The Grim Glory of War

September 9, 2004 4:56 AM

The grim glory of war. Hundreds of pictures from the front lines in Iraq. I was very skeptical about posting this link, but I thought it'd be useful to all our sofa warriors here at MeFi, so they'll have some images to relate to whenever they equate "support our troops" with "keep them there for as long as it takes".
posted by acrobat (40 comments total)

Well, at least this post doesn't have an agenda.
posted by keswick at 12:34 PM on September 9, 2004

.....
posted by jonmc at 12:48 PM on September 9, 2004

ParisParamus porn. Getting a woody with every frame.
posted by nofundy at 12:52 PM on September 9, 2004

You know, this would have been a good post if it had just contained the linked text and the following sentence. And if the thumbnails had been layed out in a sane way, instead of all on one massive page. And if the server didn't suck. The pictures are interesting though.
posted by Mark Doner at 1:13 PM on September 9, 2004

Forget Halliburton. Corbis is all over this war.

Would be nice if this was an officially-sanctioned gallery, or at least higher quality unsanctioned photos -- it kinda sucks out some of the weight of the page when Corbis is asserting its ownership across a bunch of the images.

Google images, in fact, returns some 80,200 interesting results with the criteria tweaked up.
posted by VulcanMike at 1:19 PM on September 9, 2004

Um, you might want to mention that all those pictures are all thumbnailed on the linked page. Just a warning about a pending HUGE page load.
posted by fenriq at 1:24 PM on September 9, 2004

Coralized URL
posted by euphorb at 1:26 PM on September 9, 2004

I dunno, seems like a pretty good post to me. Funny how we don't see these images on the news.

Agreed that the page blows.

The wounds our troops are receiving in this "war" are horrendous, yet all the media reports on, (for the most part), is the body count. The real legacy will be the number of horribly wounded soldiers that result from this "war", due primarily to advances in medical care and quicker battlefield evacuations.
posted by Windopaene at 1:30 PM on September 9, 2004

I think it's a good link, and a crappy FPP. Delete everything after the first sentence and you'd have a good FPP.
posted by keswick at 2:04 PM on September 9, 2004

Yes, the crack about the sofa warriors is unnecessary. Good link though, thanks acrobat.

By the way, turn off javascript before loading the page as well!
posted by sic at 2:09 PM on September 9, 2004

but I thought it'd be useful to all our sofa warriors here at MeFi, so they'll have some images to relate to whenever they equate "support our troops" with "keep them there for as long as it takes".

Snark aside, I'd be surprised if any of "our sofa warriors" supported the war due to a mistaken belief that war wasn't grisly or devastating. World War II was just as (if not more) grisly and devastating -- but that didn't make it any less necessary to fight (or to "keep them there for as long as it takes"). Frankly, I think these types of images should be available and publicized. Death is, after all, the currency of war. If you're going to support it, you do need to know the cost.

ParisParamus porn. Getting a woody with every frame.

That was a repugnant comment.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:10 PM on September 9, 2004

Keswick - I agree. The editorializing was unecessary. The pictures can speak for themselves, although I can guarantee that not all who look at them will automatically hear "the US should get out of Iraq!". Some will merely hear "War sucks, but some wars are necessary." : not my position, but many hold it.

Still, it's a riveting collection of photos. Thanks, acrobat
posted by troutfishing at 2:14 PM on September 9, 2004

But this isn't WWII. We were not attacked by the Iraqis. Nor was there any pressing need for us to be over there. And if you want to say "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who was killing his own people and isn't that so horrible so we were right in doing it" then I'd like to know when you think we'll be invading the Sudan?
posted by Windopaene at 2:17 PM on September 9, 2004

The US military has done a very effective job of keeping most of such images out of the mainstream media.

Yet, these pictures exist and I wonder, as the US casualties in Iraq mount, if (or when) the mainstream media will start to broadcast some of this imagery.
posted by troutfishing at 2:18 PM on September 9, 2004

"But this isn't WWII." No, and, as a certain school teacher would say, wah wahwahwah wah wah wahwahwahwah.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:29 PM on September 9, 2004

Well, christ - now we're there it'd be more than a little awful to just cut out, too. Sure, we can just climb out of the hole, but at this point, leaving Iraq right now would be bad for the Iraqis and us.
posted by kavasa at 2:29 PM on September 9, 2004

But this isn't WWII. We were not attacked by the Iraqis. Nor was there any pressing need for us to be over there.

Just keeping to acrobat's thesis, windopaene. His post said: "Look at these pictures that show war is hell. People who supported the war should see these, then change their mind." My response pointed out that "war is hell" can't be the sole criterion for whether a war should be fought. The question is whether the cause of the war is worth the "hell" that necessarily follows. In World War II it obviously was (or at least most people -- apparently not troutfishing -- believe it was). Simply showing that war causes people to die ugly, painful deaths isn't the end of the argument.

(And, just so you know, I do support military action in Sudan.)
posted by pardonyou? at 2:31 PM on September 9, 2004

It will be interesting to see if there is military action in Sudan, and whether the movement for such is lead by Colin Powell, or those Giants of Justice, France and Germany.....
posted by ParisParamus at 2:37 PM on September 9, 2004

Well?
And.
posted by casarkos at 2:54 PM on September 9, 2004

And another.

Think you lost this one, PP.
posted by Ryvar at 4:59 PM on September 9, 2004

The fact that France moved troops to the Sudan border on July 31 is pretty immaterial. Over a month has gone by, and there's no sign that they intend to intervene militarily. On the flip side, they're opposing any UN sanctions (which I'm sure is due in no small part to the fact that French companies own most of the oil interests in Sudan, and thus have mutual interests with the government) (yes, indeed, it's all about ooooiiiillllll).
posted by pardonyou? at 5:07 PM on September 9, 2004

In World War II it obviously was (or at least most people -- apparently not troutfishing -- believe it was).

Uh, dude, where'd you get that?
posted by jonmc at 5:41 PM on September 9, 2004

Err, if I'm not mistaken, when Powell said that it's a genocide over there, that obliged the US to act, by treaty at least.

(I have nothing to back that up with other than faint memories of discussions about why Sudan wasn't being called a Genocide)
posted by swerdloff at 6:06 PM on September 9, 2004

I just came.
posted by Witty at 6:36 PM on September 9, 2004

I have been reading on the Iraq war regularly during the last two years or so. As probably most of us have.

I have never seen these photos before.

We see the "action", but never the results.

I consider myself to be a "young man", 26 years of age. Most of these guys, and many of the dead are even younger than I am. I feel sad for them. I am enraged for them. They shouldn't have died. Whatever the cause. They shouldn't have been injured.

War is always a collective mistake. We all share responsibility for these guys. (and girls)
posted by hoskala at 6:46 PM on September 9, 2004

(I'm sorry. I get overly pathetic every time I see photos like this.)
posted by hoskala at 6:52 PM on September 9, 2004

I just had a friend of mine over the other night that I was stationed with in Europe back in the day. We did a lot of time in Bosnia during that mess. He is still in, I got out. Other guys I worked with stayed in. One is dead to friendly fire in Iraq, another is dead in a helo accident in Afghanistan, 3 other guys I know have been wounded in Iraq. Nothing brings it home like having someone you are close to sitting on the couch telling you names of guys that are gone or are recovering.
I have enormous feelings of guilt over having gotten out.

He is heading back over in January, I hope he comes back safe.
posted by a3matrix at 6:57 PM on September 9, 2004

great link..didn't mind the snark.
posted by h00dini at 6:58 PM on September 9, 2004

a3matrix, I am sorry you have lost so many friends and former colleagues - my condolences to you.

..and what jonmc said.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:14 PM on September 9, 2004

Something has been really bugging me for a long time now, and this may or may not be the place to bring it up - but what the hell:

Whether an American is pro-war or anti-war, the only casualty figures they seem to bring up are those of US troops. Now don't get me wrong, soldiers deserve sympathy - but they knew when they signed up that they are essentially expendable and they shouldn't really be surprised if they end up getting shot. It's a choice.

Now, sure, we can have that argument about the Army being fed by the lower-classes and the shitty education system in the US, but in the end that 'hard choice' doesn't compare in any way to the 'no choice' of the 11,000+ Iraqi civilians and between 5,000 and 30,000+ Iraqi troops (nobody even bothered to count them) who have been killed since the conflict began.

Iraqi troops!? But they are the enemy!
They were just attempting to defend their country. If you want to cry about guys in US uniforms then you'd better give a flying fuck about guys in other uniforms too. Underneath those uniforms, no matter what colour skin they have, they are just humans and the vast majority of them were no better or worse than any other human.

So either you believe that American lives are intrinsically worth more than non-American lives (which, incidentally, I believe to be the case for most of the pro-war guys) or you might want to start caring about and quoting figures for the total body count of this war.
posted by cell at 1:00 AM on September 10, 2004

That was "5,000 to 30,000+". I hate it when that happens.
posted by cell at 1:01 AM on September 10, 2004

They were just attempting to defend their country. If you want to cry about guys in US uniforms then you'd better give a flying fuck about guys in other uniforms too. Underneath those uniforms, no matter what colour skin they have, they are just humans and the vast majority of them were no better or worse than any other human.

Are there still Iraqis trying to kill Americans? Yes? Then don't expect your admirable but unrealistic views to take hold. If the positions were reversed I doubt many Iraqis would be shedding tears about the American insurgents their soldiers were killing in the Great Liberation of NYC. Until the fighting stops and stops for good there will always be an Us vs. Them mentality.

It's a lot harder to kill someone just like you, but they ain't just like you if they're still trying to kill you.

Ain't human nature a bitch?
posted by Cyrano at 1:51 AM on September 10, 2004

ParisParamus: howabout a serious reply to this comment, or do you want to look stoopid to the whole non-wahwahing community....

But this isn't WWII. We were not attacked by the Iraqis. Nor was there any pressing need for us to be over there. And if you want to say "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who was killing his own people and isn't that so horrible so we were right in doing it" then I'd like to know when you think we'll be invading the Sudan*?
posted by Windopaene at 10:17 PM GMT on September 9

*or any other country which has serious human rights abuses - say, about half of Africa, most Arab and Muslim regimes, China, much of SE Asia...
posted by dash_slot- at 1:52 AM on September 10, 2004

Cyrano, non sequitur. I'm not talking about insurgents/terrorists. They are neither civilians nor uniformed military, I doubt they are body-counted as either, and also we don't seem to have killed nearly so many of them.

All sorts of people, of many different nationalities and races, try to kill Americans on a regular basis. If it's "admirable but unrealistic" to expect Americans not to irrationally hate these people's rather less unpleasant countrymen then things are worse than I thought.
posted by cell at 2:19 AM on September 10, 2004

me: The question is whether the cause of the war is worth the "hell" that necessarily follows. In World War II it obviously was (or at least most people -- apparently not troutfishing -- believe it was).

jonmc: Uh, dude, where'd you get that?

From here: Some will merely hear "War sucks, but some wars are necessary." : not my position, but many hold it.

Ergo, for troutfishing, no wars are necessary. Ergo, for troutfishing, World War II was not a cause worth of the hell that resulted from the war.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:28 AM on September 10, 2004

No disrespect, but I'd still call that a stretch, pardonyou?.

I've met trout, he's nowhere near that naive.
posted by jonmc at 6:45 AM on September 10, 2004

Well, we should just ask him -- I really have no interest in misrepresenting his position. But he certainly seemed to be saying that he doesn't hold the position that some wars are necessary. Mr. Fishing, care to clarify?
posted by pardonyou? at 6:55 AM on September 10, 2004

My god, Such invective being thrown around here.

These pictures make me sick. I can't even look at the pictures of the wives crying at the funerals. And all those hundreds and hundreds of YOUNG people dead or with mangled bodies. I am sickened most of all that the mainstream media doesn't show this type of thing. (Nor do they show what is happening to Iraq proper.) All those on one page my suck to load and try to look through, but it also is a powerful statement of the hugeness of the loss and the war. And it sort of numbs me to look through them.

I sincerely believe that the press is failing in it's job by not showing these pictures. I don't know how anyone from any side with any view can look on these pictures with anything but sadness, regret, and a deep sense of loss. No matter where you stand on the war, people should see these to get a more personal feeling of the price that is being paid.
posted by aacheson at 10:39 AM on September 10, 2004

"I can guarantee that not all who look at them [ the photos ] will automatically hear "the US should get out of Iraq!". Some will merely hear "War sucks, but some wars are necessary." : not my position, but many hold it." - pardonyou, what I wrote was - in context - clearly tied to the specific example of Iraq.

Go fish elsewhere.
posted by troutfishing at 12:33 AM on September 11, 2004

Or, to put it differently :

"Decontextualizing something constitutes changing its nature since context comes first: Things only are what they are in context. Meaning is emergent and irreducible."
posted by troutfishing at 12:39 AM on September 11, 2004