The Unseen Gulf War

January 21, 2003 10:15 PM

The Unseen Gulf War is a photo exhibit from the Gulf War that shows an aspect that I doubt many people have had a chance to see, the "human consequences". Why because the US government after Vietnam fears a media that is not corralled. Besides the fact that this is undemocratic, this view that the media really turned the tide of public opinion in Vietnam seems to be debated by many as this article explains. I must warn that many of the images can be highly disturbing
posted by GreenDragon (44 comments total)

1. Isn't this a repost?

2. If you didn't see these images during the gulf war either you weren't paying attention or you were 5. Rolling Stone ran images much like this and so did many other magazines.
posted by nyxxxx at 10:20 PM on January 21, 2003

What's disturbing are anti-American liberal conspiracy theorists.
posted by MrAnonymous at 10:21 PM on January 21, 2003

It's a repost, but there's no need to slam the idea behind the post as well. We know Bush I's Pentagon lied multiple times about Gulf War casualties, among other things, and we know the U.S. media underplayed the horrible effects of the war on Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I don't see how any thoughtful person can dispute those two statements.
posted by mediareport at 10:29 PM on January 21, 2003

War causes casualties? Imagine that? No simpathy for Iraqi troops. They are fair targets just as our troops were. They were just suckier. "Collateral damage" is to be expected. Tis the price of war.
posted by MrAnonymous at 10:46 PM on January 21, 2003

Yes, MrAnonymous, and lucky you Minnesota is far, far away from any such war.
posted by four panels at 11:08 PM on January 21, 2003

Unseen Gulf War, my ass. If you watched any footage of the war you saw this. The History channel has been playing footage from the 1st Gulf War all week, including the infamous "Hi-way of Death".

Let us remember what war casualties look like right here at home.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:14 PM on January 21, 2003

Steve_at_Linwood, your jingoism could be considered a perpetual motion machine, appropriate for this thread.
posted by four panels at 11:19 PM on January 21, 2003

:)
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:27 PM on January 21, 2003

The whole world saw the images of 9-11 as it happened and for months following it. But I do not remember seeing Gulf War images such as these during the Gulf War. Seeing them now, and in such quantity in all media smells like propaganda. No?
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:33 PM on January 21, 2003

But I do not remember seeing Gulf War images such as these during the Gulf War

You must not have had CNN in '91. They were very quick to show the dead chared bodies, and ask if it was "overkill" or say that it was like "Shooting fish in a barrel"...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:38 PM on January 21, 2003

I did have CNN in '91, but only remember alot of Wolf Blitzers face and talk of SCUD's... Maybe I was tuning in too early?
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:42 PM on January 21, 2003

What's disturbing are anti-American liberal conspiracy theorists.

Are conspiracy theorists liberal with their Americanism? Are conspiratorial Americans liberal in their anti-ness? Are liberal theorists anti-conspiritorial if they denounce Americanism?

Or is it more disturbing that certain people don't have one single iota of an individual thought insofar as their own existence in and among subjects of global environment they're so readily glib about?

--------------

Unseen IN-humanity (gulf war turkey-shoot) my ass steve&^*&*. You're seeing the result of slaughter right in front of your eyes and you still can't discern that from which you have never had any decision making power in and the slaughter that was committed in your name and by the taxes you pay. What Americans you truly are Stev$#$#$#%^ and Mr.A. . . But I guess you caught all the footage. I hazard to say. This lifelessness photographed of slaughtered people you just brush off with the lackadaisical inanity "This is war. Whaddya expect?", is the fucking footage of the war you say you already saw all the (important) footage of!!!!

Sure these photos didn't color your true belief in time to dissuade you from individualism

You perhaps, never even paused long enough to suppose that it is you who makes America, not the fables your best off believing. Not even the television footage you saw at the time matters. It neer does.

The footage anyone who is concerned with democracy and peace is the footage that rides on in to your optic nerve and into your brain when you look down at your lap. Look at yourselves! You're equally as useless as the dead, severed bodies of ~~~~IRAQI TROOPS~~~~ you see wasted and rotting in the sand.

You're doing the deed of the bidders who are the exact correlate of who it was that these dead Iraqis were doing the bidding of when they were anihillated by superior American Morality.
posted by crasspastor at 11:48 PM on January 21, 2003

I'm trying to remember why I left this unpunctuated sentence in there:

Sure these photos didn't color your true belief in time to dissuade you from individualism

Disregard. Disregard.
posted by crasspastor at 11:58 PM on January 21, 2003

Whoa! What he said.
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:01 AM on January 22, 2003

Well, that's twice for this topic...still waiting for a good FPP on what Saddam's been cooking up in the way of WMDs or how brutal his regime is. Equal time and all that.
posted by alumshubby at 4:19 AM on January 22, 2003

Almshubby, you get half your wish. Listen to that radio episode link from "My American Life" that I posted, and you'll hear interviews with Iraqis. I'll leave it to the UN inspection teams on the WMD part.
posted by sheauga at 6:14 AM on January 22, 2003

whats the difference between a terrorist attack that kills civilians and a military strike that we know will have civilian casualities but do it anyway?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:37 AM on January 22, 2003

McSweetie, what's the difference between 9/11 and say, the military strikes that freed Holland from Hitler's occupation in 1944? Or say, the military strikes that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban? Do you really see these strikes as moral equivalents?
posted by orange swan at 8:19 AM on January 22, 2003

I'm not a big supporter of getting a bunch of poor people's kids killed to help bush pay back his oil industry puppetmasters.

However, I don't feel terribly sorry for the Iraqi soldiers that got killed on "the highway of death", etc. These are the same assholes that raped, pillaged, murdered and generally terrorized the people of Kuwait. They were just as guilty as the German soldiers who were just "following orders" when they committed atrocities in WWII.
posted by Blubble at 8:55 AM on January 22, 2003

The only problem here is who's side your on... I'll wager al Quada claimed the same sort of victory over it's oppressors after 9/11 as Allied nations did post WWII. Fact is, nobody "wins" a war. People just die. And life goes on.
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:11 AM on January 22, 2003

Let us remember what war casualties look like right here at home.

Yeah, war casualties. All so fucking silent, you know? You can only tell the American dead from the Iraqi dead by the little halos around American heads.

But thanks for pointing out the moral equivalence of strafing retreating troops by brave American pilots, and flying jetliners into buildings. And don't forget to repost pictures of American civilians killed on 9/11 alongside the inevitable posting of pictures of Iraqi civilians who will be killed during impending Operation "He Tried To Kill My Daddy And Besides That, Conservatism Only Thrives When People Are Kept Fearful". You know...that moral equivalence thing.

The Iraqi dead. The American dead. War casualties.

Think about it.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:30 AM on January 22, 2003

f&m you are hardly one to talk about moral equivalence....

As for "strafing retreating troops", go talk to some of the pilots that flew that mission. They will tell you they took heavy fire from these "poor retreating troops"....

I have thought about it, I suggest you start...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:48 AM on January 22, 2003

First posted in this post, Gulf War photographer Patrick J. Sloyan's article in the Digital Journal entitled "What Bodies" describing the lengths the Pentagon went to prevent pictures of dead bodies appearing on American TV screens:

In manipulating the first and often most lasting perception of Desert Storm, the Bush administration produced not a single picture or video of anyone being killed. This sanitized, bloodless presentation by military briefers left the world presuming Desert Storm was a war without death. That image was reinforced by limitations imposed on reporters on the battlefield. Under rules developed by Cheney and Powell, journalists were not allowed to move without military escorts. All interviews had to be monitored by military public affairs escorts. Every line of copy, every still photograph, every strip of film had to be approved – censored – before being filed. And these rules were ruthlessly enforced.

posted by RichLyon at 12:15 PM on January 22, 2003

Do you really see these strikes as moral equivalents?

nope.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:56 PM on January 22, 2003

What about all the non-war Iraqi dead and near-dead: the thousands killed, tortured, abused, the millions subject to a totalitarian state? Those victims, many more in number (except for the fake casualty numbers reported by Iraq and the Hate American Crowd), don't count?

Hope the war begins ASAP.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:26 PM on January 22, 2003

Hey Paris. Do you think the Here's a Ramadan present from Chad Rickenberg is a Hate America Crowd fake? War! Whup! Whup!! Whuuuup!!!

[Warning: very distressing pictures. At least to those of us not lusting for war.]
posted by RichLyon at 2:15 PM on January 22, 2003

They are probably not fakes. My beef is with people who treat Saddam Hussein as just some tin pot dictator, rather than a little Hitler on the way (without US intervention) to becoming a full-sized Hitler.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:39 PM on January 22, 2003

I know. And my beef is with the US picking this particular nascent Hitler out of a distressingly large population of them and embarking on a course of action that will result in the deaths of 10'000s of civilians - and the regrettable coincidence that they are all sitting on top of lots of the black stuff.

Probably just my suspicious mind - maybe it is possible for a nation's foreign policy to be driven solely by moral rectitude and, hey, you've got to start somewhere. And actually, it is quite thoughtful of them to spare me the pain of seeing all the dead bodies. It's nice to be cared for in that way.
posted by RichLyon at 12:16 AM on January 23, 2003

I agree, it is nice to be cared for RichLyon. It is nice that however much you put into the capitalistic democracy we reside, the less you get, but oh, the gadgets and features. Sure, we of course get the choice of channels, the choice of octane, the choice of whole/lowfat/skim, the choice of the smooth 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's (or some amalgam therein). In fact, if I only made a little bit more I'd have myself some goddamn health insurance.

This is what it is to be cared for RichLyon.

To be shown not quite the pinnacle of the massacre of war because we're being "cared for" is the pinnacle of fascist brainwash.

The very fact that you or I hanker for the upgraded 3.99 shrimp addition or the $.29 a pound banana is exactly that which prices us out of democracy and makes us ripe for the two bit coverage of WAR on the commercial media channels.

Consumer/taxpayerism (cloaked as advancement) vs Humanity for all
posted by crasspastor at 1:53 AM on January 23, 2003

"Taxpayerism"--

The fact that we've all been hoodwinked into believing we only pay taxes but don't, as taxpayers, ever get, nor should we expect anything out of it.

Corporations do all of the dirty work of providing jobs, technological advancement and entertainment for society.

The society that the taxpayer funds is nothing more than the protection the media can convince him he is getting via the amount of money his taxes go for capitalistic growth.
posted by crasspastor at 2:02 AM on January 23, 2003

that will result in the deaths of 10'000s of civilians

I bet you said that before the taliban and Al-Qaida got a can of whup-ass opened on them, too. Didn't happen.

Hiya crasspastor!

In fact, if I only made a little bit more I'd have myself some goddamn health insurance.

Or you could go without. You're a strapping young lad. Or you could study hard to get a good job with good benefits. Nobody owes you an aspirin when you get a headache.

The society that the taxpayer funds is nothing more than the protection the media can convince him he is getting via the amount of money his taxes go for capitalistic growth.

And the alternative is what? The genius of (discredited time and time again) communism? Please. If you work, and you're not satisfied, work harder and get a better job. The commies won't let you do that.

This conspiracy theory world (complete with fatcat bastards screwing the little guy) dissolves completely when you realize that the only one responsible for your success or failure is you.

Believe it... or not!
posted by hama7 at 2:26 AM on January 23, 2003

[Warning: very distressing pictures. At least to those of us not lusting for war.]

Too bad sweet Saddam didn't take any pictures of the Iraqi army gassing Kurds and U.S. forces. In fact, look around the United States for the Gulf War veterans who are suffering from Sarin and VX nerve gas poisoning. There's probably one suffering near you.

There's only one criminal psychopath "lusting for war" and it's against the 'infidels' and Israel. I'll give you a hint: His name rhymes with 'Shmoossein'.
posted by hama7 at 2:40 AM on January 23, 2003

What are you posting your comments to Hama7? A diary that only you can read?

It's a community you're posting to. Just as much as you would hate to admit it, virtually everything you do exacts an effect on others. Why then communicate eh? Is it just that it is you who does it, in selfish finality? Why then expect to affect with what you have to say? What really would it matter if it only really, ultimately, comes down to whether you succeed or fail? Why bother writing in public? To convince more to be selfish?

In truth, you communicate, because you look to garner agreement, hostility, reaction from what you have to say. All of which, it is interesting to note, depend on a community that may or may not agree with you.

To assert:

This conspiracy theory world (complete with fatcat bastards screwing the little guy) dissolves completely when you realize that the only one responsible for your success or failure is you.

Is disengenuous in that you find a place of shared dialogue worth your while you pay nothing (as far as your own ideology) into a system we all share (Metafilter). Yet still find it worth your while to assert that the "you" is more important than the "they" or "we". Why then write in public if you really felt that way? Why then selflessly convince others of giving selfishness a try?

What a lie you've sold yourself to. To try and convince others to be "democratically" selfish through your rightist rhetoric in an inclusive internet community yet at the same time expressing an ignorance over that which allows you to do so.

Wake up Hama7. There are other people on Earth who don't see things like you do. Are you going to kill them?

It amazes me how shallow you allow yourself to show the extent of your imagination yet still command an air of respectability.

------

It's too bad Rumsfeld/Cheney/Crimimal didn't photograph all the great times and great returns Shmoossein-as-ally gave them. That'd be a great album to teeter over

Hypocrite.
posted by crasspastor at 2:59 AM on January 23, 2003

What really would it matter if it only really, ultimately, comes down to whether you succeed or fail? Why bother writing in public? To convince more to be selfish?

Listen, your crassness, I meant none of the above as a personal attack, so relax. What I am trying to say is that whatever your beef with capitalism, it is worlds better (and has withstood the test of time) than other idealogies to which you allude. And 'selfishness' is not necessarily a bad thing.

All of which, it is interesting to note, depend on a community that may or may not agree with you.

I hope you're not suggesting that the 'community' is a like-minded 'flock'. The horror!

What a lie you've sold yourself to.

I've "sold myself to"? All I'm saying is that we have opportunities galore, and as free people we should thank our lucky stars, and our military for that.

Despite your nasty attacks, I think you're basically a nice guy, and I appreciate your comments.
posted by hama7 at 4:02 AM on January 23, 2003

hama7 I bet you said that before the taliban and Al-Qaida got a can of whup-ass opened on them, too. Didn't happen. Given that the tenor of this thread is an enquiry into the documented tendency of government to suppress reporting of caualties in order to manage public opinion, it seems reasonable to ask: how do you know?

ParisParamus: Hope the war begins ASAP I keep meaning to ask - in that war, is the probability of you being shot at or, say, disembowelled during hand to hand urban warfare on the streets of Baghdad anything greater than 0.000? Is Mrs Paramus at risk shortly of losing her loved one? Other than cracking open Buds on the sofa during CNN updates, what precisely will your contribution be to that war?

If the answers are "no", "no" and "nothing", could I be forgiven for regarding your enthusiasm as a little misplaced? (And hama7 - that was the lusting I was referring to, although I admit there is plenty of it about to get confused by).
posted by RichLyon at 4:39 AM on January 23, 2003

how do you know?

I know because the U.S. military, with the technology that it has, would be wasting valuable resources by killing people who weren't the enemy. Afghani civilians weren't the enemy, so don't try to insinuate that they were legitimate targets for bloodthirsty killers. Those American troops were men just like you and me who loathe killing, and understand that elimination of the enemy simply prevents further bloodshed.

As far as Iraq is concerned, an attack as soon as possible accomplishes the same thing: prevention of more unbelievable atrocity and killing. ParisParamus's comparison to Hitler is accurate. Civilization wouldn't stand for atrocity during World War 2, and we shouldn't stand for it now.
posted by hama7 at 5:17 AM on January 23, 2003

Civilization wouldn't stand for atrocity during World War 2, and we shouldn't stand for it now.

Actually, France did stand for it, and practically enjoyed it; collectively the country certain enjoyed being rid of a great number of Jewish people.

As I have in the past, I'll give Germany a pass on the assumption the place is still to morally "young" to have any resolve towards Iraq.

Other than cracking open Buds on the sofa during CNN updates, what precisely will your contribution be to that war?

Other than countering the lunatic left here on Metafilter and elsewhere, not much. But I'm unaware of a rule that only soldiers can critique pacifist stupidity. Are you a US Marine?

posted by ParisParamus at 6:13 AM on January 23, 2003

Hope the war begins ASAP.

didn't you say in an earlier thread that nobody really wants war? I couldn't find the link but I know you said it. anyways, the more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

My beef is with people who treat Saddam Hussein as just some tin pot dictator, rather than a little Hitler on the way (without US intervention) to becoming a full-sized Hitler.

little hitler? turn the radio off for a moment, and perhaps you will learn something.

Civilization wouldn't stand for atrocity during World War 2, and we shouldn't stand for it now.

agreed (unless you are henry ford or Prescott Bush). therefore we must stop the war machine as soon as possible.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:25 AM on January 23, 2003

didn't you say in an earlier thread that nobody really wants war? I couldn't find the link but I know you said it.

Yes. No one other than psychopaths wants to kill people. But the time has come to accept that Saddam Hussein, if left to his own devices, will be killing tens, or hundreds of thousands of people if he is not taken out. IT'S TIME.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:58 AM on January 23, 2003

Yes. No one other than psychopaths wants to kill people.

Hope the war begins ASAP.

psychopath by proxy? (I believe the hip term for this is "chickenhawk.")

Saddam Hussein, if left to his own devices, will be killing tens, or hundreds of thousands of people if he is not taken out

by "taken out" I imagine you mean "killed." but anyways, I won't bother asking you why you think saddam is so dangerous because you'll probably just tell me that he gassed his own people.

IT'S TIME.

thanks, ari!

Actually, France did stand for it, and practically enjoyed it;

and we most certainly didn't stand for it, that is, until we realized we could profit from it!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:11 AM on January 23, 2003

hama7 wrote:

I know because the U.S. military, with the technology that it has, would be wasting valuable resources by killing people who weren't the enemy.

by technology, do you mean cluster bombs and tight-knit coordination between ground and air forces? It's not crasspastor's magic number of 10,000 civilian casualties, but estimates have placed the civilian death toll of the Afghan air war at about 3,400, which is still quite significant. Or maybe not ... maybe 3,000+ people have to die in America in order to be significant. Regardless, it's not unreasonable to expect that an air war in Iraq, with its denser urban areas will generate more casualties.
posted by bl1nk at 10:19 AM on January 23, 2003

ParisParamus: Are you a US Marine? Nope. Time served RAF pilot.

Hama7: Those American troops were men just like you and me who loathe killing,. Hmmm. From fire and ice: the devastation of iraq by war and sanctions "A guy came up to me and we were slapping each other on the back and all that stuff, and he said, ‘By God, I thought we had shot into a damn farm. It looked like somebody opened the sheep pen.’ . And from What Bodies “A lot of guys were scared,” Queen said, “but I enjoyed it.”. PFC Joe Queen, you understand, had spent a pleasant afternoon burying Iraqi conscripts alive in their trenches with his armoured earth mover.
posted by RichLyon at 2:13 PM on January 23, 2003

Civilization wouldn't stand for atrocity during World War 2, and we shouldn't stand for it now.

Actually, France did stand for it, and practically enjoyed it; collectively the country certain enjoyed being rid of a great number of Jewish people.

I forgot France was included in "civilization", my mistake. :)
posted by hama7 at 3:12 PM on January 23, 2003

It's not crasspastor's magic number of 10,000 civilian casualties. . .

I am purty magic I 'spose. I didn't write anything that included the number 10,000.
posted by crasspastor at 3:45 PM on January 23, 2003