Job Discussion Forums

[Nismo]

Are you insinuating there is a bias in the American media? NO WAY!

Ok, I'll turn the sarcasm off now.

The reason the US media doesn't post grotesque photos of casualties is out of respect to victims and to maintain a level of decency deemed appropriate by an American audience; the same reason they don't post pictures taken after a crime of a murder victim's corpse. We do have running totals of deaths in Iraq, so America is not oblivious to what's going on Iraq. Most of us are opposed to the occupation.

[AndyH]

Nismo is correct in that photos of deceased soldiers are not published in the US, out of respect for the fallen and sensitivity towards their families. The Bush Administration, however, has included the showing of American soldiers' caskets as being off limits to press photographers. This has nothing to do with respect, in my opinion, but rather, fear of the American electorate becoming more and more disillusioned with the war/occupation.
It's a tough call, but in many ways, I think people SHOULD see them. If Bush and Cheney had served in Vietnam, maybe they wouldn't have been so eagar to play with US soldiers' lives.
I served in the US Marine Corps in the 1991 war, and seeing what I saw reenforced the belief that wars should never be waged without careful consideration for the results.
The fact that Bush was reelected, even if by only a small margin, tells me that not enough people are really pissed off by what he has done. As bad as they may be, perhaps people need to see what the photos show!
I would recommend warning people about the graphic nature of the photos first....

[PAULH]

probably better to send by PM if you ask to see them but its like witnessing a car crash. It aint pretty.

[Gordon]

I also think it shouldn't be posted here. Personally, I don't need to see it, post a link and I'd be too tempted to look.

[King Kong Bundy]

[quote="Nismo"]We do have running totals of deaths in Iraq, so America is not oblivious to what's going on Iraq. Most of us are opposed to the occupation.[/quote]

If most Americans are opposed to the occupation then why did Bush Junior win re-election?

[King Kong Bundy]

PAULH wrote:

Not really about teahcing but found a rather graphic link from the newspaper with rather graphic photos of casualties in Iraq including one with half his face blown off from a bomb, dead Iraqis etc. Apparently the big media companies in the US have access to the same photos but choose not to publish them in 'support of the troops'. Just wonder if people would be offended if I posted a link here?

Well PaulH, I have disagreed with you on another thread but I sure do respect you for what you are trying to do here! Show the horrors of war and motivate people to do something to stop such an unjust war. Way to go! Maybe you are not such a bad guy after all.

[Xerius]

[King Kong Bundy]

Xerius wrote:

Because, despite the higher turnout, too many people still chose not to vote. This was especially the case with the 18-29 crowd, a bracket that tends to lean liberal. Voter apathy (among other things like running a weak campaign) cost the Democrats. Sad, but true.

Still no excuse! If most Americans opposed the war then Bush shouldn't of won with the highest turn out in history. And not only did Bush win but republicans won more seats in the house and senete. I read an interesting article about the republican campaign. They told voters, "We will protect you from terrorist abroad by fighting a war there. And we will protect your from homosexuals here at home!"
Most Americans are more concern with keeping marriage between a man and a woman than they are about stopping this unjust war. I personally don't if homosexuals can or can't get married, none of my concern. But the war in Iraq is wrong and will most likely get worse! Bush has ruined the image of Americans and the U.S.
And so many Americans are so ignorant about the world outside of the U.S. All they care about is getting a faster car, a bigger house and so on!

[Nismo]

[Nismo]

[PAULH]

[Nismo]

[homersimpson]

I wonder how many of you America haters drink Coke, eat at McDonald's, watch Hollywood movies and American TV shows, etc.

[lajzar]

[BlueSky]

Homersimpson,

That is such an old, dull, overused, and unimaginative retort to use whenever someone criticises America.

I don't think that the issue is really that black and white. You can't really label people as American haters, or American lovers. America is a fantastic country with so many beautiful places, and friendly, welcoming people. I think it is a shame that more people don't get to see that side of America.

However, you can't blame people for disliking America when an idiot like George Bush has retained his position with 51% of the vote. Saying that Coke and Hollywood etc... is America is just stupid (I am assuming that by your post you mean that if we like these things then we have to like America). You could by that reasoning just as easily take the sh*t that America produces, such as half the worlds pollution, and hold that up as an example of what America is (ie. we don't like pollution, therefore we must not like America). Is it not acceptable to like the good things, and hate the bad things about a country? I am from NZ, there are so many things about NZ that I love, but also many things that I dislike about my country. That doesn't make me a NZ hater.

I love Coke, I love cr*p Hollywood movies, I love the Simpsons, I love American cities (except LA) and I love the countryside. I do however, hate George Bush and what he is doing. That doesn't mean I hate America, or Americans.