TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Reagan's Viewing
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

this thread was a lead zepplin to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What part of my statement is unclear to you? I am stating that while it is wholly appropriate for the Press to show the flag-draped casket of our former President, as well as showing the public pay their respects, while on the other hand it is somewhat hypocritical to censure the Press from showing flag-draped caskets of our fallen soldiers from the current war. I further clarified that I am not arguing that we should censure the President's casket from the press, if you logically follow my argument in that particular direction. Rather, that we should allow the Press to show without censureship the flag-draped caskets of the fallen soldiers who died for our country (in a somewhat similar manner as our former President). I find nothing odd with people paying respects to this man. I disagree with the majority of his decisions, yet I honor and deeply respect his place in American history. If I had lived in CA or D.C., I would likely pay my respects in person as well. But again, that was not my argument. I hope my point is more clear to you now. Shakka countered by stating that it was inappropriate to show the soldier's caskets during this time of war, because it would affect the country's overall morale and spirit. My response to his argument is that is exactly my point - if we decide to go to war, regardless of the correctness of our premises of doing so, I firmly believe the public has every bit a right to know exactly what we are getting into. This entails economic, foreign relations, moral and ethical. We did elect these individuals to make the wisest decisions for us. They are public servants. Therefore it is the right of the public to know exactly what our public servants have involved us with on every account. It is unprecedented for this Administration to attempt to hide the downsides of a monumental decision like a war, and I fully disagree with its censureship. War is hell, as they say, and this Administration has no right to put a fucking candy coat on that fact.

Opus, show me an instance where a flag draped coffin at a funeral was muted to the press. Didn't happen. If we don't show coffins in transit, then what's the big deal here? Do we need a video cam pasted on the coffin itself from death to funeral? Get real...


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow

Pointless... We're not discussing recruiting.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Opus, show me an instance where a flag draped coffin at a funeral was muted to the press. Didn't happen. If we don't show coffins in transit, then what's the big deal here? Do we need a video cam pasted on the coffin itself from death to funeral? Get real... [[[smoke]]]

How was I not being real?

Bush ordered no pictures from the Dover AFB to be released to the public. All I am simply asking is why on earth was that really necessary?

And no, aside of those pictures that leaked out, I have yet to see a flag-draped coffin in the newspapers. Of course I do leave room for being incorrect, but I do read a number of national and international papers daily, and did not see one picture until late April when the military handed over those pictures under the FOA act (those legalities are debateable).

And I concluded after this quoted paragraph of mine you selected, that there was no need for the DOD to "protect their own", esp. from the public. I further went on to say that, while the media did it's normal bout of sensationalism, much of the blame could be given to this Administration as a result of their propensity for secrecy, which is well known. I believe it's likely that if this Admin. wasn't so damn interested in keeping so many details secret throughout their tenure, it's likely that this whole issue may not have been so overblown. You keep the press and the public's eyes covered long enough on too many issues, it's likely going to blow up in your face, justifiable or not. I believe this is what has occured here.

Administration has sought to misrepresent the pictures as an issue of privacy or ethics. But nothing could be farther from the truth; they're blocking the pictures for their own self-serving political reasons. They want to maintain public support for the war by hiding it's cost from the public. Imagine the outcry if the Democrats past a law banning the use of 9/11 pictures in political campaigns. Here again we see this administration writing the rules to play for it's own political gain.

Someone earlier put forth some twisted logic that it's only ok to take pictures if you have good intentions. That's like saying we only allow free speech so long as we agree with what you're saying. What would be the point?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow they're blocking the pictures for their own self-serving political reasons. They want to maintain public support for the war by hiding it's cost from the public.

Why would they hide pictures? What's the political gain? Who's hiding the cost? Just do a Google search for "War on Terror" and "cost" or "Casualties" or "Statistics"...I'm sure you get the idea. You'll find exponentially more data than you care to look at. Again, who's hiding the cost from the public when there are details galore at your fingertips? Is there some new knowledge or understanding that is only gained by seeing front page pictures of coffins with flags draped over them?

I mean, I get it. You're anti-war. That's fine. I just don't see any conspiracy theories or smoking guns going on here. What I think we have is an insatiable public appetite for information and gory details that grows bigger and bigger. Is it really that big a deal that you think someone is gaining political advantage by manipulating death?

Also there are plenty of photos of captured Americans with knives to their throats, guns to their heads, civilians being burned and hung on bridges, video of soldiers in the line of fire and laying in hospital rooms, photos and video of families weeping. With all this readily available I can't possibly believe that they'd hide some coffins when much worse is available in your local newpaper, internet website, or even late night news.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why would they hide pictures? What's the political gain?

I guess you�re too young to remember how the Vietnam War was ended.

quote:

Who's hiding the cost? Just do a Google search for "War on Terror" and "cost" or "Casualties" or "Statistics"...I'm sure you get the idea. You'll find exponentially more data than you care to look at.

A picture is worth thousand words *cough* Abu Gharib

quote:

Is there some new knowledge or understanding that is only gained by seeing front page pictures of coffins with flags draped over them?

Is there new knowledge to be gained by seeing Reagan's coffin with flags draped over it? I'm sorry I wasn't aware of a 'new knowledge' clause in the Constitution.

quote:

I mean, I get it. You're anti-war. That's fine. I just don't see any conspiracy theories or smoking guns going on here.

Who said it�s a conspiracy? This issue is about free speech and the government's suppression of it.

quote:

What I think we have is an insatiable public appetite for information and gory details that grows bigger and bigger.

So why not ban movies and TV shows that have gory details. Oh wait a sec they're already trying to do that to sexual explicit material, they haven't quite got around to censoring violience yet. BTW, I didn't know flag drapped closed caskets constituted 'gory details'?

quote:

Is it really that big a deal that you think someone is gaining political advantage by manipulating death?

yep that is a big deal. I find it strange you find the photos a big deal but shrug your shoulders to manipulating death for political advantage.

Based on all your comments you sound anti-free speech. Move to a totalitarian state like China or North Korea and you'll get censorship to your hearts content

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I guess you�re too young to remember how the Vietnam War was ended. A picture is worth thousand words *cough* Abu Gharib Is there new knowledge to be gained by seeing Reagan's coffin with flags draped over it? I'm sorry I wasn't aware of a 'new knowledge' clause in the Constitution. Who said it�s a conspiracy? This issue is about free speech and the government's suppression of it. So why not ban movies and TV shows that have gory details. Oh wait a sec they're already trying to do that to sexual explicit material, they haven't quite got around to censoring violience yet. BTW, I didn't know flag drapped closed caskets constituted 'gory details'? yep that is a big deal. I find it strange you find the photos a big deal but shrug your shoulders to manipulating death for political advantage. Based on all your comments you sound anti-free speech. Move to a totalitarian state like China or North Korea and you'll get censorship to your hearts content

It's become too humerous to try and reason with you. You want them shown because you want to manipulate people's emotions by parading dead bodies in front of them, because you think it will lead to your desired end, which is no war. You've just admitted to wanting to use the pictures for your own personal/political gain. Pot meet Kettle.

As for moving to China and North Korea--I find it laughable. You're trying to exercise your right of freedom to see everything whenever you want. Fine, demand all you want. I'm for free-speech, but I'm also for knowing when to show a little class, decorum and respect.

I think our time and energy is better spent debating more important issues. This one is silly, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's become too humerous to try and reason with you. You want them shown because you want to manipulate people's emotions by parading dead bodies in front of them, because you think it will lead to your desired end, which is no war. You've just admitted to wanting to use the pictures for your own personal/political gain. Pot meet Kettle.

he has exactly the same motives as you, to defend his stance in the iraq war. Though, he is the one who's right

when i say so, i doesn't mean the Iraq war stance, but that the public should be able to know everything. An open society (democracy) is what this war is all about, right?

quote:

As for moving to China and North Korea--I find it laughable. You're trying to exercise your right of freedom to see everything whenever you want. Fine, demand all you want. I'm for free-speech, but I'm also for knowing when to show a little class, decorum and respect.

respect up my ass... seriously it would be much more respect to show them than to not show them. i see no reason why you shouldn't be able to show coffins, in respect to the dead :S as he pointed out, isn't showing reagans coffin lack of respect then?

quote:

I think our time and energy is better spent debating more important issues. This one is silly, IMHO.

you are right, this is a patethis issue, the important tho is this is one of many things the current admin does to try to hide the backsides of the war. point is also that you have something to be afraid of, this war is perhaps not defendable...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's become too humerous to try and reason with you. You want them shown because you want to manipulate people's emotions by parading dead bodies in front of them, because you think it will lead to your desired end, which is no war. You've just admitted to wanting to use the pictures for your own personal/political gain. Pot meet Kettle. As for moving to China and North Korea--I find it laughable. You're trying to exercise your right of freedom to see everything whenever you want. Fine, demand all you want. I'm for free-speech, but I'm also for knowing when to show a little class, decorum and respect. I think our time and energy is better spent debating more important issues. This one is silly, IMHO.

The whole point is the press should be allowed to take those types of pictures and public should be able to draw their own conclusions. I might view them proof that this is a bad war and waste of life. You might look at them as proof that our troops need to be recognized for their courageous acts and willingness to sacrifice their lives for our country. Either way the government has no right to preemptively censor free speech because it's not in their self interest.

Oh as far political gain goes the Press has right to report what's going on, last time I checked they are not a political entity. However the White House is and their blocking of photos is unequivocally political. I'm sorry to hear that you feel debating the right to free speech as a silly waste of time and energy.

the person taking the photos wasn't a member of the press

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow The whole point is the press should be allowed to take those types of pictures and public should be able to draw their own conclusions. I might view them proof that this is a bad war and waste of life. You might look at them as proof that our troops need to be recognized for their courageous acts and willingness to sacrifice their lives for our country. Either way the government has no right to preemptively censor free speech because it's not in their self interest. Oh as far political gain goes the Press has right to report what's going on, last time I checked they are not a political entity. However the White House is and their blocking of photos is unequivocally political. I'm sorry to hear that you feel debating the right to free speech as a silly waste of time and energy.

Well who's free speech is being violated? The dead soldiers who can't talk? I don't see it as a free speech issue. Tell you what--you call up the families of the deceased and ask them if they mind you parading their dead loved ones pictures around in your efforts to stop the war. If they agree, then I have no issue with you. Otherwise, I see it as nothing more than you invading the lives of people who have lost someone to use their sorrow/loss to further your own political agenda. Like I said, have some class, show some respect. You claim that you don't want more people to die, yet you want to take advantage of death to push your own beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You claim that you don't want more people to die, yet you want to take advantage of death to push your own beliefs.

ffs, if it wasn't for death, this war shouldn't be "as bad". the government tries to hide it. we criticeze them for it, cause it's against some of our basic belifs "free speech". how's that taking adventage of people's death

or you mean we use this to push our belifs of free speech? yeah, you are right... sorry about that

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well who's free speech is being violated? The dead soldiers who can't talk? I don't see it as a free speech issue. Tell you what--you call up the families of the deceased and ask them if they mind you parading their dead loved ones pictures around in your efforts to stop the war. If they agree, then I have no issue with you. Otherwise, I see it as nothing more than you invading the lives of people who have lost someone to use their sorrow/loss to further your own political agenda.

When did anyone ask the soldiers for their consent to imbed journalist and camera crews with them on their march to Baghdad? Maybe the administration wanted the cameras rolling to capture the victory on film for propaganda? Have the families petition the government to ban these photos or did the administration read their minds? Since they're public employees funded with tax payers money I feel we are entitled to see these photos. Next time Bush wants complete privacy he should raise his own money to hire mercenaries to fight his secret war.

quote:

Like I said, have some class, show some respect. You claim that you don't want more people to die, yet you want to take advantage of death to push your own beliefs.

I'm not the pro-war guy you are. They wouldn't be dead if there were more people like me who stood up against the war. I don't need dead soldiers to argue my right to freedom of speech, but you seem to need them to silence people opposed to the war.

Ps wasn't it you who said war isn't about death?

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil the person taking the photos wasn't a member of the press

your right, but if your anti-war it's not in your best interest to recognize that.
in order to fuel your end the debate the idea is to marginalize the specifics of the event in question and propose that a more sinister plot was involved in keeping the information of the deaths from the public (which it never was).

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo your right, but if your anti-war it's not in your best interest to recognize that. in order to fuel your end the debate the idea is to marginalize the specifics of the event in question and propose that a more sinister plot was involved in keeping the information of the deaths from the public (which it never was).

The Press also didn't take the pictures at Abu Gharib. What difference does it make who took the pictures? BTW, they were taken by a civilian contractor, because the Press wasn't given access, and she felt a personal moral obligation (free speech duh). If this person was paid by the democratic party to use them as campaign material then yes you would have a case that they were political. So what's your point genius?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow The Press also didn't take the pictures at Abu Gharib. What difference does it make who took the pictures? BTW, they were taken by a civilian contractor, because the Press wasn't given access, and she felt a personal moral obligation (free speech duh). If this person was paid by the democratic party to use them as campaign material then yes you would have a case that they were political. So what's your point genius?

neil and i were talking about the the caskets.

there is no free speech at abu graib. its a prison.

i suggest you crawl back into your warm and cozy world. its way too dangerous out here for you.

BTW, the funeral this morning was the most moving i have ever seen.
i'll remember it for the rest of my life.
we should all be so lucky to be remembered like that.
America honors it's dead as good or better than any one.
with respect, dignity, and honor we remember them for the moment for most...as for the others, blessed free speech will continue to reign supreme.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Ps wasn't it you who said war isn't about death?

Yes I did, yet you continue to try to say otherwise. I have continuously said that war is not about death, war is not about who can kill the most people. I guess you've been too busy watching Rambo movies and don't think it could possibly see what's really going on. Death happens in war. Only an idiot would try to say otherwise. But to try and say that people go to war simply for the sake of gratuitious carnage is absurd.

Lucky for you there are brave soldiers who are willing to put themselves in harms way for the sake of you, who doesn't think anything is worth standing up for and defending. Lucky for you there are people who voluntarily sacrifice themselves to defend the very freedoms you claim deprivation of. I'm tired of arguing with you. I'm hitting ignore now. It's the weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Lucky for you there are brave soldiers who are willing to put themselves in harms way for the sake of you, who doesn't think anything is worth standing up for and defending. Lucky for you there are people who voluntarily sacrifice themselves to defend the very freedoms you claim deprivation of.

That means a lot coming from a Chickenhawk who sends others to die doing your dirty work. Why don't you flap on over to your nearest military recruiter this weekend, they'll make a man out of you.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Why don't you flap on over to your nearest military recruiter this weekend, they'll make a man out of you.

is there a reason why you won't do the same?

The debate is over.

Heh, sorry I've only skimmed through the thread and maybe somebody brought this up before.

As a counterpoint to the notion that Reagan was the sole reason USSR fell apart (and in extension communism), what about the struggle by the people of the various Sovjet satellite states, such as Poland and Czechoslovakia? Somehow I'm pretty sure they must have been an integral part of the demise of the Sovjet imperium.

Kinda goofy IMO, but whatever floats your boat...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.