TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › War Dead Names Read On 'Nightline'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War Dead Names Read On 'Nightline'

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...le614916.shtml

What do you guys think?
post #2 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedokitties
I think it was a well thought out, caring, lovley tribute. ABC and Ted Kopell should be commended. It's wrong to hide the darkest side of war. Otherwise, a lot of people start believing it's one big video game. The same thing was done by Nightline after September 11th. The New York Times (best newspaper in the world) ran bios of EVERY person that died during September 11th...every day untill they were all accounted for.
post #3 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
I think it was a well thought out, caring, lovley tribute. ABC and Ted Kopell should be commended. It's wrong to hide the darkest side of war. Otherwise, a lot of people start believing it's one big video game. The same thing was done by Nightline after September 11th. The New York Times (best newspaper in the world) ran bios of EVERY person that died during September 11th...every day untill they were all accounted for.
I agree. Why shouldn't there be a public tribute, with each and every name read? That's why I'm also in favor of the websites listing those killed, like
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx CNN has short biographies and pictures here: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ira...es/casualties/
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by jcat
Why shouldn't there be a public tribute, with each and every name read?
I agree, I think the losses our allies have had are just as important and those names should be included in all public tributes too.
post #5 of 26
There are those who say that to have done this was unpatriotic. Whole blocs of stations refused the network feed of Ted Koppel's touching tribute to those we have lost in Iraq. Faux News commentators have suggested that to do this "fails to support our troops." They have made the same crude accusations about the release of photos of the solemn handling of the remains of those troops as they return home with their caskets lovingly covered with our national colors.

If these tributes were unpatriotic, Jim and I expect that we will most likely have Memorial Day cancelled this year.

All the best to our kitty friends,
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Brown
There are those who say that to have done this was unpatriotic. Whole blocs of stations refused the network feed of Ted Koppel's touching tribute to those we have lost in Iraq. Faux News commentators have suggested that to do this "fails to support our troops." They have made the same crude accusations about the release of photos of the solemn handling of the remains of those troops as they return home with their caskets lovingly covered with our national colors.

If these tributes were unpatriotic, Jim and I expect that we will most likely have Memorial Day cancelled this year.

All the best to our kitty friends,
Good remark re: Memorial Day. I think those who believe it was unpatriotic Faux Lol News included, just want to blur the realites of war. Republican/Neo-Con election year fearful posturing on their part.
post #7 of 26
I'll admit, when I first heard of the planned program I had my doubts as to the motives of ABC and Ted Koppell. The media definitely has a liberal slant, and if the reading of the names was meant to show how many had "died in vain because of an unjust war" then it would have been quite disrespectful to the men and women who had fallen in service to their country, and that is what I feared would be the slant on an editorialized new show like Nightline.

The radio station I listen to interviewed him and asked him about the controversy, and that did satisfy the doubts I had. I do think that the Sinclair Broadcast Company overstepped by refusing to air the program. And all of this coming from a Conservative.

I think Nightline and Ted Koppell did a very nice job of honoring our soldiers and their families, putting faces with those who have fallen. Especially given the outcry about the publicity surrounding Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan. I can't comment of Fox News' handling of the situation since I don't watch it.

The concern that I heard wasn't about "blurring the realities of war" or "hiding the dark side". Come on, we hear exactly how many have been killed every single day. The concern was about using the fallen to make a political statement against the war, which I think would have been a grave disservice to those who serve. Thankfully, this didn't happen.
post #8 of 26
The concern that I heard wasn't about "blurring the realities of war" or "hiding the dark side". Come on, we hear exactly how many have been killed every single day. The concern was about using the fallen to make a political statement against the war, which I think would have been a grave disservice to those who serve. Thankfully, this didn't happen.[/quote]
Hearing about the deaths is not the same as seeing. Hearing ONLY does blur the reality of war. Otherwise, for many the facts become, "oh again." This is one reason why we have funerals, and mothers and dads who have lost a child in delivery are encouraged to hold the dead infant. I've had many a family member say they regretted not seeing the body of their loved one right after death. I know it helped me with my Mom. Of course we can't touch these dead soliders, but seeing faces and knowing facts about them, makes it all the more real and we need that. When "Saving Private Ryan" came out there was a resurgence of empathy and understanding for the WWII veteran. Those graphic opening scenes in Spielberg's film, opened a lot of eyes to the horrors of war. And made those, who were not alive during WWII, much more educated to the realities. Unlike the war they "knew" (Gulf War) from TV, which made war out to look something they had played on their Play Stations.
Seeing is believing, and yes, as long as I using cliches A picture is worth a thousand words.
post #9 of 26
Um, did you actually read my post? I said I thought it was a good thing....
post #10 of 26
I'm glad the names were read. I didn't get to see it though, my t.v. doesn't work.
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Um, did you actually read my post? I said I thought it was a good thing....
Yes, I certainly read your whole post. I was responding to how you disagreed with my "blurring the realities of war" quote. You stated how we hear about the deaths everyday, so the realites were not blurred. I in turn stated that "just hearing" about the deaths wasn't enough. Then I went on to explain my reasoning.
post #12 of 26
No, I said that the issues that had been raised by opponents was NOT about blurring the realities of war. It was about using the dead to further political agendas. Which was not the case on the Nightline special. Which is why McCain, families of soldiers, and even the White House said that not showing Nightline was a disservice to our men and women in uniform.

I'm not sure what news channels or show you watch, but I have seen quite a bit of the harsh realities of this war, via reporters on the front with the soldiers. That's not hiding it, that is showing in real time the day to day attacks that our men and women in uniform face every day over there. (I watch CNN.)
post #13 of 26
I wish I could have seen it, it sounds like a wonderful thing they did.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
No, I said that the issues that had been raised by opponents was NOT about blurring the realities of war. It was about using the dead to further political agendas. Which was not the case on the Nightline special. Which is why McCain, families of soldiers, and even the White House said that not showing Nightline was a disservice to our men and women in uniform.

I'm not sure what news channels or show you watch, but I have seen quite a bit of the harsh realities of this war, via reporters on the front with the soldiers. That's not hiding it, that is showing in real time the day to day attacks that our men and women in uniform face every day over there. (I watch CNN.)
I read the New York Times. It was my opinion that we have blurred the realities of war, and the opinions of other columnists. Many people especially young people do not read or watch serious news show. They rather watch "reality" shows or soaps. Case in point: Many kids enlist today and during the last decade, for the college/educational benefits (can't blame them) with nary a thought to the possibility of war. I have heard that type of statement over and over again on TV, in print and in person. Many of these kids were youngsters who watched the Gulf War "Video game" on TV. Very sad, IMO.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
I read the New York Times. It was my opinion that we have blurred the realities of war, and the opinions of other columnists. Many people especially young people do not read or watch serious news show. They rather watch "reality" shows or soaps. Case in point: Many kids enlist today and during the last decade, for the college/educational benefits (can't blame them) with nary a thought to the possibility of war. I have heard that type of statement over and over again on TV, in print and in person. Many of these kids were youngsters who watched the Gulf War "Video game" on TV. Very sad, IMO.
Hey! We actually agree on something!

I'll admit that I didn't really start watching news programming until I was mid-to-late-20s. I kept up to date with issues that interested me, but I certainly wasn't an active news watcher. Maybe I have a different view of the military than a lot of people because the Marine Corps is a big part of my father, even though chose not to reinlist after his mandatory 4 years (he was drafted in the Viet Nam era) because of his wife and child (I wasn't around yet). And because I started shooting competitively when I was 16, and went to the National Matches where the military teams compete as well. We were travelling out to the Nationals when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Many of the top Army and Marine shooters didn't stay for the second week of Competition - they had desert camis and sniper orders waiting. That really hit it home for me. Because of that I did watch a lot of Operation Desert Storm, because I knew some of the men who were there.

It is a choice as to what people watch on TV. No matter what the coverage, with 200+ channels now, plus the internet and video games, it is really easy for someone to bury their heads in the sand. Even if they saw the 1st Gulf War, it was so technology driven with the missiles and such, and even the combat was so uneven in our favor, I can see where the kids would get misconceived notions about what "war" is about. And we didn't see a whole lot about Kosovo or even Somalia to give that generation any idea of what the military can entail.
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Hey! We actually agree on something!

I'll admit that I didn't really start watching news programming until I was mid-to-late-20s. I kept up to date with issues that interested me, but I certainly wasn't an active news watcher. Maybe I have a different view of the military than a lot of people because the Marine Corps is a big part of my father, even though chose not to reinlist after his mandatory 4 years (he was drafted in the Viet Nam era) because of his wife and child (I wasn't around yet). And because I started shooting competitively when I was 16, and went to the National Matches where the military teams compete as well. We were travelling out to the Nationals when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Many of the top Army and Marine shooters didn't stay for the second week of Competition - they had desert camis and sniper orders waiting. That really hit it home for me. Because of that I did watch a lot of Operation Desert Storm, because I knew some of the men who were there.

It is a choice as to what people watch on TV. No matter what the coverage, with 200+ channels now, plus the internet and video games, it is really easy for someone to bury their heads in the sand. Even if they saw the 1st Gulf War, it was so technology driven with the missiles and such, and even the combat was so uneven in our favor, I can see where the kids would get misconceived notions about what "war" is about. And we didn't see a whole lot about Kosovo or even Somalia to give that generation any idea of what the military can entail.
I agree that it's nice to be agreeable...agreed?
post #17 of 26
I agree with Heidi. I heard Sean Hannity's interview with Ted Koppel before the airing of the show. Sean was concerned, but Ted assured him that the show did not take any stance for or against the war. He volunteered to go on Sean's show after the airing and talk later.

I ddin't see the show but I have no problem with the reading of the names. I also don't have problems with seeing the caskets coming home. In fact, I think the major networks should air more coverage of the World Trade Center blowing up so that we are reminded why our troops are fighting over there, lest we forget.......................................................................... ...........
post #18 of 26
The war offends me, but the reading of the names of the dead was a beautiful tribute and very respectful.
post #19 of 26
You're too quick to be offended, VGirl. Lighten up!
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Brown
There are those who say that to have done this was unpatriotic. Whole blocs of stations refused the network feed of Ted Koppel's touching tribute to those we have lost in Iraq. Faux News commentators have suggested that to do this "fails to support our troops." They have made the same crude accusations about the release of photos of the solemn handling of the remains of those troops as they return home with their caskets lovingly covered with our national colors.

If these tributes were unpatriotic, Jim and I expect that we will most likely have Memorial Day cancelled this year.

All the best to our kitty friends,
Well said, Ann!

Ratcatcher, how can anyone discussing the war dead "lighten up"? This statement of yours also confuses me: "In fact, I think the major networks should air more coverage of the World Trade Center blowing up so that we are reminded why our troops are fighting over there, lest we forget". Are you lumping Afganistan and Iraq together as "over there", or do you believe Saddam was also responsible for 9/11?
post #21 of 26
jcat,

I thought there were only two persons in the whole wide world who still maintain that Saddam Hussein or Iraq in general had anything to do with 9-11 -- Matt Drudge and Dick Cheney. I was wrong -- they are apparently not the only ones.

Cheers,

Jim
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Well said, Ann!

Ratcatcher, how can anyone discussing the war dead "lighten up"? This statement of yours also confuses me: "In fact, I think the major networks should air more coverage of the World Trade Center blowing up so that we are reminded why our troops are fighting over there, lest we forget". Are you lumping Afganistan and Iraq together as "over there", or do you believe Saddam was also responsible for 9/11?
Excellent points JCat. Letting people "believe" Saddam was responsible for September 11 was part of the Bush brainwashing technique. That's starting to fail now.
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatCatcher
You're too quick to be offended, VGirl. Lighten up!
Actually, with the exception of things that offended my sense of justice, it is really hard for me to be offended. I'm probably the only chick I know who isn't offended by dirty jokes.
post #24 of 26
Yes, I do believe that we should air the Trade Center blowing up. Now I'm hit with that statement because someone doesn't want to face the truth about why we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess some of the newsmedia squelched the pictures of the Boeing 707 at one of Saddam's palaces and/or terrorist training camps showing would-be terrorists how to storm an aircraft. Gee, that one didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, yet it was squelched. Saddam really admired what happened to the World Trade Center as well since he possessed a full-size mural of the buildings blowing apart. You guys need to read more news links besides Al Jazeera and CNN.

So to all of you, lighten up. This is only a forum. If your egos are bruised, so what, come up with better arguments. I'm beginning to get the drift that you other folks don't believe in any other speech but your own.
post #25 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatCatcher
Yes, I do believe that we should air the Trade Center blowing up.
ABC noted its news division had reported "hundreds of stories on 9-11" while adding that, on the first anniversary of that tragedy, it aired the victims' names.

-A brief quote from the original article, which I'm wondering if you've read.
BTW, any connections b/w the Iraq war & 9/11 are extremely flimsy, at best.
post #26 of 26
Didn't we see enough images of the towers coming down on 9/11? I know I did. Every Sunday there is a memorium after meet the press to soldiers who died in the past week in combat (names that that the pentagon releases at least). So, what's the difference if they are all listed at once? Why doesn't anyone say anything about George Stephanopolis doing the same thing every week but in a much smaller context?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › War Dead Names Read On 'Nightline'