3/30/2003: US soldier carries injured Iraqi soldier
 

http://cellar.org/2003/soldiercarries.jpg

MSNBC Week in Pics had this one.

Sometimes you look at a photograph and it brings up more questions than answers. The caption answers some of those questions, but then makes you ask a hundred more questions.

"U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Marcco Ware of Los Angeles carries an Iraqi soldier who was shot three times during an attempted ambush of the 3rd Battalion, Fifth Regiment convoy on March 25, in central Iraq. One Marine was killed and one injured during the attack, which left about 40 Iraqi soldiers dead and 30 others in prison compounds."

It sure sounds like, in a day of severe inhumanity, this was a moment of humanity. How can someone go from trying to kill you, to trying to save you, in a matter of minutes? What's going through both their heads right now? Does the Marine think of it as an act of kindness, or just a part of his job? What will they both think if they look back on this moment in a few years?

One thing is for certain, here...the Iraqi who has been wounded, captured and subsequently carried on the back of the American Imperialist Dog (tm) has not yet been strapped to a bed frame and electrocuted nor yet had a gun placed to his forehead and the trigger pulled.

That is gonna hurt tomorrow.

And they're executing our guys. :mad:

I heard our frontline troops were short of food. Is he taking him to the cook? Naw, he's the typical soft hearted american schmuck taking pity on everyone. If the tables were turned, I'd bet he'd be dragged by the heels or just shot. Also, if he had a weapon on his belt near where the prisoners hand is he'd be in trouble.

Who pissed in your popcorn?

Don't call our soldiers schmucks.

Who pissed on my popcorn? The Iraqis, the Somalies, the Serbs, the Croations, the Vietnamise the Koreans, The Japanese, the Germans and every other bastard that's murdered an American GI that tried to show some compassion. This is not "Cops". This
is not entertainment or a cockfight. My friends are dying and I don't think that's smething to be flip about.

I think Bruce was being sarcastic, and him calling our soldiers shmucks was an affectionate statement, NBN. I think we're all pissed off that despite being a conquering force, we're attempting to minimize the inhumanity (if that is possible in war) and we are being kidnapped and executed for our trouble.

Well then there's obviously some miscommunication here.

Let's call it 'friendly fire'.

Sorry.
Must be that time of the month.

I find that some motrin, and an hour or so on the range sorts me out.

The only problem with the "they are executing our guys" thing is that this "news" is coming from places like fox and cnn, which aren't the most crediable IMO. Now that's the only place I've heard things like that though, if there is a source that doesn't come off like a reality tv show, I will stand corrected, but lets not take anything seen on TV (especially from "The War Room") as fact :)

I heard a reporter on CNN say that he personally saw footage of the American POWs, and that some of them were most certainly dead (shot in the head). But of course, they aren't showing the footage of the POWs out of concern for the families. Anyway, his word is good enough for me. He's wasn't just passing on something that some official told him -- he saw it himself.

(Please, no CNN jokes. :) )

Sometimes, it just feels good to save someone, anyone, even if they may have been just trying to kill you.

I find it kind of hard to tenuate the undertext that's been floating around the threads concerning media coverage of the war.

I'm fine with the idea that central command is being intentional and purposeful in what they say and show, and that the intent is to bolster PR for the war.

I'm fine with the idea that the White House, the Pentagon, the Cabinet, and their "invisible hands" among the pundits and analysts are spinning the data to suit their own ends.

I may not agree, but I can grant the defensibility of the premise.

What I find very difficult to believe is the the Media (capital M) is somehow complicit in an attempt to spin the war in favor of the United States, to the extent that they would alter numbers of casualties, misreport troop movements, grant a false pretext regarding the disposition of POWs, etc.

The idea that hundreds of reporters, dozens of US media outlets, and the ubiquitous editors, copy writers, anchors and hosts would all be willing to misrepresent the actual events transpiring is highly implausible. The impartiality and objectivity of the media is a standard held very dearly among these institutions, and politiking aside for the moment, I think it is an ideal that is largely upheld. At the very least we ought to grant that the imperfect instantiation of the ideal found in the american media is the best instantiation yet available. Witness Pravda, Al-Jezeera, and The Sun (page3 aside) as the counter-evidence of the claim.

-sm

I saw the first pictures of dead American soldiers on Al Jazeera (before it became inaccessible to us in the US). At least two had clearly been shot in the forehead, dead center, complete with powder burns.

I think that is pretty reasonable evidence, don't you?