NationStates Jolt Archive

Last Sunday a newspaper in Seattle, Washington, published a rare photograph of soldiers' coffins, each of them containing the body of an American who had died in Iraq.

The coffins, each draped with the Stars and Stripes, had been loaded into the back of a cargo aircraft for a final journey to the US, where they would be buried. There were at least 18 of them in the picture, which was taken by a 50-year-old civilian contractor, Tami Silicio.

On Wednesday Ms Silicio was sacked from her job, for taking the photograph and sharing it with news organisations.

Ms Silicio worked for Maytag Aircraft Corporation, which has a $US18
In an interview with The Seattle Times, Ms Silicio said the coffins were prayed over and saluted before being shipped.

"Everyone salutes with such emotion and respect," she said. "The families would be proud to see their sons and daughters saluted like that."

William Silva, the president of Maytag Aircraft, was quoted by The Seattle Times as saying the sackings had been for violating US government and company regulations.

Full article, and photo can be found here:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html

Comment.

Lucky we are being kept free from freedom of speech and democracy.

The traitorous b**ch! A few more like her and Bush might not get re-elected.

The policy for nonpublication of images of soldier's coffins has been in effect for years. I know it was in force during the Vietnam era. It's main purpose it to keep the service men and women from seeing them and thus lowering an already low moral (which is considered to be one of the factors that get our military killed). This could very well be considered a war crime, but we are supposed to overlook that little bit of information.

You want to publish photos of the coffins of people who have died serving our country, but let them publish one picture of aborted babies and watch you scream then. Big double standard coming from the Liberals on this one (but what less would you expect).

The policy for nonpublication of images of soldier's coffins has been in effect for years. I know it was in force during the Vietnam era. It's main purpose it to keep the service men and women from seeing them and thus lowering an already low moral (which is considered to be one of the factors that get our military killed). This could very well be considered a war crime, but we are supposed to overlook that little bit of information.

You want to publish photos of the coffins of people who have died serving our country, but let them publish one picture of aborted babies and watch you scream then. Big double standard coming from the Liberals on this one (but what less would you expect).

And Bush, of course, is permitted to use images of the victims of 9/11.

No double standard there?

I see the double standard, However At least the coffins are sombering. They dont make you reel with disgust .

Plus those images of Aborted Feotuses are selective and you know it.
You Anti-Abortionists act Like people treat having one as a blood test.
When of course its one of the hardest decisions a woman has to make.
No one takes news from the doctor lightly.

No Government has any right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot publish.
No man has any right to decide whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion.

Well, coming from a country with "Free Speech Zones" at public protests, I can't say I'm surprised. :roll:

Well, coming from a country with "Free Speech Zones" at public protests, I can't say I'm surprised. :roll:

That was because "peace" and anti-free trade protestors started getting into the habit of turning into rioters, especially in cities hosting major economic summits.

And it's not like the US is unique in those. The name's pretty awful, but the concept is hardly new.

Since this is outrageous on two levels I will answer both separately.

No Government has any right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot publish.Like military secrets, troop movements, the morale level of the troops, how many of what type of weapons and their exact location? These type of things are supposed to be published? Publishing things like these is an act of treason against the US.

No man has any right to decide whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion.On this one I have to agree with you, no man has the right to tell women that abortion is wrong. That should be left up to God. Oh, that is right he already has told us that murder is wrong.

Apparently the police arent without blame for those protests turning violent

And it's not like the US is unique in those. The name's pretty awful, but the concept is hardly new.
True, at least it's not like in SE Asia, where they are more enthusiastic about making the step up from using non-lethal crowd control weapons.

No Government has any right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot publish.Like military secrets, troop movements, the morale level of the troops, how many of what type of weapons and their exact location? These type of things are supposed to be published? Publishing things like these is an act of treason against the US.

How can you call yourself a democarcy yet have a charge of treason in it.
People have the right to do what they want dont they? Treason is simply a way of a state to control its citizens.

I see the double standard, However At least the coffins are sombering. They dont make you reel with disgust .

Plus those images of Aborted Feotuses are selective and you know it.
You Anti-Abortionists act Like people treat having one as a blood test.
When of course its one of the hardest decisions a woman has to make.
No one takes news from the doctor lightly.See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper. Lets see they are willingly killed, killed without so much warning as being at war gives the soldiers. Yet these photos shouldn't be allowed. For those who mention Bush using the 9/11 photos, there is also a nice little poster making it's way through the internet that is President George W. Bush's face made out of the pictures of dead soldiers too. Two sided sword you all are swinging here and now it looks like you don't like it very well when it swings back at you.

Someone was taking pictures of coffins and they were punished. After such a selfless, pure and in no way exploitative of the sacrifice of the death of soldiers act. What a terrible thing to have happen. People, even we ignorant cloistered Americans, know that soldiers have died and continue to die in Iraq. Trying to profit from photos of thier caskets borders on ghoulish and I think the photographer knwe that taking those pictures would be frowned upon in a severe way. The ghoul got what was coming to it.

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.

[quote="Jay W"] ... the morale level of the troops ... Publishing things like these is an act of treason against the US.

quote]

I can't believe you believe that! :D

And it's not like the US is unique in those. The name's pretty awful, but the concept is hardly new.
True, at least it's not like in SE Asia, where they are more enthusiastic about making the step up from using non-lethal crowd control weapons.Are you talking about things like rubber bullets, bean bag guns, tear gas, taziers, stun guns, and firehoses. None of them were very effective when the race riots where going on in Cincinnati a couple of years ago, yet the police department still parades out every new type of crowd control device that comes along. No I do not believe in killing protesters, just don't claim that the non-leathal control devices are any more efficient. Most the injuries and deaths that occur in protest are not from the police to begin with. They are the result of the protesters themselves getting too riled up to control themselves and end up hurting someone else.

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.US soldiers/ US babies seems fair to me.

Are you talking about things like rubber bullets, bean bag guns, tear gas, taziers, stun guns, and firehoses. None of them were very effective when the race riots where going on in Cincinnati a couple of years ago, yet the police department still parades out every new type of crowd control device that comes along. No I do not believe in killing protesters, just don't claim that the non-leathal control devices are any more efficient. Most the injuries and deaths that occur in protest are not from the police to begin with. They are the result of the protesters themselves getting too riled up to control themselves and end up hurting someone else.
Well, the British Army famously tried out alternative approaches during Northern Ireland riots a few times, and only ended up with PR disasters. Better have more stuff smashed up and a couple of extra people trampled rather than have the spectre of newspaper cover stories of police and National Guard wielding assault rifles against kids with bricks and spraycans. It's that sort of thing that makes a joke of democracy, abroad as well as at home.

Are you sure it isn't about the morale of the electorate?

No Government has any right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot publish.Like military secrets, troop movements, the morale level of the troops, how many of what type of weapons and their exact location? These type of things are supposed to be published? Publishing things like these is an act of treason against the US.

How can you call yourself a democarcy yet have a charge of treason in it.
People have the right to do what they want dont they? Treason is simply a way of a state to control its citizens.Just for your knowledge Treason is the act of showing disloyalty to your government. A person who knowingly takes prohibitted photos, and sells them for publication as well as the Editor of the paper that published it should be charged with this crime.

[quote=Jay W] ... the morale level of the troops ... Publishing things like these is an act of treason against the US.

quote]

I can't believe you believe that! :DOne of the most sought after bits of information is the morale level of the enemy. Shows how willing their troops are to fight.

Are you talking about things like rubber bullets, bean bag guns, tear gas, taziers, stun guns, and firehoses. None of them were very effective when the race riots where going on in Cincinnati a couple of years ago, yet the police department still parades out every new type of crowd control device that comes along. No I do not believe in killing protesters, just don't claim that the non-leathal control devices are any more efficient. Most the injuries and deaths that occur in protest are not from the police to begin with. They are the result of the protesters themselves getting too riled up to control themselves and end up hurting someone else.
Well, the British Army famously tried out alternative approaches during Northern Ireland riots a few times, and only ended up with PR disasters. Better have more stuff smashed up and a couple of extra people trampled rather than have the spectre of newspaper cover stories of police and National Guard wielding assault rifles against kids with bricks and spraycans. It's that sort of thing that makes a joke of democracy, abroad as well as at home. :shock: I do believe that we have found something to agree on. Will wonders never cease?

[quote="Jay W ...Treason is the act of showing disloyalty to your government. A person who knowingly takes prohibited photos, and sells them for publication as well as the Editor of the paper that published it should be charged with this crime.[/quote]

Ah, well, all of us are traitors at some time or another ... and a) taking the photograph in question wasn't prohibited.
b) the photographer didn't sell it.
c) We get into the whole moral maze of who does the forbidding and why ... the North Koreans aren't letting photographs out of the huge rail disaster in their country, not because they think it would upset people, but because their absolute dictator doesn't want the outside world to know about it ... democracy comes in very strange guises, but it usually allows people to express opinions, even if the govt in question doesn't like them, and it rarely bans the taking of photographs ... Military secrets, of course, have to be protected, but even then the question of what is a military secret should not be left to be decided by an oligarchy of obsessed rich, right wing middle aged white men ...

Since this is outrageous on two levels I will answer both separately.

No Government has any right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot publish.Like military secrets, troop movements, the morale level of the troops, how many of what type of weapons and their exact location? These type of things are supposed to be published? Publishing things like these is an act of treason against the US.

thats different, hes saying that the government has no right to tell private citizens what to publish, hes not saying that governments dont have the right to keep secrets, they are not the same

No man has any right to decide whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion.On this one I have to agree with you, no man has the right to tell women that abortion is wrong. That should be left up to God. Oh, that is right he already has told us that murder is wrong.

and what if it was your child she was going to kill? if it were my child id want to have a say in whether the baby is born or not

to say that fathers dont matter is ridiculous, sexist and wrong

he means mankind, not male parents

Just for your knowledge Treason is the act of showing disloyalty to your government. A person who knowingly takes prohibitted photos, and sells them for publication as well as the Editor of the paper that published it should be charged with this crime.

No, treason is the act of endangering your nation. Although every government that's ever existed would like you to believe so, the interests of the government of the day and the interests of the State are not the same thing. By your rationale, Gennifer Flowers was a traitor. Should she, and the newspapers and broadcasters who published her tapes, have been prosecuted for disloyalty to the Clinton government?

And on the abortion issue: in what possible way does a picture of a flag-draped coffin compare to one of an aborted fetus? At least the coffins have some sort of dignity about them -- unlike grotesquely enlarged photos of scraps of flesh paraded around by wild-eyed nutters screaming at vulnerable women.

God says "thou shalt not murder", indeed; so I trust you are in favour of the immediate cessation of US attacks on Fallujah? Or is killing civilians more-or-less by accident -- i.e. bombing areas where civilians live, without actually targeting them per se -- OK with your invisible pal in the sky?

The idea that seeing the coffins of fallen soldiers lowers the morale of the rest of the troops is absolute CRAP, I can say this having been in the military myself. When you join up, you know that you're going into a dangerous profession in which you might at some point be killed... except it's different to other dangerous professions (such as steeplejack or a welder on skyscraper construction) in that in addition to risking your life you're also asked to take those of others, in certain circumstances- such as the soldiers in Iraq have found themselves in.
In war situations, you don't think about the possibility of death, as you're far too busy for that! If seeing the coffins of fallen comrades did lower a soldier's morale, he or she would quickly be noticed as having a negative effect on the efficiency of their team and would be asked to 'shape up or ship out'.

The only way seeing these coffins will lower the morale of the troops in general is either (a) in retrospect, after having got back home to their families, had time to wind down and consider the real long-term effect seeing all those horrible things can do to a person, or (b) in the immediate sense, with the suspicion or knowledge that the military top brass, and the diplomats and politicians who set them their missions, are incompetent and sending troops into deadly situations they really shouldn't be in. Both these factors became apparent during and after the war in Vietnam, which is still recent enough for its lessons to still be fresh in the minds of US political and miliatary leaders, many of whom actually fought there.

In WW2 the Nazis continued to tell the German people of famous victories and advances against their enemies even after it became apparent the war could not be won. When the Germans finally realised how many of their soldiers had died and what horrors had been carried out in their name, it caused such a profound sense of shock and guilt that the effects of it are still strong to this day. I am not, and never will be President of the USA, but if I were I'd let the public and serving military see these coffins- it is not their deaths, tragic as they may be, that is important, it is the possibility that those people died in vain. Meanwhile, I do hope Bush's ongoing tax cuts don't end up weakening the US military's counselling services for serving and former soldiers, or there might be hell to pay when they finally all get home- victory or no victory.

The idea that seeing the coffins of fallen soldiers lowers the morale of the rest of the troops is absolute CRAP, I can say this having been in the military myself. When you join up, you know that you're going into a dangerous profession in which you might at some point be killed... except it's different to other dangerous professions (such as steeplejack or a welder on skyscraper construction) in that in addition to risking your life you're also asked to take those of others, in certain circumstances- such as the soldiers in Iraq have found themselves in.
In war situations, you don't think about the possibility of death, as you're far too busy for that! If seeing the coffins of fallen comrades did lower a soldier's morale, he or she would quickly be noticed as having a negative effect on the efficiency of their team and would be asked to 'shape up or ship out'.

The only way seeing these coffins will lower the morale of the troops in general is either (a) in retrospect, after having got back home to their families, had time to wind down and consider the real long-term effect seeing all those horrible things can do to a person, or (b) in the immediate sense, with the suspicion or knowledge that the military top brass, and the diplomats and politicians who set them their missions, are incompetent and sending troops into deadly situations they really shouldn't be in. Both these factors became apparent during and after the war in Vietnam, which is still recent enough for its lessons to still be fresh in the minds of US political and miliatary leaders, many of whom actually fought there.

In WW2 the Nazis continued to tell the German people of famous victories and advances against their enemies even after it became apparent the war could not be won. When the Germans finally realised how many of their soldiers had died and what horrors had been carried out in their name, it caused such a profound sense of shock and guilt that the effects of it are still strong to this day. I am not, and never will be President of the USA, but if I were I'd let the public and serving military see these coffins- it is not their deaths, tragic as they may be, that is important, it is the possibility that those people died in vain. Meanwhile, I do hope Bush's ongoing tax cuts don't end up weakening the US military's counselling services for serving and former soldiers, or there might be hell to pay when they finally all get home- victory or no victory.

US soldier in coffins are bad for the politicians as it says to them "OUR SOLDIERS ARE DYING, HERE THEY ARE!". Hiding the images makes the war more palettable for the pollies to sell as the coffins bring home what they have got the US into.

Just for your knowledge Treason is the act of showing disloyalty to your government. A person who knowingly takes prohibitted photos, and sells them for publication as well as the Editor of the paper that published it should be charged with this crime.

No, treason is the act of endangering your nation. Although every government that's ever existed would like you to believe so, the interests of the government of the day and the interests of the State are not the same thing. By your rationale, Gennifer Flowers was a traitor. Should she, and the newspapers and broadcasters who published her tapes, have been prosecuted for disloyalty to the Clinton government?

And on the abortion issue: in what possible way does a picture of a flag-draped coffin compare to one of an aborted fetus? At least the coffins have some sort of dignity about them -- unlike grotesquely enlarged photos of scraps of flesh paraded around by wild-eyed nutters screaming at vulnerable women.

God says "thou shalt not murder", indeed; so I trust you are in favour of the immediate cessation of US attacks on Fallujah? Or is killing civilians more-or-less by accident -- i.e. bombing areas where civilians live, without actually targeting them per se -- OK with your invisible pal in the sky?

Excuse me...but I must have missed the OpOrders for Coalition Aircraft or for grounf forces that stipulate to the intentional targeting of civilians, if you could just refresh my memory...I've not been made aware of our Rules of Engagement that demand we shoot innocent unarmed civilians?

But we sure as hell have killed a lot of gun-toting former baathists, foreign fighters, sunni militiamen, Al-Queda wannabees..etc

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.US soldiers/ US babies seems fair to me.

prove a fetus is a baby and you've got yourself a deal :).

but i don't want to hijack the thread into that, so i will simply post my support for what that photographer did...if Bush can use the victims of 9/11 for his purposes then he's lost the right to stop others from showing the cost of his decisions.

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.US soldiers/ US babies seems fair to me.

prove a fetus is a baby and you've got yourself a deal :).

but i don't want to hijack the thread into that, so i will simply post my support for what that photographer did...if Bush can use the victims of 9/11 for his purposes then he's lost the right to stop others from showing the cost of his decisions.

It has nothing to do with that Bottle..over my tours of duty I put 19 of my friends into transfer tubes/body bags..it has to do with the dignity of a servicemember who has given the ultimate sacrifice....in death I would hope that my final Permament Change of Station goes without someone perusing my casket for a quick buck or even if done in a moment of respect..

Well, coming from a country with "Free Speech Zones" at public protests, I can't say I'm surprised. :roll:

That was because "peace" and anti-free trade protestors started getting into the habit of turning into rioters, especially in cities hosting major economic summits.

And it's not like the US is unique in those. The name's pretty awful, but the concept is hardly new.

I have a friend who was arrested a couple years ago in Penn State where she was an undergrad student. She was peacefully carrying a sign which simply said "No WTO" and was standing on the supposedly safe side of the "free speech" cordon.

She was released without charges after 48 hours detention- when all the WTO had left.

The police went through town ahead of time and pulled down all signs and banners criticizing the WTO.

America has gone to hell.

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.US soldiers/ US babies seems fair to me.

prove a fetus is a baby and you've got yourself a deal :).

but i don't want to hijack the thread into that, so i will simply post my support for what that photographer did...if Bush can use the victims of 9/11 for his purposes then he's lost the right to stop others from showing the cost of his decisions.

It has nothing to do with that Bottle..over my tours of duty I put 19 of my friends into transfer tubes/body bags..it has to do with the dignity of a servicemember who has given the ultimate sacrifice....in death I would hope that my final Permament Change of Station goes without someone perusing my casket for a quick buck or even if done in a moment of respect..

i see, so military persons who perform the duty they swore to do are worthy of our respect and shouldn't have their bodies used for media posturing and money making, but civilians who were murdered by terrorists don't deserve that respect?

sorry, not buying it. if Bush can use the 9/11 victims then the caskets of soldiers should be fair game for the news.

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.US soldiers/ US babies seems fair to me.

prove a fetus is a baby and you've got yourself a deal :).

but i don't want to hijack the thread into that, so i will simply post my support for what that photographer did...if Bush can use the victims of 9/11 for his purposes then he's lost the right to stop others from showing the cost of his decisions.

It has nothing to do with that Bottle..over my tours of duty I put 19 of my friends into transfer tubes/body bags..it has to do with the dignity of a servicemember who has given the ultimate sacrifice....in death I would hope that my final Permament Change of Station goes without someone perusing my casket for a quick buck or even if done in a moment of respect..

i see, so military persons who perform the duty they swore to do are worthy of our respect and shouldn't have their bodies used for media posturing and money making, but civilians who were murdered by terrorists don't deserve that respect?

sorry, not buying it. if Bush can use the 9/11 victims then the caskets of soldiers should be fair game for the news.

I could care less what Bush did....but there are a few million vets like me who'd agree that no.. our comrades shouldn't have their bodies used by the media either right wing or left.

See you don't want to allow pictures of aborted babies on the front page of your newspaper.
Does TV count? It's all been shown on British TV recently.US soldiers/ US babies seems fair to me.

prove a fetus is a baby and you've got yourself a deal :).

but i don't want to hijack the thread into that, so i will simply post my support for what that photographer did...if Bush can use the victims of 9/11 for his purposes then he's lost the right to stop others from showing the cost of his decisions.

It has nothing to do with that Bottle..over my tours of duty I put 19 of my friends into transfer tubes/body bags..it has to do with the dignity of a servicemember who has given the ultimate sacrifice....in death I would hope that my final Permament Change of Station goes without someone perusing my casket for a quick buck or even if done in a moment of respect..

i see, so military persons who perform the duty they swore to do are worthy of our respect and shouldn't have their bodies used for media posturing and money making, but civilians who were murdered by terrorists don't deserve that respect?

sorry, not buying it. if Bush can use the 9/11 victims then the caskets of soldiers should be fair game for the news.

I could care less what Bush did....but there are a few million vets like me who'd agree that no.. our comrades shouldn't have their bodies used by the media either right wing or left.

well, i care what Bush did. he's the President of the United States, after all, and i happen to think that any patriot would care what their president does. i also have close family in the military who share my feelings, and who would be honored if (god forbid something should happen to them) their caskets were shown to the world to demonstrate the error in judgment that is the war in Iraq. you are quite entitled to your feelings, and i can see where you are coming from, but for you to show such disregard for civilians does not reflect well on you or your comrades in arms.

It's not that I show disrespect to civilians bottle.but you're talking apples to oranges..While I disapprove of 9/11 images shown on a Bush re-election ad...it is just not the same as reporters blood-wanting images of our honored dead just so they can get a 30 sec soundbyte.

It's not that I show disrespect to civilians bottle.but you're talking apples to oranges..While I disapprove of 9/11 images shown on a Bush re-election ad...it is just not the same as reporters blood-wanting images of our honored dead just so they can get a 30 sec soundbyte.

see, and i feel exactly the opposite. showing the cost of the war to the American public is far more important than the selfish goals of one administration. true, the media is always just trying to one-up itself, but at least it is informing people about an on-going crisis rather than exploiting the dead from a past tragedy just to pluck on people's heart strings so that Bush can get re-elected.

God says "thou shalt not murder", indeed; so I trust you are in favour of the immediate cessation of US attacks on Fallujah? Or is killing civilians more-or-less by accident -- i.e. bombing areas where civilians live, without actually targeting them per se -- OK with your invisible pal in the sky?

Excuse me...but I must have missed the OpOrders for Coalition Aircraft or for grounf forces that stipulate to the intentional targeting of civilians, if you could just refresh my memory...I've not been made aware of our Rules of Engagement that demand we shoot innocent unarmed civilians?

But we sure as hell have killed a lot of gun-toting former baathists, foreign fighters, sunni militiamen, Al-Queda wannabees..etc

Excuse me, but I must have missed the part where I said that the targeting of civilians was intentional. Can you point it out for me? As far as I can see, I said that the Coalition forces were "killing civilians more-or-less by accident" and "bombing areas where civilians live, without actually targeting them per se"; do either of these mean "intentional" to you?

The Coalition forces are not, repeat not, "intentionally targeting civilians". But they are firing HE into areas which are full of civilians, and a great many civilians have died. No doubt the Coalation forces regret this. But not enough, it seems, to stop firing HE into populated areas. This is deeply unfortunate, principally for the civilians involved, but also for the Coalition -- since it merely makes the whole situation there worse and worse. The Coalition forces are turning Iraq into another Gaza or West Bank; look what a rip-snorting success THOSE have turned out to be.

Well Soldiers know they are going to die in war so how can a dead soldier lower their morale? They should be proud to die for their country since thats what they signed up for.

And the photo doesnt show anything but flag draped over boxes. Big difference from showing an aborted fetus.

Although I don't care if they show aborted fetus' on TV or in teh newspapaer either. Nor do I care if they show a dead soldier.

Everyone should know the consequences of war especially. ANd what do you expect to see when you abort a fetus? flowers and apple pie?

"I think A trip to Hawaii would really improve our sex life."

See next post for results of said trip ;)

An aborted Foetus is a lump of cells. These pictures are of Partial Birth abortion, they are the only ones shown by Anti-abortionists as If to suggest that this is a commonplace practice.

I think its been banned now, which is a joke because they are pretty much only performed for health reasons. And Not as Anti-abortionists say so that the Reluctant mother to be can retain her figure in a bathing suit.

Its Ironic that the people who claim to be so vehemently lookng out for the childerens interests Abuse the Images of these rare cases in such a Disrespectful manner.

Well Soldiers know they are going to die in war so how can a dead soldier lower their morale?

Except soldiers don't assume they're going to die in war. Nor do they necessarily expect the people they know to die either, though most of them, I'd wager, acknowledge it's a possibility. The fact that someone dies doing something you know they are proud of and something you hold in high esteem doesn't change the fact that they're dead and it is their loss itself which can be a bother.

That being said, it's a tough one to call. I don't like the idea of any dead being exploited in this manner, but then a rational decision by anyone on the events of the situation as whole needs to have this sort of thing related to them so they can understand, even if they are ADD infested plebs.

"I don't expect you boys to die for your country! I expect those other poor suckers to die for their country!"

General George Patton

"I don't expect you boys to die for your country! I expect those other poor suckers to die for their country!"

General George Patton

"I don't expect you boys to die for your country! I expect those other poor suckers to die for their country!"

General George Patton

Actually...the General never said that...it's Hollywood history..although even his son and grandson readily admit it would be something the General would have said if he'd thought of it.

Bush is trying to hide the ugly realities of his unjust war for oil in Iraq by censoring pics of coffins