Mon, 03/24/2008 - 09:02 — right on! (not verified)
Wow... what a sad testimonial to two old men who can't get it up! To the 4,000 fallen and those wounded and their families... nothing will ever make this illegal occupation and rich-man's-war okay.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
There is something disturbing about that picture beyond the obvious. Using those dead people's faces to make up the face of bush and McCain, while making a point, seems to disrespect the dead in some way.
I understand the point that after 4000 are killed, bush and McCain still smile.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
And to just add what will probably be a useless and futile note to my earlier post, I'd ask that C&L consider taking this post down in order to not politicize the deaths of 4000 soldiers anymore. I understand this won't happen, but it should.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
Those soldiers volunteered.
If it's good enough for Veep Dick Cheney, then it ought to be good for the rest of us.
I thought the image was rather tasteful and makes a point, but that's art. (It is what it is.) If anyone has "pimped" these young men and women, it'll be their own government that sold them for oil and political gain. To continue the euphemism... not only did our goverment has no shame to pimp our volunteer army, they pimped out higher-priced whores so that some can actually make money on the blood and sweat for a nice profit.
That piece of art is meaningless next to the masterpiece that illustrated our occupation country after a war we started.
At first I saw this and thought, "how appropriate...the president and his successor, modern-day-Caesar-wanabees, laughing, while the bravest and brightest of our people give their lives..." but after reading the comments, I have to reconsider. I wonder how families of the 4000 feel about their loved one's likeness being part of this mosaic...
The media, government and American people have pretty much forgotten that there's a war going on. How can their deaths not be a political issue? (Although, I agree that the mosaic is a bit tasteless)
But these deaths ARE political, just as what you choose to drive and eat are political choices. Perhaps the formation of the faces of two laughing, rich, powerful war mongers who are only getting richer by squandering the lives and riches of our country with the faces of those they have sent to die doing their dirty work makes you uncomfortable because you know it's true and you know you haven't done a damned thing to stop them. Perhaps you even voted for them.
I didn't see this as disrespectful, and not only because the elements are so small that one cannot discern identities. We need to see these faces as often as we can, in whatever context, so that we--unlike The Powers That Be--don't forget that they were real people, real individuals, and that there are *thousands* of them. Their lives have indeed been the pieces used to create the smirks on those two politicians, and with much less care than this artist took.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
To "quote" someone is to actually quote them. I have no idea what quoting someone "a bit" is.
It is impossible for me to take your outrage seriously. These soldiers and their families have been manipulated right out of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. To suggest for one minute that the liberal blogs are profiting from this image while ignoring the profits made by Haliburton, KBR and Dick Cheney himself is baffling. If you are that upset about this image i can't understand why you are not in jail for proportional outrage against those responsible for making those faces in this image relevant.
As a work of "art", I suspect this image was computer generated.
As a statement, it is powerful. As a reminder, it is haunting.
It is not intended to be a tribute to the meaningless loss of life. I will not say that these soldiers died in vain, but there is no comprehensible reason for those individuals to have died.
THE ORIGINAL MOSAIC:
--------------
I think the symbolism of these two schmucks smiling and celebrating the deaths of their countrymen and countrywomen is well represented by that mosaic.
Quite appropriate that the Smirking Chimp/McBombIran likeness is represented with the faces of the dead, sent to a foreign country, a mission based on a lie, to spend their blood so four oil companies can profit through deaths.
Unfortunately, a million dead Iraqis would barely amount to a pixel each.
Maybe the artist can do something with the Abu Ghraib photos, too.
As a work of "art", I suspect this image was computer generated.
As a statement, it is powerful. As a reminder, it is haunting.
It is not intended to be a tribute to the meaningless loss of life. I will not say that these soldiers died in vain, but there is no comprehensible reason for those individuals to have died.
Its only meaningless if continue to do nothing to stop it. As for what to do, that would actually have some success, I haven't a clue.
I can't speak for any of those dead soldiers. Few, but their own families can. I wish, though, that their voices could be heard about this image, about the total number of the fallen and about what it means "to die for your country."
For my part, though, it seems obscene and immensely disrespectful to use those soldiers' faces to make 'art' of, and a comment upon, the incompetent leaders who willingly offer those deaths to further their own ideas.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's tasteless and my husband is in the military. Most Americans don't even know that 4000 men and women have died. Now, how do we educate people on the million dead Iraqis?
I can't speak for any of those dead soldiers. Few, but their own families can. I wish, though, that their voices could be heard about this image, about the total number of the fallen and about what it means "to die for your country."
For my part, though, it seems obscene and immensely disrespectful to use those soldiers' faces to make 'art' of, and a comment upon, the incompetent leaders who willingly offer those deaths to further their own ideas.
Maybe you should be disgusted not by the art but by what inspired the art. Illegal war is obscene, 4000 dead is obscene, a million dead Iraqis is obscene. But, art is art and doesn't hurt anyone.
Mon, 03/24/2008 - 09:57 — And Yet... (not verified)
If you go to the original on HuffPo you can click down on it & see the individual faces of the slain.
Horrible- a smiling Bush/McBush image composed of these soldiers now in the grave when they should be alive, raising their kids. Shit.
Last night's Frontline again brought home how unforgivably senseless the Iraq war & occupation has been & is. To the Hague for all involved. A Dem administration can make that possible, plus yrs. of hearings for all the ugly this corrupt administration has wrought.
Mills of the gods. They grind slowly, but exceedingly fine, BushCo.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's tasteless and my husband is in the military. Most Americans don't even know that 4000 men and women have died. Now, how do we educate people on the million dead Iraqis?
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
To "quote" someone is to actually quote them. I have no idea what quoting someone "a bit" is.
It is impossible for me to take your outrage seriously. These soldiers and their families have been manipulated right out of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. To suggest for one minute that the liberal blogs are profiting from this image while ignoring the profits made by Haliburton, KBR and Dick Cheney himself is baffling. If you are that upset about this image i can't understand why you are not in jail for proportional outrage against those responsible for making those faces in this image relevant.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Huffington Post and C&L were non-profits that didn't gain money from advertisements on their websites. Here I am, thinking that everytime somebody clicks on a link, it gets recorded on a sitemeter that John Amato and Ms. Huffington can use to entice companies to post ads on their websites. I guess they don't make a profit at all.......my mistake.
Haliburton, KBR, DynCorp, etc. are all profiting from the war, but pointing to them as an excuse for why anti-war blogs should also make money off of the 4000 dead soliders is moral midgetry.
Art is supposed to provoke thought and discussion. It's supposed to challenge you, even if it makes you uncomfortable and offended. Would you have been offended if these same 4000 faces had appeared in the image of, say, the American flag? Or, would that have been patriotic and moving?
This piece of art says it all. It shows who has paid the price and who is ultimately responsible for those deaths. This piece could have been much more forceful especially given Dick Cheney's recent comments. Another mosaic could have the faces of the fallen show a Dick Cheney in the background with the faces making up the word "So?"
Some may find this mosiac offensive or out of taste. I say it hits home and hits where it hurts the most and it is that which many can not stand.
WASHINGTON(AP) - President Bush pledged Monday to ensure "an outcome that will merit the sacrifice" of those who have died in Iraq, offering sympathy and resolve as the U.S. death toll in the five year war hit 4,000.
"One day people will look back at this moment in history and say 'Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve because they laid the foundation for peace for generations to come,'" Bush said.
The bubble-boy speaks. The sheer disgust and contempt I feel for these men when I look at those faces....there are no words.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
To "quote" someone is to actually quote them. I have no idea what quoting someone "a bit" is.
It is impossible for me to take your outrage seriously. These soldiers and their families have been manipulated right out of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. To suggest for one minute that the liberal blogs are profiting from this image while ignoring the profits made by Haliburton, KBR and Dick Cheney himself is baffling. If you are that upset about this image i can't understand why you are not in jail for proportional outrage against those responsible for making those faces in this image relevant.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Huffington Post and C&L were non-profits that didn't gain money from advertisements on their websites. Here I am, thinking that everytime somebody clicks on a link, it gets recorded on a sitemeter that John Amato and Ms. Huffington can use to entice companies to post ads on their websites. I guess they don't make a profit at all.......my mistake.
Haliburton, KBR, DynCorp, etc. are all profiting from the war, but pointing to them as an excuse for why anti-war blogs should also make money off of the 4000 dead soliders is moral midgetry.
A war waged for the benefit of the oil companies and control of middle east oil is by far the bigger crime. The blog is to point out the injustice of it, as is the mosaic.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
i think mike has a valid point....
that said, people like Clinton and Edwards-- who voted for this war, deserve to be scorned and rejected for supporting the stupid monkey and his moronis minions....
How Clinton can have the hubris to run for president with a straight face, despite having supported this war from day one, is truly amazing....
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war? His presence in this picture turns it from possibly legitimate political commentary (though I'm not convinced of that) into a cheap, tacky exploitation of dead American soldiers for partisan ends. Shameful.
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war? His presence in this picture turns it from possibly legitimate political commentary (though I'm not convinced of that) into a cheap, tacky exploitation of dead American soldiers for partisan ends. Shameful.
We unfortunately all must take some of the blame for allowing this to happen. It's our responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen again or continue. The first step will be defeating McCain in November regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
We unfortunately all must take some of the blame for allowing this to happen. It's our responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen again or continue. The first step will be defeating McCain in November regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
not so fast....
clinton cannot beat mccain, so it's not so easy as saying "regardless of who the democratic candidate is"
unless feingold is gonna jump in and run for president, it's either nominate obama to ensure mccains defeat, or nominate clinton to ensure Mccain's victory
i can just see a debate with clinton and mccain....she tries to argue against the war, and the whole country laughs every time mccain says-- this is your war, you started in....and mccain will never have to say another word-- helped by the MSM-- because he's right, and everybody will have too much fun laughing at clintons hypocrisy (like gores pathetic (albeit entirely appropriate) sigh)
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war? His presence in this picture turns it from possibly legitimate political commentary (though I'm not convinced of that) into a cheap, tacky exploitation of dead American soldiers for partisan ends. Shameful.
exactly,
should be mccain, clinton and cheney
And why are you singling her out? Include all of the Democratic senators (Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Edwards et al) that voted for this or none of them. Let's turn our ire to the current president that brought us into this debacle and the man who is campaigning on continuing this president's policy.
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war? His presence in this picture turns it from possibly legitimate political commentary (though I'm not convinced of that) into a cheap, tacky exploitation of dead American soldiers for partisan ends. Shameful.
exactly,
should be mccain, clinton and cheney
And why are you singling her out? Include all of the Democratic senators (Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Edwards et al) that voted for this or none of them. Let's turn our ire to the current president that brought us into this debacle and the man who is campaigning on continuing this president's policy.
The picture is accurate as it is.
should be a picture of those seeking to be president who are complicit in this evil war
that includes mccain and clinton.....
mccain, clinton and obama have all singled themselves out, because they all have the hubris to think they should be president.
mccain and clinton are covered, cap a pe, with the blood of this war they helped to start...
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war?.
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
yeah, but clinton helped to start this war, so i'd take her promises to end it with a grain of salt.....perhaps there is a bit of the old "running under sniper fire" exaggeration, if you know what i mean, when she claims that she'll end this war she thought was so great back then
We unfortunately all must take some of the blame for allowing this to happen. It's our responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen again or continue. The first step will be defeating McCain in November regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
not so fast....
clinton cannot beat mccain, so it's not so easy as saying "regardless of who the democratic candidate is"
unless feingold is gonna jump in and run for president, it's either nominate obama to ensure mccains defeat, or nominate clinton to ensure Mccain's victory
i can just see a debate with clinton and mccain....she tries to argue against the war, and the whole country laughs every time mccain says-- this is your war, you started in....and mccain will never have to say another word-- helped by the MSM-- because he's right, and everybody will have too much fun laughing at clintons hypocrisy (like gores pathetic (albeit entirely appropriate) sigh)
Haven't you been paying attention? McCain conflates Iran with Al Queda on multiple occasions and continues to get a free pass. Irrespective of the Democratic candidate, the media loves St. McCain. He can say and do no wrong. I like Obama, but don't kid yourself because he gave a brilliant speech. The Rev Wright thing is trouble and will definitely be brought up by the right wing media if he becomes the nominee. If you think Obama's going to have an easier time of it you're in la la land. Victory is not assured with either Democratic candidate.
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war?.
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war?.
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Because our presence there is helping to fuel the civil war.
We unfortunately all must take some of the blame for allowing this to happen. It's our responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen again or continue. The first step will be defeating McCain in November regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
not so fast....
clinton cannot beat mccain, so it's not so easy as saying "regardless of who the democratic candidate is"
unless feingold is gonna jump in and run for president, it's either nominate obama to ensure mccains defeat, or nominate clinton to ensure Mccain's victory
i can just see a debate with clinton and mccain....she tries to argue against the war, and the whole country laughs every time mccain says-- this is your war, you started in....and mccain will never have to say another word-- helped by the MSM-- because he's right, and everybody will have too much fun laughing at clintons hypocrisy (like gores pathetic (albeit entirely appropriate) sigh)
Haven't you been paying attention? McCain conflates Iran with Al Queda on multiple occasions and continues to get a free pass. Irrespective of the Democratic candidate, the media loves St. McCain. He can say and do no wrong. I like Obama, but don't kid yourself because he gave a brilliant speech. The Rev Wright thing is trouble and will definitely be brought up by the right wing media if he becomes the nominee. If you think Obama's going to have an easier time of it you're in la la land. Victory is not assured with either Democratic candidate.
Mccain got a pass by the MSM on the al qaeda iraq conflation....but let's face it, they've given bush that same pass for the past many years.....bush has always conflated the war on terror with the war in iraq, and the media has never sought to question that bogus and intentional mischaracterization
Obama is getting beat to shit on the intentional mischaracterization by the MSM of the pastors remarks.....
people aren't buying it.
they know Mccain is demented and ignorant, despite the MSM's efforts to see him as nothing but heroic
they know Obama is not affected negatively by the pastors remarks, even when misleadingly framed in the most duplicitous ways.....
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war?.
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Why should another country be involved in someone else's civil war, especially when our very presence is the instigation and motivation of hostilities? What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with OUR national security?
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Because our presence there is helping to fuel the civil war.
How do you figure that one? The Sunni and Shia hate each other infinitely more than they hate American forces. The idea that we should up and depart and leave the Iraqis to figure it out themselves is as irresponsible and America-centric as it is glib.
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Why should another country be involved in someone else's civil war, especially when our very presence is the instigation and motivation of hostilities? What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with OUR national security?
Did you really just say that America is the root of hostilities between Sunni and Shia? Are you serious?
And why are you singling her out? Include all of the Democratic senators (Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Edwards et al) that voted for this or none of them. Let's turn our ire to the current president that brought us into this debacle and the man who is campaigning on continuing this president's policy.
The picture is accurate as it is.
should be a picture of those seeking to be president who are complicit in this evil war
that includes mccain and clinton.....
mccain, clinton and obama have all singled themselves out, because they all have the hubris to think they should be president.
mccain and clinton are covered, cap a pe, with the blood of this war they helped to start...
Kerry voted for this war too and I don't know about you but in spite of that, I supported him in 2004. If you want to play this game then fine. While Obama's been in the Senate he and Clinton have had nearly identical voting records when it comes to funding this very war that you and I and millions more are sickened by. Edwards voted for the war as well. If Edwards had became the candidate, I would've supported him. You might not like her, but clearly Clinton and Obama are more in agreement about Iraq than either of them are with McCain. In fact McCain is nothing but a warmonger who wants to expand this debacle into Iran.
Not to mention, at least according to polls, economic uncertainty has also surpassed the war as America's biggest concern . Either Democrat will be better than McCain who thinks we can tax cut our way out of this recession.
clinton cannot beat mccain, so it's not so easy as saying "regardless of who the democratic candidate is"
unless feingold is gonna jump in and run for president, it's either nominate obama to ensure mccains defeat, or nominate clinton to ensure Mccain's victory
i can just see a debate with clinton and mccain....she tries to argue against the war, and the whole country laughs every time mccain says-- this is your war, you started in....and mccain will never have to say another word-- helped by the MSM-- because he's right, and everybody will have too much fun laughing at clintons hypocrisy (like gores pathetic (albeit entirely appropriate) sigh)
Haven't you been paying attention? McCain conflates Iran with Al Queda on multiple occasions and continues to get a free pass. Irrespective of the Democratic candidate, the media loves St. McCain. He can say and do no wrong. I like Obama, but don't kid yourself because he gave a brilliant speech. The Rev Wright thing is trouble and will definitely be brought up by the right wing media if he becomes the nominee. If you think Obama's going to have an easier time of it you're in la la land. Victory is not assured with either Democratic candidate.
Mccain got a pass by the MSM on the al qaeda iraq conflation....but let's face it, they've given bush that same pass for the past many years.....bush has always conflated the war on terror with the war in iraq, and the media has never sought to question that bogus and intentional mischaracterization
Obama is getting beat to shit on the intentional mischaracterization by the MSM of the pastors remarks.....
people aren't buying it.
they know Mccain is demented and ignorant, despite the MSM's efforts to see him as nothing but heroic
they know Obama is not affected negatively by the pastors remarks, even when misleadingly framed in the most duplicitous ways.....
it's not gonna work this time....
Actually, you and I HOPE that it's not going to work this time once he's the nominee. I agree with a few things that Rev Wright said. I disagree with some of what he said too but I don't think these Rev Wright clips are gonna play in Peoria (read middle America).
Not to mention that Obama was in that man's church for 20 years. You can't tell me that he didn't know that Rev Wright gave these kind of incendiary sermons. Any preacher tied to a candidate saying GD America is TROUBLE. That's what the cons in the media are going to harp on. If there's ever any type of video showing Obama being present during one of Wright's firebomb speeches it's game over.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 45:
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Because our presence there is helping to fuel the civil war.
How do you figure that one? The Sunni and Shia hate each other infinitely more than they hate American forces. The idea that we should up and depart and leave the Iraqis to figure it out themselves is as irresponsible and America-centric as it is glib.
American centric is believing that we have to babysit another nation because we know best and are the only ones that can protect their "barbaric" asses from killing each other. And we have fueled the civil war. We have been pitting one side against the other from the very beginning.
That graphic ought to be the winning design entry for the inevitable Iran was memorial. It should include a group photo of all the neocons who fomented this attrocity. It would be extremely easy to do in possihed granite using photo-lithography, even on a grant scale. In fact, this should be done as an unofficial memorial in a nationaly prominent place. Would cost a whole lot.
Politicizing the soldiers...
While I agree with this as stated, I must point out that this is the same argument used for not (being allowed) publishing photos of their coffins, or photos of the Iraqi dead, or any reality based subject matter at all concerning the war. Most Americans can not state the number of US soldiers killed to the nearest thousand- and we wonder why.
If our 'government' feels free to toss off 4000 US lives for political reasons I think it is our duty to take and make what small good we can with their photos.
The Sunni and Shia hate each other infinitely more than they hate American forces.
infinitely more? Somehow I doubt that. Could you provide proof? Considering most Iraqi's think its ok to attack american soldiers and they WANT us to leave, I would think that withdrawal of all troops is the only right thing to do.
Politicizing the soldiers...
While I agree with this as stated, I must point out that this is the same argument used for not (being allowed) publishing photos of their coffins, or photos of the Iraqi dead, or any reality based subject matter at all concerning the war. Most Americans can not state the number of US soldiers killed to the nearest thousand- and we wonder why.
If our 'government' feels free to toss off 4000 US lives for political reasons I think it is our duty to take and make what small good we can with their photos.
My argument is that you can compare this political stunt of a mosaic and compare it to the photo database that is on the NY Times website. The NYT provides actual information about the soldiers because guess what!!! They are actual people and not just a compilation of check marks that allow a website to crow that a new milestone has been reached. A mosaic with no information about the soldiers, arranged in a political manner is tawdry and does a disservice to the soldiers that died.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 45:
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Why should another country be involved in someone else's civil war, especially when our very presence is the instigation and motivation of hostilities? What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with OUR national security?
Did you really just say that America is the root of hostilities between Sunni and Shia? Are you serious?
Our presence is stirring the pot in the middle east and is the SOLE reason there is instability in region. If you don't think so, you need to brush up on facts, reality, and history.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 45:
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Because our presence there is helping to fuel the civil war.
How do you figure that one? The Sunni and Shia hate each other infinitely more than they hate American forces. The idea that we should up and depart and leave the Iraqis to figure it out themselves is as irresponsible and America-centric as it is glib.
What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with our national security?
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 45:
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
Because our presence there is helping to fuel the civil war.
The Sunni and Shia hate each other infinitely more than they hate American forces. .
You lost any credibility with that blatantly obtuse statement.
The best way to honor those who have been killed is to end the war, not use their faces to show how clever somebody is with a computer program. This piece is obvious and sophomoric.
It is not offensive it is just totally self-serving and, with so much death and killing, stupid. We are better than this.
Why should another country be involved in someone else's civil war, especially when our very presence is the instigation and motivation of hostilities? What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with OUR national security?
Did you really just say that America is the root of hostilities between Sunni and Shia? Are you serious?
Our presence is stirring the pot in the middle east and is the SOLE reason there is instability in region. If you don't think so, you need to brush up on facts, reality, and history.
The SOLE reason? With the greatest respect, I'm not the one short on an understanding of history here. Peace out.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 52:
Did you really just say that America is the root of hostilities between Sunni and Shia? Are you serious?
Our presence is stirring the pot in the middle east and is the SOLE reason there is instability in region. If you don't think so, you need to brush up on facts, reality, and history.
The SOLE reason? With the greatest respect, I'm not the one short on an understanding of history here. Peace out.
No, seriously, you are in a sore need of a history lesson. Each and every post you provided here today is proof of that.
When are you going to answer this: What does our presence in someone else’s civil war have to do with our national security?
The best way to honor those who have been killed is to end the war, not use their faces to show how clever somebody is with a computer program. This piece is obvious and sophomoric.
It is not offensive it is just totally self-serving and, with so much death and killing, stupid. We are better than this.
Are you sure you don't want to throw in "the piece is sooooo pedestrian".
Somebody is desperately trying to appear to be an art house snob.
Mon, 03/24/2008 - 12:29 — Paul in LA (not verified)
The pictures of soldiers is legitimate political expression, and a whole lot of us are REALLY ANGRY with the people IN THE SHITEHOUSE who sent those men and women to the grinder without body armor, without vehicle armor, without a legal mission, and while abandoning the Afghanistan attack on Taliban/Al Qaeda.
It's the tiny heads of those Pentagon bastards in their baby blue boots saluting themselves that deserve the anger---and the Skullfuck idiot in the C-in-C pajamas that deserves the anger.
I'd like to deliver that anger with PROSECUTION, and I heartily encourage the rest of you to spend as much time as I will making that happen. That's payback for their deaths; that's "making sure they didn't die" in vain. And in that fight, this collage is a pretty good weapon.
Fight on, brave soldiers -- you can still make your enemies at the Shitehouse cry. Fight on.
Politicizing the soldiers...
While I agree with this as stated, I must point out that this is the same argument used for not (being allowed) publishing photos of their coffins, or photos of the Iraqi dead, or any reality based subject matter at all concerning the war. Most Americans can not state the number of US soldiers killed to the nearest thousand- and we wonder why.
If our 'government' feels free to toss off 4000 US lives for political reasons I think it is our duty to take and make what small good we can with their photos.
My argument is that you can compare this political stunt of a mosaic and compare it to the photo database that is on the NY Times website. The NYT provides actual information about the soldiers because guess what!!! They are actual people and not just a compilation of check marks that allow a website to crow that a new milestone has been reached. A mosaic with no information about the soldiers, arranged in a political manner is tawdry and does a disservice to the soldiers that died.
Absolutely true.
And yet the visual impact of so many faces (albeit nameless) imposed over those laughing faces has a different sort of power. Not everything can be summed up with databases- not that I'm defending this mosaic as high art- but even low art has its place.
I personally know 2 of these faces in the mosaic- and it saddens me to know they are hidden somewhere in the crowd- but it forces me to contend with the 3998 that I don't know and, now, can never know- even if I study their profiles elsewhere. Sadly, not everyone has the time to do this. As Americans we have a brief window of attention and posters like this are an easy means to grab that attention and convey a great deal of information (but not all available info) to an easily distracted viewer.
Our presence is stirring the pot in the middle east and is the SOLE reason there is instability in region. If you don't think so, you need to brush up on facts, reality, and history.
The SOLE reason? With the greatest respect, I'm not the one short on an understanding of history here. Peace out.
No, seriously, you are in a sore need of a history lesson. Each and every post you provided here today is proof of that.
When are you going to answer this: What does our presence in someone else’s civil war have to do with our national security?
As much as you guys from America see it as "disrespectful" those outside the country see 4000 people who participated in the Warcrime too.
The Nuremberg Defence (I was just following orders) does not cut it, and never will. Volunteers that should not have been there, forced into service due to money issues etc... Whatever the reason, they PARTICIPATED in the Warcrime of Armed Agression.
The Warcrime that we all agreed should never happen again. And you let it happen.
Real soldiers would have had a coup to protect the dignity of the Uniter States from it's Criminal Leadership. They didn't.
(click for giant full-size)
Login or Register to post comments.
Wow... what a sad testimonial to two old men who can't get it up! To the 4,000 fallen and those wounded and their families... nothing will ever make this illegal occupation and rich-man's-war okay.
Powerfully moving and incredibly disgusting at the same time.
4000 dead imposed over top of the faces of two smiling killers.
Works for me.
I detest the war, I believe it was prosecuted in violation of international law, I believe Bush will go down as a war criminal and as one of the worst presidents of all time, etc. I also firmly believe that this picture is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen.
We rail against the Neo-Cons who take the lives of the soldiers for granted, but when we formulate the faces of these same soldiers into a purely political montage, that is simply disgusting. They volunteered to fight and to defend this country, and didn't ask to be sent into Iraq to fight a war of choice. They also did not ask to have their faces used by any website, liberal or conservative, to either criticize or support the war in Iraq.
To quote David Shuster a bit, this site and the Huffington Post are simply pimping these soldiers out for their own benefit and that is shameful.
There is something disturbing about that picture beyond the obvious. Using those dead people's faces to make up the face of bush and McCain, while making a point, seems to disrespect the dead in some way.
I understand the point that after 4000 are killed, bush and McCain still smile.
Now that's liberally macabre!
Mike @ 4:
And to just add what will probably be a useless and futile note to my earlier post, I'd ask that C&L consider taking this post down in order to not politicize the deaths of 4000 soldiers anymore. I understand this won't happen, but it should.
An all too seldom used term Mike... pawns.
The 4000 dead shouldn't form those two assholes.
StirFry @ 9:
//agree
But I am impressed by the artistry of it.
Mike @ 4:
Those soldiers volunteered.
If it's good enough for Veep Dick Cheney, then it ought to be good for the rest of us.
I thought the image was rather tasteful and makes a point, but that's art. (It is what it is.) If anyone has "pimped" these young men and women, it'll be their own government that sold them for oil and political gain. To continue the euphemism... not only did our goverment has no shame to pimp our volunteer army, they pimped out higher-priced whores so that some can actually make money on the blood and sweat for a nice profit.
That piece of art is meaningless next to the masterpiece that illustrated our occupation country after a war we started.
At first I saw this and thought, "how appropriate...the president and his successor, modern-day-Caesar-wanabees, laughing, while the bravest and brightest of our people give their lives..." but after reading the comments, I have to reconsider. I wonder how families of the 4000 feel about their loved one's likeness being part of this mosaic...
The media, government and American people have pretty much forgotten that there's a war going on. How can their deaths not be a political issue? (Although, I agree that the mosaic is a bit tasteless)
But these deaths ARE political, just as what you choose to drive and eat are political choices. Perhaps the formation of the faces of two laughing, rich, powerful war mongers who are only getting richer by squandering the lives and riches of our country with the faces of those they have sent to die doing their dirty work makes you uncomfortable because you know it's true and you know you haven't done a damned thing to stop them. Perhaps you even voted for them.
I didn't see this as disrespectful, and not only because the elements are so small that one cannot discern identities. We need to see these faces as often as we can, in whatever context, so that we--unlike The Powers That Be--don't forget that they were real people, real individuals, and that there are *thousands* of them. Their lives have indeed been the pieces used to create the smirks on those two politicians, and with much less care than this artist took.
Here is the original "War President" mosaic:
War President
And a reduction:
War President - Medium
Mike @ 4:
To "quote" someone is to actually quote them. I have no idea what quoting someone "a bit" is.
It is impossible for me to take your outrage seriously. These soldiers and their families have been manipulated right out of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. To suggest for one minute that the liberal blogs are profiting from this image while ignoring the profits made by Haliburton, KBR and Dick Cheney himself is baffling. If you are that upset about this image i can't understand why you are not in jail for proportional outrage against those responsible for making those faces in this image relevant.
Cheney says
Cheney says
Cheney says
Cheney says
Cheney says
Cheney says
Cheney says
As a work of "art", I suspect this image was computer generated.
As a statement, it is powerful. As a reminder, it is haunting.
It is not intended to be a tribute to the meaningless loss of life. I will not say that these soldiers died in vain, but there is no comprehensible reason for those individuals to have died.
US Army Recruitment Ad
"Because there is nothing on this green earth that is stronger than a US Army soldier."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaWvE0xiB8
THE ORIGINAL MOSAIC:
--------------
I think the symbolism of these two schmucks smiling and celebrating the deaths of their countrymen and countrywomen is well represented by that mosaic.
Quite appropriate that the Smirking Chimp/McBombIran likeness is represented with the faces of the dead, sent to a foreign country, a mission based on a lie, to spend their blood so four oil companies can profit through deaths.
Unfortunately, a million dead Iraqis would barely amount to a pixel each.
Maybe the artist can do something with the Abu Ghraib photos, too.
oncall @ 18:
Its only meaningless if continue to do nothing to stop it. As for what to do, that would actually have some success, I haven't a clue.
Mike @ 4:
Such outrage at art. Surely you can find more pressing reasons to be upset.
I can't speak for any of those dead soldiers. Few, but their own families can. I wish, though, that their voices could be heard about this image, about the total number of the fallen and about what it means "to die for your country."
For my part, though, it seems obscene and immensely disrespectful to use those soldiers' faces to make 'art' of, and a comment upon, the incompetent leaders who willingly offer those deaths to further their own ideas.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's tasteless and my husband is in the military. Most Americans don't even know that 4000 men and women have died. Now, how do we educate people on the million dead Iraqis?
Sad Sack @ 23:
Maybe you should be disgusted not by the art but by what inspired the art. Illegal war is obscene, 4000 dead is obscene, a million dead Iraqis is obscene. But, art is art and doesn't hurt anyone.
If you go to the original on HuffPo you can click down on it & see the individual faces of the slain.
Horrible- a smiling Bush/McBush image composed of these soldiers now in the grave when they should be alive, raising their kids. Shit.
Last night's Frontline again brought home how unforgivably senseless the Iraq war & occupation has been & is. To the Hague for all involved. A Dem administration can make that possible, plus yrs. of hearings for all the ugly this corrupt administration has wrought.
Mills of the gods. They grind slowly, but exceedingly fine, BushCo.
navyswan @ 24:
Mosaic of Cheney/Rumsfeld?
xoites Hussein defends Constitution @ 16:
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Huffington Post and C&L were non-profits that didn't gain money from advertisements on their websites. Here I am, thinking that everytime somebody clicks on a link, it gets recorded on a sitemeter that John Amato and Ms. Huffington can use to entice companies to post ads on their websites. I guess they don't make a profit at all.......my mistake.
Haliburton, KBR, DynCorp, etc. are all profiting from the war, but pointing to them as an excuse for why anti-war blogs should also make money off of the 4000 dead soliders is moral midgetry.
Art is supposed to provoke thought and discussion. It's supposed to challenge you, even if it makes you uncomfortable and offended. Would you have been offended if these same 4000 faces had appeared in the image of, say, the American flag? Or, would that have been patriotic and moving?
Oh, and even if it's computer generated does not mean it is not art.
This piece of art says it all. It shows who has paid the price and who is ultimately responsible for those deaths. This piece could have been much more forceful especially given Dick Cheney's recent comments. Another mosaic could have the faces of the fallen show a Dick Cheney in the background with the faces making up the word "So?"
Some may find this mosiac offensive or out of taste. I say it hits home and hits where it hurts the most and it is that which many can not stand.
Fanon @ 29:
I agree. I think it's a powerful and disturbing image. It doesn't seem disrespectful to the soldiers in any way, IMO.
WASHINGTON(AP) - President Bush pledged Monday to ensure "an outcome that will merit the sacrifice" of those who have died in Iraq, offering sympathy and resolve as the U.S. death toll in the five year war hit 4,000.
"One day people will look back at this moment in history and say 'Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve because they laid the foundation for peace for generations to come,'" Bush said.
The bubble-boy speaks. The sheer disgust and contempt I feel for these men when I look at those faces....there are no words.
Mike @ 28:
A war waged for the benefit of the oil companies and control of middle east oil is by far the bigger crime. The blog is to point out the injustice of it, as is the mosaic.
Mike @ 4:
i think mike has a valid point....
that said, people like Clinton and Edwards-- who voted for this war, deserve to be scorned and rejected for supporting the stupid monkey and his moronis minions....
How Clinton can have the hubris to run for president with a straight face, despite having supported this war from day one, is truly amazing....
Evil & Eviler.
Not cool. Why is McCain there and not any number of the dozens of Democrat senators who voted for the war? His presence in this picture turns it from possibly legitimate political commentary (though I'm not convinced of that) into a cheap, tacky exploitation of dead American soldiers for partisan ends. Shameful.
adam @ 37:
exactly,
should be mccain, clinton and cheney
We unfortunately all must take some of the blame for allowing this to happen. It's our responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen again or continue. The first step will be defeating McCain in November regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
It s/b Busholini & Dearth.
And Rummy & Condi & Wolfie & Feith & Fleisher etc.
nonbeliever @ 39:
not so fast....
clinton cannot beat mccain, so it's not so easy as saying "regardless of who the democratic candidate is"
unless feingold is gonna jump in and run for president, it's either nominate obama to ensure mccains defeat, or nominate clinton to ensure Mccain's victory
i can just see a debate with clinton and mccain....she tries to argue against the war, and the whole country laughs every time mccain says-- this is your war, you started in....and mccain will never have to say another word-- helped by the MSM-- because he's right, and everybody will have too much fun laughing at clintons hypocrisy (like gores pathetic (albeit entirely appropriate) sigh)
ohio progressive (typical white person) @ 38:
And why are you singling her out? Include all of the Democratic senators (Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Edwards et al) that voted for this or none of them. Let's turn our ire to the current president that brought us into this debacle and the man who is campaigning on continuing this president's policy.
The picture is accurate as it is.
OT, breaking: U.S. accidentally sends missile parts to Taiwan
adam @ 37:
Simple answer: McLame is the presidential candidate that is proposing to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years.
nonbeliever @ 43:
should be a picture of those seeking to be president who are complicit in this evil war
that includes mccain and clinton.....
mccain, clinton and obama have all singled themselves out, because they all have the hubris to think they should be president.
mccain and clinton are covered, cap a pe, with the blood of this war they helped to start...
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 45:
yeah, but clinton helped to start this war, so i'd take her promises to end it with a grain of salt.....perhaps there is a bit of the old "running under sniper fire" exaggeration, if you know what i mean, when she claims that she'll end this war she thought was so great back then
ohio progressive (typical white person) @ 42:
Haven't you been paying attention? McCain conflates Iran with Al Queda on multiple occasions and continues to get a free pass. Irrespective of the Democratic candidate, the media loves St. McCain. He can say and do no wrong. I like Obama, but don't kid yourself because he gave a brilliant speech. The Rev Wright thing is trouble and will definitely be brought up by the right wing media if he becomes the nominee. If you think Obama's going to have an easier time of it you're in la la land. Victory is not assured with either Democratic candidate.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 45:
Just for the sake of argument, if we invade a country and set off a civil war, why exactly *shouldn't* we stay there and keep one side from annihilating the other?
adam @ 49:
Because our presence there is helping to fuel the civil war.
nonbeliever @ 48:
Mccain got a pass by the MSM on the al qaeda iraq conflation....but let's face it, they've given bush that same pass for the past many years.....bush has always conflated the war on terror with the war in iraq, and the media has never sought to question that bogus and intentional mischaracterization
Obama is getting beat to shit on the intentional mischaracterization by the MSM of the pastors remarks.....
people aren't buying it.
they know Mccain is demented and ignorant, despite the MSM's efforts to see him as nothing but heroic
they know Obama is not affected negatively by the pastors remarks, even when misleadingly framed in the most duplicitous ways.....
it's not gonna work this time....
adam @ 49:
Why should another country be involved in someone else's civil war, especially when our very presence is the instigation and motivation of hostilities? What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with OUR national security?
navyswan @ 50:
How do you figure that one? The Sunni and Shia hate each other infinitely more than they hate American forces. The idea that we should up and depart and leave the Iraqis to figure it out themselves is as irresponsible and America-centric as it is glib.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 52:
Did you really just say that America is the root of hostilities between Sunni and Shia? Are you serious?
ohio progressive (typical white person) @ 46:
Kerry voted for this war too and I don't know about you but in spite of that, I supported him in 2004. If you want to play this game then fine. While Obama's been in the Senate he and Clinton have had nearly identical voting records when it comes to funding this very war that you and I and millions more are sickened by. Edwards voted for the war as well. If Edwards had became the candidate, I would've supported him. You might not like her, but clearly Clinton and Obama are more in agreement about Iraq than either of them are with McCain. In fact McCain is nothing but a warmonger who wants to expand this debacle into Iran.
Not to mention, at least according to polls, economic uncertainty has also surpassed the war as America's biggest concern . Either Democrat will be better than McCain who thinks we can tax cut our way out of this recession.
ohio progressive (typical white person) @ 51:
Actually, you and I HOPE that it's not going to work this time once he's the nominee. I agree with a few things that Rev Wright said. I disagree with some of what he said too but I don't think these Rev Wright clips are gonna play in Peoria (read middle America).
Not to mention that Obama was in that man's church for 20 years. You can't tell me that he didn't know that Rev Wright gave these kind of incendiary sermons. Any preacher tied to a candidate saying GD America is TROUBLE. That's what the cons in the media are going to harp on. If there's ever any type of video showing Obama being present during one of Wright's firebomb speeches it's game over.
It's Bush and Iraq War Girl!
adam @ 53:
American centric is believing that we have to babysit another nation because we know best and are the only ones that can protect their "barbaric" asses from killing each other. And we have fueled the civil war. We have been pitting one side against the other from the very beginning.
That graphic ought to be the winning design entry for the inevitable Iran was memorial. It should include a group photo of all the neocons who fomented this attrocity. It would be extremely easy to do in possihed granite using photo-lithography, even on a grant scale. In fact, this should be done as an unofficial memorial in a nationaly prominent place. Would cost a whole lot.
Politicizing the soldiers...
While I agree with this as stated, I must point out that this is the same argument used for not (being allowed) publishing photos of their coffins, or photos of the Iraqi dead, or any reality based subject matter at all concerning the war. Most Americans can not state the number of US soldiers killed to the nearest thousand- and we wonder why.
If our 'government' feels free to toss off 4000 US lives for political reasons I think it is our duty to take and make what small good we can with their photos.
infinitely more? Somehow I doubt that. Could you provide proof? Considering most Iraqi's think its ok to attack american soldiers and they WANT us to leave, I would think that withdrawal of all troops is the only right thing to do.
Bently @ 61:
My argument is that you can compare this political stunt of a mosaic and compare it to the photo database that is on the NY Times website. The NYT provides actual information about the soldiers because guess what!!! They are actual people and not just a compilation of check marks that allow a website to crow that a new milestone has been reached. A mosaic with no information about the soldiers, arranged in a political manner is tawdry and does a disservice to the soldiers that died.
You can remove as many comments that you dislike, all you want.
It will not change the reality of the fear and terror, your country continues to spread world wide.
Be proud of your 4000 dead.
Just as long as its not my son. Gotta go to grab my Yukon from the shop before the round robin at the country club.
M '08.
adam @ 55:
Our presence is stirring the pot in the middle east and is the SOLE reason there is instability in region. If you don't think so, you need to brush up on facts, reality, and history.
adam @ 54:
What does our presence in someone else's civil war have to do with our national security?
Mosaic sounds rather Hebraic.
adam @ 54:
You lost any credibility with that blatantly obtuse statement.
The best way to honor those who have been killed is to end the war, not use their faces to show how clever somebody is with a computer program. This piece is obvious and sophomoric.
It is not offensive it is just totally self-serving and, with so much death and killing, stupid. We are better than this.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 66:
The SOLE reason? With the greatest respect, I'm not the one short on an understanding of history here. Peace out.
adam @ 71:
No, seriously, you are in a sore need of a history lesson. Each and every post you provided here today is proof of that.
When are you going to answer this: What does our presence in someone else’s civil war have to do with our national security?
mandrake @ 70:
Are you sure you don't want to throw in "the piece is sooooo pedestrian".
Somebody is desperately trying to appear to be an art house snob.
The pictures of soldiers is legitimate political expression, and a whole lot of us are REALLY ANGRY with the people IN THE SHITEHOUSE who sent those men and women to the grinder without body armor, without vehicle armor, without a legal mission, and while abandoning the Afghanistan attack on Taliban/Al Qaeda.
It's the tiny heads of those Pentagon bastards in their baby blue boots saluting themselves that deserve the anger---and the Skullfuck idiot in the C-in-C pajamas that deserves the anger.
I'd like to deliver that anger with PROSECUTION, and I heartily encourage the rest of you to spend as much time as I will making that happen. That's payback for their deaths; that's "making sure they didn't die" in vain. And in that fight, this collage is a pretty good weapon.
Fight on, brave soldiers -- you can still make your enemies at the Shitehouse cry. Fight on.
Mike @ 63:
Absolutely true.
And yet the visual impact of so many faces (albeit nameless) imposed over those laughing faces has a different sort of power. Not everything can be summed up with databases- not that I'm defending this mosaic as high art- but even low art has its place.
I personally know 2 of these faces in the mosaic- and it saddens me to know they are hidden somewhere in the crowd- but it forces me to contend with the 3998 that I don't know and, now, can never know- even if I study their profiles elsewhere. Sadly, not everyone has the time to do this. As Americans we have a brief window of attention and posters like this are an easy means to grab that attention and convey a great deal of information (but not all available info) to an easily distracted viewer.
Dr. Hussien Matt @ 72:
I never said it did.
And please give me a history lesson...
As much as you guys from America see it as "disrespectful" those outside the country see 4000 people who participated in the Warcrime too.
The Nuremberg Defence (I was just following orders) does not cut it, and never will. Volunteers that should not have been there, forced into service due to money issues etc... Whatever the reason, they PARTICIPATED in the Warcrime of Armed Agression.
The Warcrime that we all agreed should never happen again. And you let it happen.
Real soldiers would have had a coup to protect the dignity of the Uniter States from it's Criminal Leadership. They didn't.