This is about the 7th story that I've seen on the Fahrenheit 9/11 Marine...

[Blue Belle]

and I have to wonder if it isn't a indirect attempt to scold Michael Moore again. Please don't confuse this post as an attempt to dance on anyone's grave, and let me point out that I have the utmost sympathy for this man's family, but in just about every article it profile's how the person portrayed in the film wasn't what this Marine was like at all. Well, I think it's great that he handed out candy to the Iraqi children, and carried his Grandfather's bible with him, but his recruiting methods were still deplorable and borderline unethical - either that or Michael Moore is an editing genius. So as the press scrambles for print space to prop up this man as a fallen hero while conspiring again to make an example of/vilify Micheal Moore, what escapes notice is while this soldier did act kind toward the Iraqis that weren't in range of his rifle scope, he wasn't perfect. He was just another human being (good qualities with along with bad) that tried to rally people around, and in the end, gave his life for a cause he believed in - not unlike those he was fighting. And while some may think me unkind for saying this the truth is, if Michael Moore didn't include this Marine in his controversial film, the only newspaper that would be hailing him a fallen hero would be the one in his hometown. I suppose war only becomes a tragedy on a national level when you can actually place a face with a flag-draped coffin.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/iraq/main1786636.shtml

[uppityperson]

1. I think it makes it personal for a lot of people, knew of him personally

I like that they are personalizing dead soldiers, showing that they are not simplistic mindless people but people.

[sandnsea]

2. Candy to children is irresponsible

My sister sent me one of those stories a while back, it was a few days after that bombing that killed a bunch of kids and the target had been our troops. I was just furious, the troops should stay the hell away from the kids. They know they're being targeted and it just seems to me that there's a great big bulls-eye on anybody within a couple hundred yards of them. It is such obvious emotional manipulation, it would be like patting yourself on the back for putting all black children in foster care while putting all their father's in prison on trumped up charges. I hate the way this country does that shit. It's easy to be nice to kids, not so easy to change the hatred and animosity between adults.

[peacebaby3]

4. The kids run up to the troops and beg for things. What would you have

them do? Push them away? Then there would be a thread on here about how horrible the troops were toward all of the children.

Many of the troops have things sent over by their loved ones for the children and the orphanages instead of getting things for themselves. I think that is wonderful!

[sandnsea]

5. Yes they should push them away

And say the Iraqi word for "dangerous".

I didn't say we shouldn't help the Iraqi children, we should, the whole country. I said the troops shouldn't let those children get near them because it's too dangerous, especially when they primarily do it to use them as propaganda tools for the military.

[Blue Belle]

6. You make a very good point.

From what I understand from those who ave been ver there, it's hard enough for the troops to distinguish who the enemy is - I can just imagine what it is like to have children running up to them begging for candy. Deflecting the children with a warning is in the best interest for the troops as well as the children.

[sandnsea]

8. That is true too

It's in the best interest of everybody to have clear guidelines, it's like the first rule of maintaining order from kindergarten on up. You can't let people mill around you sometimes, then freak out other times when you think somebody has a bomb; and injure some of those same people as "collateral damage". When everybody follows some basic rules, then when killings happen, people are also more inclined to believe the troops were really under attack.

[peacebaby3]

9. Well, my husband was there for a year and he certainly didn't use them

for propaganda!!!!

It would come across very poorly to the Iraqi people if the troops started yelling "dangerous" to the children. That would definitely not win hearts and minds.

There are just as many attacks on civilians in Iraq right now as there are on American troops. The entire country is in complete chaos.

My husband used to ask me to send things for the children, particularly at the orphanages and when he would get the chance he would drop them off. In many cases, it would be all they had or would get for a good while. We tried to adopt 2 of the boys from an orphanage in al-Hilla, but were not allowed because we aren't Muslim.

[sandnsea]

11. I still say it's foolish

And I don't think any parent would want their kids going up to soldiers who are targets. I would be angry if soldiers kept enticing my kids with candy on the street, putting them in danger. And whether your husband realizes it or not, the handing candy to the kids thing is the most common piece of propaganda for an American "good war".

And again, I didn't say not to help the children through a process that wouldn't put them in danger, like sending items to an orphanage. That's the sensible way to help. I also understand completely why they would prefer people of their own faith adopt children, just like Native Americans like to keep their heritage in tact. Besides, there's plenty of children in this country who need adopting if you still want to help.

[peacebaby3]

12. You really have no idea what you are talking about. When were you in Iraq?

The troops DO NOT entice the children with candy on the streets! The children are not going to run up to them if there is a dangerous situation. In fact, that is how they know something is about to happen because the streets are clear and there are no children! Most of the time, the children are killed by bombs that are targeted at any place, not just at Americans troops. There is violence everywhere in the country! There are bombings at market places, etc. and no troops are there. There is a civil war going on. The one good thing the troops do over there is to reach out to the Iraqi people and if that stops, things will just get worse, if that is even possible.

Unfortunately, there aren't people in Iraq or another Muslim country adopting the children in Iraq so they are just living in orphanages for years according to our contact at the International Red Cross, but I guess that is better than them being adopted by people who have respect for all religions, but aren't Muslim. There are very few Native American children available for adoption and enough families in their culture that want to adopt. Since you don't know me and know anything about my life and what I am currently doing regarding adoption, I'll let your comment about adopting children in this country slide, but it was arrogant and offensive.

On edit:

Here's a link to another thread in GD about the events in Iraq on July 10th and not one of the 9 horrible and deadly events involved American troops:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1601000>

While the chaos in Iraq is certainly because of the invasion by *, most children aren't killed because they get near American troops.

[sandnsea]

13. This is about troops and children

Don't twist it into something else and do not try to intimidate me by pulling out Iraq war service. It will not happen. I was very very clear and direct in what I said. The troops should not be handing out candy to kids, it entices the kids to run up to them and as a parent, I would be very angry if my kids were led into that situation by unthinking adults. Do you think cops should hand out candy everywhere they go? Do you not think that would end up with kids running up to cops who might be in the middle of a drug bust or some other dangerous situation? Same with the troops. It is flat foolish. AND it IS used as a propaganda image, the troops handing candy to the kids, whether you and your husband want to admit it or not.

YOU brought the adoption issue into the discussion, YOU tried to use it to show what a great samaritan you are and how horrible the Iraqis are because they wouldn't let you "save" their children. I pointed out Native Americans as an example of why you are wrong in YOUR condescensing attitude against the Iraqis, and to further point out that if you truly ARE the good samaritan you proclaim to be, there are plenty of kids in this country to adopt and they don't have to be Native American either.

If confronting you on YOUR elitist and self-congratulatory attitude about Iraq is arrogant and offensive, so be it. It's not the first time somebody has accused me of that when I confront them on their bullshit. I honestly just don't care.

[peacebaby3]

14. I have met your kind before.

The know-it-all who only has his or her own opinion to back it up. I honestly just don't care either and your opinion on this forum is meaningless in the real world.

I mentioned the orphanage and the adoption because YOU said the troops were using the children as propaganda and that isn't true in most cases. Oh yes, mentioning the failed adoption was definitely self-congratulatory and elitist since I am having a discussion with only YOU on a message board using the name, peacebaby3. I'll be getting so much attention!!! We didn't plan to try and adopt, but my husband got very close to 2 of the boys in the orphanage and hated to leave them there! I wasn't condescending to the Iraqis except maybe in your fantasy world! I explained why we were not allowed to adopt them and yes, I think it would be much better for them to grow up in a loving home than an orphanage. I'd say the same about Native American children if there were thousands waiting to be adopted and very few people to adopt them so it has nothing to do with them being Iraqi. You can call it whatever you like, but it's sincere and nothing you can post on this forum can change that.

End of discussion for me!

[sandnsea]

15. OMG, are we on an opinion board???

Where people actually express opinions!?!? Well slap me silly, I thought I was writing a doctoral thesis.

I always love that last gasp, dismiss the entire debate bcause it's just "an opinion".

:rofl:

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. They're covering this death exactly the way they covered....

... the run-up to the war. In short, they have learned *nothing*. They regret *nothing*.

In fact, as consciousness of their collective guilt sinks in, and no one was more guilty of enabling this mammoth war crime than CBS, they cast about wildly for evidence that this entire enterprise wasn't really as evil as the whole world knew it was all along. This man's death somehow vindicates the war? How absurd.

The more Moore is vindicated by the unfolding of events, and the more the facts further indict the MSM, the more it engages in self-protective, intellectually dishonest treatment of Moore himself.

OK, no more about Moore.

[ComerPerro]

7. Their son is dead, and they are mad at Moore

screw that. Moore didn't kill him. Bush did.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. They are mad because he will be immortalized as a guy who used

sleazy US military recruiting methods. Was caught on camera doing this and it will be forever what he is most known for.