Photos from Iraq

You should go to ogrish.com if you want to see some "real" gore.

If I had to I would. Would you? Doubt it.

I already helped win the cold war. No shots fired though.

Our resident armchair generals I'm sure would relish being outside of Fallujah as we write.

CdK - What's so demented? I would say another posters comments above are much more so.

I have seen my share, in refugee camps, thank you.
I have also seen more than my share in the civilian world.

What's demented? How about when you said "Kill 'em all. Gutpiles rock."

I think you were probably just trying to be provocative but it's a demended comment, and dementia by others above it says nothing about you.

It's like so many of us -- we will eat meat but we don't like seeing the animal killed. Only problem here, it's human life that is being snuffed out and it's now being passed off as a means to an end. Has anyone really any idea what that end will be?

In the interest of presenting a moderate view, let me explain why these pictures are both important and a valid part of any rational discussion of the war.

It is important to accept the difficult questions on both sides of this contentious issue. These pictures are part of that.

I was against the first Gulf War as well as the second. As part of these debates I was presented with pictures and other documents that showed the cruel actions of the Saddam regime.

I saw pictures and read accounts of the gas attacks against the Kurds and the viscous torture against other Iraqi's. I never resented either of these.

My opposition of the war means that I am accepting the consequences -- in this case leaving Saddam in power. If I am going to be honest, I need to accept the consequences -- however horrible -- of the positions I support.

If I am not willing to face and understand the difficult consequences of my position, I am being hypocritical. This would be an act of itellectual cowardice on my part.

The same goes for those who support the war. This war has bad consequences which include hardship and death for the Iraqi people.

These pictures are the same as the terrible pictures of dead Kurdish bodies in the field after the Iraqi gas attacks.

There are two reasons these pictures are important and relevant.

First, we are in a Democracy. The government that is making the descisions on how to prosecute this war is acting in our name. We bear the responsibility. The war may have been a good thing (this is a matter of debate). But we had darn well better go into this war with open eyes.

Shutting our eyes to the consequences of US action is irresponsible.

Secondly, it is impossible to understand what is happening without these pictures. This war is at its heart a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people (and the others in the region). The US clearly has military superiority, but some large proportion of the public there doesn't support us, we are going to lose.

These pictures represent a point of view that has currency in the region. These are the pictures that are being seen by Iraqi's and others in the region.

If we close our eyes to anything that is uncomfortable to the US, it is impossible to understand what is happening in the minds of the people who are involved.

It doesn't matter what side of this issue I am on. I want to see all of the consequences of this conflict. I will look at these pictures, and I will look at the images of Saddams repression that support the war. That is the only way I can make any kind of informed decision.

There would have been difficult consequences to any decision that the US could have taken.

I don't want to close my eyes to any of them.

ebrown,

Moderate? What's moderate about being against the first Gulf War?

ebrown

Yes, not a word here I disagree with.

Craven,

I will edit out the word if you would like.

My attempt at being "moderate" is my position that it is important for both sides of the argument to look at the ugly images that are relevant to each position.

It is wrong for either side to close their eyes to the difficulties in their position.

It's not the pictures. It's the logic behind showing the pictures as a method of stressing a point. Yes kids get hurt, yes kids get killed. To blame the US a sole contributors to the violence is disingenuous though. the US is not fighting an armed resistance of women and children, we are fighting a war against cowards who hide amongst women and children.

Show the pictures of the gangs of thugs wearing masks and holding up the AK's and RPG's. Then show them running away as soon as an American soldier appears. Show them hiding in the shadows as the cowards they are.

Never forget who the REAL enemy is. People like Hobitbob who post up pictures of the president as the enemy are as deluded as those idiots hiding their faces.

I too was against the first Gulf War, ebrown. As I continually told my gung-ho younger brother, "You aren't going to be happy with the result of that war. Our leaders don't know what they are doing in the Middle East, ever." In the second war, even more so.

Straw man. No one did that.

Well, I'm sorry if I appear demented today, but I'm standing by my comments. In fact, I'm patting myself on the back for holding my tongue to the extent that I have. Those picture sites are nothing more than anti-US propaganda and show nothing of the good that our troops are doing. They don't show that a majority of Iraquis are happy to be rid of Saddam and to have us there temporarily. The President has decreed that the country will be turned back over to the Iraquis by June 30. For everyone involved, let's hope this is possible.

Comments about the President of the U.S. such as those expressed here disgust me and I'm disappointed in you-know-who.

I don't blame the US as "sole contributors" to the violence. My point is that each action has consequences. I think it is fair to say that the current violence is a consequence of US actions. Likewise had we not gone to war, any further brutality of the Saddam regime (or any other possible bad thing) would have been a consequence of US inaction.

The debate is over whether the consequences of the actions we chose, and more importantly the actions we are choosing now, are worth it. These pictures are a valid part of this discussion as are pictures of Saddam's brutality.



I agree with this. Posting Bush's picture in this context was inappropriate.

Cjhsa,

You called a fellow American citizen an "enemy" because he disagreed with you.

You have nothing to say.

Of course, your vast military experience qualifies you to comment..oops, I forgot, you weren't qualified to join the military. I stand corrected.

I don't care if the word is there, I do however want you to explain what is moderate about not supporting the first gulf war, one in which a direct response to an invasion was made.

So you stand by your comments to "Kill 'em all" and "Gutpiles rock"???

It takes all sorts cjhsa, but I don't happen to think you are one of said sorts.