Showing Death in Iraq -- Insensitive or Necessary?

Call me insensitive, but it really doesn't matter. You can publish all of the remains or you can ban them completely.

Personally, I've dissected enough mammals and studied anatomy for a while. I've seen so much media gore from the conflicts around the world, that in the end it gets repetitive and boring. Iraq now is not different from the WW2 and any other war - people get blown up all the same.

In the end it's human nature to kill each other. When that happens, bodies (or humans) get deformed, ripped, blown up, evaporated, cut, shot, brains spilled out, shot, burnt, raped and tortured.

It will keep happening regardless of whether you document it or not.

Just like african hunger - the PJs search for the most malnourished human skeleton, but the picture doesn't change the problem.

Anticipating questions...
How would I feel if it was pictures of my son or my dad torn to pieces?
I wouldn't care. The important point is that he's dead, that's the way he died and compared to that event, somebody snapping a picture of the remains is insignificant.

What's interesting is that much of the fervor is over the feelings of the marines. I would be curious to know what the families of the dead iraqis think of seeing pictures of their dead love ones on display. Its almost elitist -- do we assume that iraqis don't surf the internet, and therefore won't see photos of their maimed family members? Respect for everyone's feelings is important.

To be sure, I am not a huge fan of this type of imagery -- I truly believe that the reactions of the living to death are far more powerful than the dead themselves.

Doc makes an interesting point.

But you know, having been to the National Holocaust Museum, I think that there is certainly a place for this type of imagery. Maybe not now, but in time these images may serve to pay respect to these people's lives (Iraqis and servicemen) and the things that they have to endure. In a sense, the images are not disrespect, but a testament to and a record of their struggle.
There are many sides to this issue and no clear right or wrong answer (in my mind).

I agree with Doc on this...

This is a part of war, denying it and hiding it from the population is just wrong IMO. I think people have a vast misunderstanding of the effects of war when deciding to go to war.

Imagine if some of these shots were plastered on a poster at your local recruiting office.

I'm a former active duty Marine and I can tell you not much I've seen is as graphic as some of the video taken on Tarawa (WWII). To tell the truth about the experience is the best way to honor those that fight. They're our friends, our sons, our daughters and all that serve deserve the truth. War is hell and Marines always go into the worst of that hell so to sugar coat, sanitize it or John Wayne it does their honor a disservice.

I'm not going to rant about this debate.

I will say if any person used a picture of my dead child for any reason except memorializing,
I would be sending a picture of them, in the same condition, to their parents.

I believe this stuff MUST BE shown, on both sides. Hell, every night you can watch Brian Williams (insert your favorite plush-bottom anchor) droning on and on about obomodomadoma and while Iraq does get mentioned, the true cost, not only in soldiers, but civilian victims, gets a pretty glossy tailspin.

Think about Vietnam, who's life hasn't been changed after seeing our boys KIA? A PJ's photos should never have rules. A PJ is supposed to show the world what he or she sees, putting any rules on that is like making them shoot through a pin hole in a box that is being held by Uncle Sam.

I read about this last week and my initial thoughts were that he should not have taken photos of the dead soldiers.
War is a nasty thing and these photos were to me a reminder of how huge a sacrifice many are making.
I think that the photos did not show any one individual but focused on the awful effects of war. It is a gruesome reminder of sacrifice.
I am truly honored for men/women who are willing to step into harms way for our country.

I would add to my previous post - I think the immediate family of the fallen (be it a soldier or a civilian, and not only in war) should have the right to opt out - e.h. have his/her face blurred out if there's more than one in the picture. Otherwise it's sad but needed information.

I think what really made nation so conscious about Vietnam was the draft that affected practically every family. The photos and attention they generated were the consequence not the main reason. I bet you if the draft was reintroduced the war would be over by lunch.

This all brings up a lawsuit from the 1970s. In which Hustler Magazine printed graffic photos from the Vietnam War. Many of which were of soldiers bodies or pieces there of, as well as the vietnamese victims.

The U.S. Government filed the suit saying that the public didn't need to veiw such atrocities. Larry Flynnt and Hustler countered that the truth needed to be seen, and not just buy the fighting personnell that were there. Flynnt won this court case!

I think that this sort of imagery NEEDS to be shown, and, IMO, more often. If the majority of american civilians had any idea what soldiers (on either side) have to deal with, maybe they would think twice about bombing another country. No matter how you look at it, killing people is not something that anyone should have to do. I highly respect anyone in any branch of the service for what they've given to this country. I can't imagine having to live with those images surrounding me. somehow Americans dont have a problem with a war as long as it's somewhere else. as long as we can sugar coat the results and tone down the violence, we feel better about ourselves.

cory1848 wrote in post #6045106
I agree with Doc on this...

This is a part of war, denying it and hiding it from the population is just wrong IMO. I think people have a vast misunderstanding of the effects of war when deciding to go to war.

Imagine if some of these shots were plastered on a poster at your local recruiting office.

Fair enough provided that next to them were images of what "the bad guys" have done to their own civilian population.

I distinctly remember LIFE magazine showed images from a photographer that showed 8 servicemen that were down in the failed Iran hostages rescue.

Burned bodies. Strewn wreckage.

I was ten at the time and it impacted me in a very positive manner. I realized people were dying trying to save these people. I realized that even when there wasn't "WAR" that there was combat. Johnny didn't hear the ricochet first then his last words to his platoon buddies was to tell his mom and girl he loved them.

If the truth can't be shown then there is lack of truth. Period.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6045403
Fair enough provided that next to them were images of what "the bad guys" have done to their own civilian population.

Remember that the definition of "the bad guys" is going to be subjective.