Without people like this we would all be lamp shades or bars of soap...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

http://home.comcast.net/~inrev/coffins.jpg
Pentagon Releases Flag-Draped Coffin Photos
Thu Apr 28, 5:30 PM ET

The Pentagon, under pressure from open-government advocates, released hundreds of images Thursday of flag-draped coffins of American soldiers.

The Pentagon had previously refused to release such images, which were taken by military photographers. Nor has it allowed the news media to photograph ceremonies of soldiers' coffins arriving in the United States, saying it is enforcing a policy installed in 1991 to respect the privacy of families of dead soldiers.

The pictures were released in response to a request for all military photos of caskets containing the remains of American soldiers taken since the U.S. launched its attack on Afghanistan in October 2001. Some critics have contended the government is trying to hide the human cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon provided most of the images without context, so it was unclear where and when they were taken and whom they portrayed.

Most of the photographs showed soldiers carrying or saluting flag-draped coffins. Some of the labeled pictures were of remains of the Columbia space shuttle astronauts, military accidents around the world and deceased veterans of previous wars, while signs in the background of a few pictures identified their location as Afghanistan.

The military obscured the faces and identifying badges of many of the soldiers pictured in the ceremonies. A Pentagon spokesman said the pictures were edited out of privacy concerns.

The photographs were released in response to a Freedom of Information request and lawsuit by Ralph Begleiter, a professor at the University of Delaware and a former correspondent for CNN, who argued the photographs were a public record.

Jim Turner, a Pentagon spokesman, said the photos released were taken for historical or training purposes. He said military photographers now are taking pictures at such ceremonies less frequently.

Last April, the Air Force released scores of photos taken at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware in response to another FOIA request. The pictures included shots of some of the coffins of the astronauts who died last year on the space shuttle Columbia. The Pentagon later called that release a mistake.

Sources:
Yahoo.com
National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv
Defense Department: http://www.defense.gov

There is an enormous difference between soldiers today and those that fought during WWII. Today they are professional soldiers, WWII troops were conscripts and had no choice.

It's all very well putting pictures of coffins and saying how brave these men and women were but the reality in Britian is 1 in 4 homeless people are ex military. British troops were sent to fight in Iraq without adequate body armour, and had to purchase their own boots. I don't even know if the 12 year battle for compesation with the Ministry of Defense over illnesses and suffering many troops claim was caused during the first gulf war has reached a conclusion. Some respect, indeed.

And even while US troops die in Iraq, I still hear reports of Americans (and the British for that matter) complaining about the price of fuel.

Did you just disrespect my Grandfather?

Propaganda, again and again from Curley Joe. Haven't you enlisted yet ?

No, no, no .... paying reverence is one thing .... spewing propaganda is another one ....
And by the way: hatred is your problem, Curley Joe, not mine.

I believe there is complete lack of understanding as to why people enlsit in the military. If you hate war and anything that goes with it, including humans, you will find a way to descredit it and those who fight them.

We are not at war...

this is a military operation.

Let me clarify, the Draft was signed into Law in 1940. and the draft lottery went until 1942.

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 which created the country's first peacetime draft and formally established the Selective Service System as an independent Federal agency.

From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.

A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944 and December 31, 1950. Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the oldest first method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call.

There was no need for a draft after Perl Harbor, at that time the military had to turn people away.

There is a huge difference Ron,
WWII was a war...
this Iraqi diversion is a military operation.

Ah, but Bush did say the war was over i believe...do correct me if I'm wrong on that fact.

And yes, hatred is a bad thing, for one simple fact. Hatred breeds more hatred. The Middle East is proof enough of this.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

I believe you are wrong, Bush did not say the war was over. That is if you are talking about what he said on the Aircraft Carrier?

He never said that either.

What he did do was proclaim the end of MAJOR combat operations. Which it was.

The Aircraft Carrier put up the banner proclaiming that their Mission was Accomplished. My wife and I are both ex military and we both got it. It's sad that it seemed like those who were never in the military didn't get it.

I guess it's the military training on what a Mission is.

Go here Sordid for one of the "official" nomenclature given to these "operations."


http://www.vba.va.gov/EFIF/

No it was certain people hearing and believing what they wanted to hear and believe. They then said that the President said things that he didn't say.

Maybe people should look into

Operation Paperclip
Operation Phoenix
Operation MKUltra
Operation Midnight Climax
Project Artichoke
Project Chatter
Project Bluebird
Project Monarch

to see WTF is actually going on in this country.

Any black ops is an operation or project....This Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are just more black ops done in the daylight...

and the resultant findings of most of the above projects are being used on a massive scale on the American public.
Pick your favorite project or operation....give it a pet name of your very own.

In the past 200 hundred years American Presidents have deployed the United States military in a number of conflict situations abroad without Congressional authorization. In the history of the United States, Congress has only declared war five times: the War 1812, the Mexican war of 1848, the Spanish-American of 1898, World Wars I and II, and the Korean War.[2] On the other hand, the President has deployed forces into hostility over thirty times without Congressional authorization.[3] The President usually deploy the military first and then inform Congress, which in turn endorses the President’s action. Congress has generally supported the decision of the President to deploy the armed forces abroad by passage of joint resolutions. These joint resolutions are not declarations of war, per se, but rather a demonstration of Congressional intent to support the troops while they are in a hostile environment.

The Framers gave Congress the power to declare war, to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy.[6] Congress can declare war but the decision to go to war rest solely with the President. The President has no legal obligation to comply with a Congressional declaration of war.

When the President consults Congress in advance, he is perceived as weak or indecisive. When the President consults Congress before deploying the armed forces abroad, he does so out of sheer courtesy. He is not legally obligated to seek a Congressional declaration of war every time he wants to deploy the military. In practice Congress has generally supported the President’s decision to deploy the military.

Since the Constitution does not specifically grant the President authority to go to war, where does he get the authority to deploy the armed forces abroad? To justify his decision to go to war, the President will usually invoke one or more of the following doctrines: (1) The Commander in Chief Clause of the Constitution; (2) The “Sole Organ” authority of the President as affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation ; (3) The “Executive Power” vested in the President of the United States; (4) The President’s Oath of Office to solemnly swear that he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States (the take care clause); (5) The right of self defense under customary international law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; (6) A threat to the national security interest of the United States; (7) Protecting American citizens at home or abroad; (8) Fulfilling the treaty obligations of the United States

Nonsense Ron, we went round and round on this in another thread.

The President has NO directive given in the Constitution to declare war.

You need to read the Constitution like I admonished you to before.

All your pretty little quoted words mean nada. [even though you give no source, nor do you cite it as a quote]
I am curious as to your source...something obviously which enjoys butchering the Constitution for propaganda reasons.

Rove regrets 'Mission Accomplished' banner
President Bush's top political adviser said this week he regretted the use of a "Mission Accomplished" banner as a backdrop for the president's landing on an aircraft carrier last May to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
"I wish the banner was not up there," said White House political strategist Karl Rove. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols."

Rove, speaking at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio on Thursday, echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing their 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

Sorry here's the source

Welcome to the Website of the Common Law Review

http://clr.prf.cuni.cz/clanek.php?clanek=93

The Common Law Review is an academic law journal published in print twice a year by the Common Law Society in Prague.

Here's the source for the Karl Rove statment
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...ve-banner_x.htm

Now reference all your little quips.

Prague? As in Prague, Alabama? Alaska? Arizona? Arkansas?.........

Or the Prague of the Czech Republic? Truly experts on law of the United States of America.

Thanks for your insight into this.

Isn't it a shame that the Czech's know more about our law than most Americans.

Try this on for size

Max Hilaire
Max Hilaire, Assistant Dean, College of Liberal Arts; Professor; Chair, Department of Political Science; International Studies, Morgan State University, Baltimore MD, USA. Former Fulbright Professor, (2000-01), Department of International Law, Charles University Law Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic

Let's see, how about some of these statements. Which at least one if not all are incorrect, so go find some sources for your little statements here. I think you'll find at least a couple that are wrong. So what's your sources?

Ron

Gotta go beddie bye now, Ron.
As always, I did enjoy chatting with you...
and if it may not come off in my posts...I have tremendous respect for you and what you have done in your life!

I'll catch up with this conversation lata.

If you win? Liberation.

-HECK!

For the record Ron, if this had been an actual declared "war" based on true national security, any dissenting opinions would be investigated and prosecuted.

I remember hearing a military analyst on FoxNews stating that if this had been an actual declared "war"...Michael Moore would be in jail.

SWTT - Yes we have a Constitution but you can't ignore history and how Presidents and Congress have been handling this throughout our history. And it's not a partisan issue issue.

Throughout our history our Presidents and Congress have battled on whether the Constitution gives the President the power to commit troops. Surely you can't ignore that the Constitution empowers the President as the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. This has enabled the President to make the decision when to use the military when war is not declared in order to protect Americans, America and our interests.

Now maybe you want to say that we should never use our military unless there is a formal declaration of war. Don't you think that would open us up for another Perl Harbor, 9/11 or perhaps an invasion?

Just think of the fighting and bickering in Congress righ now. Hell they can't even agree to disagree. Everything would be so deadlocked that we wouldn't even need a military.

Yes, the President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces...but Congress declares war pure and simple. Balance of powers because if a dictator gets in, the President can wage war against anyone, including dissenters...do you want that?

If we went to war on "what ifs" and CIA and DIA intelligence we'd be at war against the world.
And our actions both covert and overt have angered and engendered more hatred toward us than anything else.

Do you not think we could handle an all out invasion from a foreign power? Do you think anyone would be that stupid to take on a tough homeland defensive stance by our military?

Heck, we have to employ retired people (Minutemen) to protect the Mexican border for pity sakes.

The problem is foreign powers are using our military for their own agendas thoughout the world in about 145 countries...our military men and women are prostitutes for UN and foreign nationals....and this has been engendering hatred and anger toward our nation.

No where in the Constitution does it say sell out our military to the highest bidder, no where.

The problem is and President Eisenhower said it best:

Eisenhower - A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Ron, You did not hear Eisenhower's warning.

Actually he didn't beef up the military. Part of it was due to 9/11. But still that didn't get the recuits that we need. Why do you think the Reserves and Guard were used so extensively?

Don't get me wrong, we still have a lot of military here in the US. Consider that we have but 100,000 in Iraq, I'm not sure how many in Afganistan. Then consider that we have about 2.5 million men and women in the military. Also consider that a very small portion of our Navy and Air Force are there.

I heard a talking head on TV the other day, A current Army General I think it was and he stated that our military is dangerously low right now. Extended to the point that if we are needed for something else, we don't have the manpower to do it. Now I do believe he was over exagerating a bit to make a point but the fact remains, given Congress and their ability to manage our military forces has desimated our troop levels with all the cutback of the 1990's.

That how Slick Willey was able to have a surplus budget.

You can be my neighbor, just remember, I don't own a gun.

I don't need one either.

They're all buzz words. You find an interview with Bush, even on Social Security, odds are he's going to use the either 'war' and/or 'terror' somewhere in there. It's simple advertising- you hear it enough, you start to believe it. Plus when you have a snazzy color-coded threat barometer to along with it... whooo daddy. (Think about some of the other terms- enemies are 'insurgents' or 'rebels'. Good guys are 'coalition forces.')

Bush even called the whole thing a 'Crusade' once... but he didn't mean it that way, no doubt

-HECK!

Yes, Heck

They have found that by saying the words "Saddam" and "9-11" together in a sentence or the next sentence, even surrounding them with words that make these two ideas irrelevant to one another as they truly are....

pretty soon a small majority of the American public believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

Ron,

We were talking earlier about how Clinton scaled down the military to scant proportions, military bases closed etc etc.

Well, it wasn't just Clinton. Bush Sr. got the ball rolling in the early 1990's.
The base in my area was declared for shutdown along with many others while Bush Sr was president. Clinton drove the last nail in the coffin, Bush Sr. declared them dead.

Yes that is very true, it was Bush's idea, Clinton just went overboard with it. Oh I ended my military career because of the drawdown.

Clinton shutting down archaic military instillations like March Air Force Base and other soon-to-be aerial museums didn't give terrorists the extra incentive to fly a 747 into the WTC.

There were still plenty of bases around the world flexing U.S. muscle.

-HECK!

I spent 3 years at March AFB. I really liked it there.

1 year at Norton AFB
2 years at Mather AFB

I really did like California when I was there.

I visited March when I was a kid. It wasn't in the best shape, but I had fun. To be honest, years afterward, the place wan't being used that much. Can't say I was surprised when it closed. I drive by it on the way to San Diego sometimes, the old planes are nice to look at.

Norton is cool. Never heard of Mather.

-HECK!

Mather is in Sacramento or just outside in Rancho Cordova, There was a great restaruant there called Sheepherders Inn where you get a Huge 7 course steak dinner for $12.

Anyway we better get back on topic. There is a Military forum here http://www.inreview.com/forumdispla...ne=&forumid=892
where we can talk Military stuff.