Pictures of US Army Coffins

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by smokey, Apr 23, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Are not our US cousins who are so vehemently protesting about pictures of the coffins of their dead service personnel the same people who were quite happy to show pictures of the fatally injured Diana Princess of Wales in the final moments of her life the other night?

    Does this not smack just a touch of double standards?
  2. Yes, but the Americans are probably afraid that showing service personnel coffins will diminish the country's will for an American contribution to Iraq.
    Without sounding too cynical, showing pictures of Diana isn't going to make people call for the US to back out of the Middle East, so I doubt the powers that be in US care too much...
  3. I found the pictures to be acceptable. almost moving and made me ponder just for a second.

    so tell me whats the price to pay for glory?
  4. Smokey; You're mixing apples and oranges on the pitcure issue. It was not the American people that decided to show the pictures of Lady Di dying, it was CBS. A TV Network in America..

    Not all Americans are upset either about showing the retuning coffins draped in the US Flag, yest however sad that it is. It's war, these scenes have played out over and over again through many years of conflicts and war.

    Sort of foolish to put all Americans (or all citizens of any country for that matter) in the same boat , or having the same point of view in regards to either of these issues.
  5. It's "contraversy stirring" by left wing anti-war nuts...the pictures were appropriate and tasteful. Same thing happened when Bush showed a 2 second shot of a flag draped casket a "ground zero" in a 30 second add.

    What has the lefties confused right now is how a US Football pro player passed up a $3.6 million dollar contract to join SF [Rangers] and died in Afganistan doing his duty. They are still trying to find a way to spin that in to anti-US anti-war and having no luck.

    POINT: The US media is not the US :wink:
  6. Ctauch; Yes, let's see how the lefties and the liberal press spin this one. All the troops over there in Iraq and Afghanistan are of course heros in my book. Tillman, for what he gave up to go, only shows the patriotism that this kid really had, and what he totally belived in to be the right thing to do. Too bad he lost his life showing it. To me his legacy will live on for many others to follow.
  7. Small point. It's not war, it's 'Peace Keeping'. The 'war' finished a while ago. Agree, semantics but.............

    Anti war? Dont see problem with stopping pointless deaths, do you?

    Straw poll, how many more troops will come home via a C17 hold 'draped' in the flag? More or less than Vietnam?

    I'm not trying to be controversial here, just realistic. Pride and patriotism is all well and good but when does the tolerance of a nation decide enough is enough?

    Is the current loss of life justifiable?

    Will Iraq ever be a 'Democratic state on side to US foreign policy'?

    Or is the Govn just trying to prove a point and trying even harder not to lose face?

    Anyone remember the WMD issue? Mmm, seems to have been clouded over in the recent past.
  8. Disagree the war is not over and Bush never said it was over he said that there was an end to major operations in Iraq. The war on terror continues and will for years.

    No sure don't but then again I don't see these deaths as pointless. The heros that have given their lives for the Iraqis are working to provide a democratic foot hold in a section of the world that never had democracy...will it be easy? Hell no but it damn sure will be worth it.

    Kinda of a trick question...none would be the right and wrong answer. Freedom is not free and has always required sacrifice of the highest magnitude. I hate to see any soldier brought home in a horizontal position, but I signed up and you signed up for the job...them the breaks for believing in something and betting you life on it.

    No comparison what so ever. Bush has handed all tactical and manning issues over to the generals in charge...Vietnam could have been won if not for the fact that the pols had their ands in it.

    Tough question and I could write a book on this subject...bottomline is that we have more yeas then neas in this country contrary to media portrail.

    Iraq will be a democracy if they [Iraqis] really want it. As for the first question see above.

    Don't think so bu a slight possibility........

    The US had a policy of regime change since Bush 1...Sad@ss had WMD he used them on the Kurds, the UN thought he had WMD hell they voted to adopt 1441. WMD was a small part of the US argument, it was more about existing policy and deterent/preemption....the media hyped the WMD coz it was "sexy"
  9. In my opinion, the anti-war movement is morally corrupt. How many of those agains war actually lift a finger to prevent war? They all come out of the cracks when war is inevitible or is under way. War has always been the final solution to a given set of problems. The reason it keeps occuring is for the mistakes made after the fact.

    WWI was the war to end all wars, but the Versaille treaty screwed Germany with reparations so badly that WWII in Europe was inevititable. No one was far sighted enough to see it.

    If we leave Iraq with the job not being done, then those are pointless deaths. Again we have the comparison with Vietnam. I suppose since we failed to do what we set out to do, which was to prevent the commies from taking over the south, then 55,000 American lives were wasted.

    But, however, lets put it into perspective - the same amount of people lose their lives on American highways EACH YEAR, yet while it's a concern, it doesn't get the attention that war gets. Yes, there are concerns about drunk driving and making cars safer, but the simple fact is that most of it is caused out of stupidity. Oh, and by the way, that is on order of 17 times that of the vehicle accident death rate on British roads.
  10. The cost in lives cannot be hidden.
  12. I remember a bit of news coverage on the anniversary of last year's kick-off which revisited some of those who expressed pro and anti war opinions to see if they'd changed their minds.

    The one that stuck with me was a comment by Damon Allbarn (I think, well, a BritPop bloke anyway) who spoke out against the war last year. This year, whilst his overall opposition hadn't changed, he took the British protest movement to task. He wanted to know why so many people marched through London's streets protesting against the war yet when Bleugh went ahead and did it anyway they all stayed in bed. If they really meant it they'd have been out there again and again and again until he stopped.[/b]
  13. ctauch, almost a grown up debate between us! There's a first!! :lol:

    Some interesting points raised. I’m always open to others views, espesh when it’s from a spam!

    Their democracy and ours are two different things IMHO. (I think you’ll find Iraq had a sort of democracy for a very long time in years gone by). Western democracy cannot be 'dropped on' the Middle East. The culture is a very intricate structure that many Westerners can never understand. True, it's their choice but gone are the days of the Empire and it's imposing it's will over a 'small fruit chucking' country. They aint stupid.

    I know we all signed the dotted line to do as our Govn wished with us but we aint daft and are allowed our own thoughts on certain situations. In this current situation, its dirty and getting dirtier by the day with no light at the end of the tunnel. Any solutions? Keep picking away in the current fashion and accept the inevitable losses?

    With regards to WMD, in this country at least, it was the Govn that 'sexed' up the issue, not the media. This is one reason why the main effort and primary reason to go to war has not been justified.

    Agree, Saddam gassed the Kurds. Why didn’t the coalition intervene then? The scale of agents (bio and chem) that the coalition felt justified to go to war, oops, sorry conflict must have been 10 score more than then. Nowt found as yet. Dont like been lied to. Saddam wasnt a very nice chap but we could count on lots of hands not very nice leaders around the world and in some cases, some a lot worse.

    We just feel a bit pi55ed off over here that we've towed GWB's TWAT policy and it really does look like a face saving move for not doing the deed in 'Stan after 9/11. Easyish option. Well, easier than marching into North Korea who DO have WMD and aint exactly the most stable region in the world!

    BBC, I think one reason why it wasn’t called a war (as with Falklands) is due to claims, insurance and the like. I could be wrong but I was told this by a very well informed QC some years back.

    Sticky, totally agree. They love to do the easy things like speak out because it's fashionable but when it comes down to actually doing something, they cant be arrsed.

    Bubble, I know the comparison with Vietnam will always be made. Two very different situations with very different reasons etc. But, the point I was making was the comparison now, not the whys and what for's. The US public at large got sanitised to the losses, the daily reports of casualties. They then became disinterested in the whole situation because it wasn’t in the US's back yard, simplistic I know. BTW, I forgot how many the US lost in Nam!

    That’s because you're 17 times bigger, have naff autos and are considerably fatter mate! :lol: All relative old bean, all relative!
  14. Trouble is when I signed up I was happy to "bet my life on it"...nowadays it's all shite...
  15. From The Sun: