcasm, but there was no effective plan in place to remove Saddam. Just endless chitchat and bluster.

  Expatbrit