What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
137 Comments
- aussiejan, on 02/26/2009, -2/+58I disagree. When you stop the filming of coffins arriving in the country, you are sanitizing the real cost of war. Reading that a soldier has died in the paper has little meaning to most people but when you see the coffin with the flag draped across the top, that has emotional meaning. That is the true cost of war. People need to see it. The enemy sees the real thing - bodies in the street.
Bush stopped the filming of the coffins (which had previously always been allowed - even with Republican presidents) because he wanted people to forget about the high cost of his senseless and immoral war. - joand315, on 02/26/2009, -1/+55I think, being a former troop myself, that the troops would like to have their former comrades honored and remembered. I thought those photos that were banned by the Bush Administration of flag covered coffins was especially moving. We should be reminded about those who pay the ultimate price at the request of their country. They have made a sacrifice that many would not.
- roessnakhan, on 02/26/2009, -12/+60It may embolden enemies, but it also shows people here the amount of loss from a war. Compare how disconnected the average American is to this war to Vietnam, where casualties were shown nightly on the news.
The article explains that permission is required from families to show coverage of a causality, so I do not really see the problem if the families do not mind. - scheibs14, on 02/26/2009, -13/+52They can't hide the true cost of war
- GetItBuilt, on 02/26/2009, -26/+62Finally, it's about time.
- joand315, on 02/26/2009, -2/+32The single best thing we could do to change Cuba's economy and politics to one based on market principles and democracy is open our doors to Cuba. That would really be a blow to Castro. With our embargo we ensure that the Castro's stay in power.
- ProfessorSYM, on 02/26/2009, -1/+28Yeah, because talking with our enemies is much more expensive in lives and dollars than simply going to war with them for decades.
- dryerbuzz, on 02/26/2009, -10/+36conservative rants aside, this will allow the country to grieve together.
- ProfessorSYM, on 02/26/2009, -3/+25And yet pieces of ***** like you will continue to sit comfortably in your civilian world, cheering on corporate wars that you have no intention of signing up to fight yourself.
- joand315, on 02/26/2009, -3/+25During WWII people weren't isolated from the dead because everyone knew somebody in the fight. In urban areas, we are much more isolated from those that actually participate in the fighting. It's possible to be pretty removed from this war. Reporting on those that don't make it, is a good way to remind the public that people are still fighting. Maybe the troops that make it won't feel so forgotten or so unappreciated if we honor their buddies who have fallen.
- Thwarter, on 02/26/2009, -13/+35War is hell, but to ban media from showing it's effects is nothing more than propaganda by exclusion. To my knowledge, previous wars had no ban on such coverage and there is no reason why this ban should have existed in the first place.
Citizens deserve to be aware of and witness the results of their government's actions. I agree the decision to show or not show the return of fallen soldiers lies with the family of the fallen, or if the fallen had previously stated their choice.
As citizens, we deserve our right to privacy, yet we also deserve our right to be seen and heard if we choose it. - ProfessorSYM, on 02/26/2009, -2/+22There is nothing decent about war, and to hide the coffins of those who have given their lives for this country insults the integrity with which they served.
- poopsybythebay, on 02/26/2009, -10/+29Conservatives hate that they can't just rah-rah the war without consequences. The keyboard commandos will have to actually LOOK at what they are cheering about from the safety of their basements. They as a group love to be able to put a phony veneer on all of their policies, but Obama is slowly peeling back the veneer. Can't be good for the rightwing whack jobs.
- fmigacz, on 02/26/2009, -9/+26Freedom of press.
We have the right to know, if you don't want to see it. Avert your eyes. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 02/26/2009, -1/+18Photographs are only allowed if the family members of the deceased allow it. I can only hope they hold the media to this standard.
- JesusSaidSo, on 02/26/2009, -3/+19What does bearing witness to the return of our fallen have to do with Hugo and Castro being invited to the White House?
You Republican puppets sure are brainwashed. - joand315, on 02/26/2009, -3/+18Actually we have seen footage of dead terrorists.
- UnpossibIe, on 02/26/2009, -1/+15I'm kind of mixed on this. As a former soldier, if I were to die in war, I would want people to see my casket to see the price of war. There's nothing fun about war. Nothing romantic, nothing glamorous, just pain and death.
As an average joe, I'm kind of against it, because I don't want the media to be flocking around my fallen brothers like vultures. - TrevorBelmont, on 02/26/2009, -1/+14Everything you just said is *****.
- Todynho, on 02/26/2009, -1/+13That horrible freedom of the press thing again.
- twiztidsinz, on 02/26/2009, -3/+15Someone please explain to me why THIS is "bad" and a "tool for terrorists"....... but the video depicting 9/11 and dead troops that McCain used at the convention a while back was "Patriotic"?
- TrevorBelmont, on 02/26/2009, -2/+13We disrespect our dead when we hide them.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+11I know plenty of conservative-leaning people who are critical thinkers, supercandy is just a *****.
- Phatlip012, on 02/26/2009, -1/+11Are you suggesting that's a bad thing? Explain.
- sjbradyusd, on 02/26/2009, -3/+13You mean George H.W. Bush stopped the filming
- joand315, on 02/26/2009, -2/+11George Bush banned some pictures that were the opposite of parading our dead in the streets, but rather were a moving reminder of the true cost of the war. Those pictures of flag draped coffins allowed us all to grieve with the families of those who had fallen. Why would you deny that to the country?
Our enemies our more emboldened and "incentivized" by our incompetence in prosecuting the immoral war in Iraq, our policies of rendition and torture, and the existence of the prison in Guantanamo Bay then any pictures of flag draped coffins.
If anything, our nation's ability to withstand such losses and continue to fight on, will give our enemies something to think about. - inactive, on 02/26/2009, -0/+9Such is life in a free country. People who wan't to be invulnerable to negative thoughts by sacrificing whatever freedoms they can offer need to move the ***** out, and never come back again.
America is vulnerable because she is free. It takes more courage to live free, than to live immune. - inactive, on 02/26/2009, -4/+13@gbudavid
And a lot of people spent as many years paying you to do so. - inactive, on 02/27/2009, -1/+9Would you have the death toll be kept secret as well? After all, simply hearing the numbers might help our enemy. Perhaps we should hide the fact that we're even engaged over there.
- lemur, on 02/26/2009, -2/+10It's because they realized years ago that when people actually see the effects of war (Vietnam), they demand an end to the atrocities. Politicians can't stand when they aren't able to fight their pet wars.
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -4/+12So essentially, CNN is saying that Freedom of the Press is dead. Since when does the press need 'permission' in order to print anything? What is this? Communist China?
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -2/+9Shut up.
- Cotterdamn, on 02/26/2009, -2/+9As a member of the military I don't know, but I do know I'm tired and seeing my brothers and sisters die.
- MelekTawus, on 02/27/2009, -1/+7Yeah, those Liberals like Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon who all allowed the press to photograph our war dead were all a bunch of ghouls.
- grungegbunny, on 02/27/2009, -2/+8You obviously don't get it. Bush banned this in an attempt to change the topic of the tragedy of this war to something else like Paris Hilton getting arrested.
- JesusSaidSo, on 02/27/2009, -1/+7Conservatives are great! I have many conservative views myself.
The trouble is that Republicans /= Conservatives. - NotAChickenHawk, on 02/26/2009, -2/+8You're right, we should all just go on happily living our lives as if no one has died. *NOT* showing the dead and pretending that they don't exist emboldened those morons you all elected to produce more dead for no good reason.
- twiztidsinz, on 02/26/2009, -1/+7LOL I NO RITE???
CUZ TEHY R ALL KOMUNISTS!!! - sugarazor, on 02/27/2009, -0/+6If my family member had a newsworthy death such as dying in a war, the press has every right to report on that.
- LeftieLucy, on 02/27/2009, -2/+7I think this is good - I like the way it is being handled in Canada where if any family members of the fallen object, then there is no media coverage, otherwise media coverage is allowed. Most families choose to allow the coverage. (And nobody is swarming family and service members - it's photo and video at a respect ful distance.) It really has, to many Canadians, become an appropriate tribute to the fallen heroes. Repatriation ceremonies are usually covered on live TV, and people line the highways to pay tribute as hearses pass.
- grungegbunny, on 02/27/2009, -7/+12This is a good move to bring back the transparency Bush had eroded away.
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -5/+10It's about goddamn time.
Conservatives are a joke. They wan't us to accept willingly and from now until forever that this war is virtous, and these men are giving up their lives to protect our security.
Yet they wan't to cover up the real sacrifice, the REAL face of war. They wan't our kids to think that war is this slightly ugly rich girl you can go out with for a while, and get lot's of money in return.
In short, conservatives who wish to censor this are being disrespectful ***** to the troops, as well as to Americans. This ***** Anti-American ***** needs to stop. - Frodoholic, on 02/27/2009, -0/+5Why wouldn't military families want this to be shown? Their sons and daughters die for a very public cause, and they should be honored and remembered, not hidden away, swept under the rug like they're an embarrassment or a blemish on American history. They are not "showing off the dead" or trying to use it for propaganda purposes- what is wrong with letting the public see the real cost of war? Those are your neighbors there, why wouldn't you want people to know that they died fighting for their country? I don't agree with the war we're fighting, but isn't it more dishonorable to try to hide our soldiers?
Do you honestly believe that this will "embolden" the enemy? No, what emboldens them is their extremest views. Dead bodies or not, the extremest out there will continue to hate the U.S. - ryan83189, on 02/26/2009, -1/+6I am for this if they get permission from the family in the most respectful way possible.
- joand315, on 02/26/2009, -4/+8This is hardly a case of the dead being paraded before the public. Stick to the facts. This ban has been in effect since the First Gulf War, and is now being lifted.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -4/+8Good, it's a freedom that belongs in the hands of a free press and the human toll of war should no longer be kept from the public's view.
- thecray, on 02/27/2009, -1/+5Try reading the ***** article next time...
"But the families of the victims will have the final say on whether to allow the coverage, he said." - NyteStarNyne, on 02/26/2009, -4/+8WTF? I thought people were bitching about the fact that the Government should allow us to see what the damage is? Now everyone's against it? Go figure.
- lemur, on 02/27/2009, -0/+3I didn't say that war images weren't kept from the public before, but just that it was a major tipping point in Vietnam that the public was overexposed to the gruesome aspects of the war, leading to popular dissent against it.
As for WWII... In reality, a lot of what US forces did to Japan was unjust and despicable. The US had a right to self defense, but not to use excessive force in retaliation. Much of the inhumanity on the part of the United States was fueled by racism, and since WWII happened recently, there are many from the older generations that still defend it--even acts as disgusting as deploying nuclear bombs on Japanese soil and, like Nazi Germany, rounding up their own fellow citizens and herding them into concentration camps based on a strictly racist criteria. To put things in perspective, nobody in the USA decided to inflict nuclear holocaust on white Germans or wrongfully imprisoning citizens of German descent.
"There were serious and legitimate concerns that public support would falter leaving the successful prosecution of the war against Japan in doubt."
Oh yeah, I totally hear you bro... I mean, who's gonna kill all those damned dirty Japs when it becomes obvious to the public that bloodshed is no longer necessary? We can't let democracy get in the way of our prosecution of war, after all!
Anyway, this is Digg and you're arguing in favor of false war propaganda and government censorship of things that make governments look bad. You should prepare to get dug down...
By the way, how about Tiananmen Square, eh? You and the PRC should get together and compare notes. - JesusSaidSo, on 02/26/2009, -4/+7I, for one, am open to allowing the nation to view the dignified return of our fallen to our soil.
Only Republican scum would be so ashamed of these men and women that they would want to hide them from everyone. -
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is