Reactions to 'How will this war be memorialized?'
This is the post. Now send your comments.
posted by helena at 8:12 PM
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Previous Posts
- Comments on 'Haditha: massacre, cover-up-- and now...
- Comments on 'The Palestinian prisoners' plan...'
- Comments on 'Fukuyama at Virginia', by Scott Harro...
- Comments on 'My piece on Hamas in Boston Review', ...
- Comments on Iran posts at JWN, or Iran in general
- Comments on Iraq posts at JWN, or Iraq in general
9 Comments:
'How will this war be memorialized?'
How about an upraised hand with a purple dyed fingertip?
that sounds good to me, as long it is only the middle finger.
This was a thoughtful, refreshing take on the Memorial Day blather that fills the airwaves. I have an one addition to bring to any new war memorials: Some aspect of any new memorial should acknowledge/tally the dead of the opposing side(s).
Some aspect of any new memorial should acknowledge/tally the dead of the opposing side(s.
I agree. I thought that was one of the great strengths of the "Boots" exhibit when I helped set it up in Washington DC. There, the shoes representing the Iraqi war dead were laid out in the form of a huge labyrinth. Very moving.
With all the post-Lin accretions to the Vietnam War memorial, it would have been great if there could also have been an addition that mentioned the Vietnamese war dead...
Helena, does the addition of the Iraqis killed also indicate in any way the proportion of Iraqis killed to Americans?
No Shirin, regrettably it doesn't. When I saw it in DC they did have a big board with a message on it drawing attention to the Lancet study that had calculated 100,000 extra deaths due to the war. (That study was of course completed a significant amount of time ago at this point-- mid 2004 perhaps?)
Personally, I think their methodology-- counting deaths attributable to war and war-time conditions that are additional to the "normal for the country" death rate-- is the best and most appropriate thing to count. The Iraqi Body Count, for example, counts only deaths through direct physical violence that have, in addition, been publicly reported by at least two news sources. Hence IBC's "total" is extremely conservative and quite leaves out all the infrastricture-damage-related deaths, etc etc. Their number is currently "from 38,000 to 42,000".
Even just going with the IBC count, the proportion of Iraq deaths to US deaths is still 15.4 to 1. That proportion (or one based on an updated version of the Lancet's more "public-health-y" mortality count) should certainly be represented in any memorial to this war.
'How will this war be memorialized?'
Will be uplifted arm holding a torch like ""Liberty Enlightening the World" coloured in Blue/Purple representing The Fake US Democracy did in Iraq standing over the carnage of the dead US Solder Head Covers which should be matched the number of US dead in this Unjustified war
THE FORGOTTEN YEARS
"At one time, U.S. bombs were killing so many sheep that the Iraqi government actually gave reports of the dead animals after a U.S. raid. They read something like this "Three shepherds and 82 sheep were killed yesterday … " Every time an incident was brought up it was quickly dismissed. "These are Iraqi lies," the administration constantly reminded the U.S. public.
There are many instances when the U.S. attacked Iraqi food supplies. The killing of sheep was intentional. As was the destruction of Iraq’s largest warehouse for rice during the Clinton-ordered bombing of December 1998. As was the destruction of 23 wheat fields in 1992 in Iraq by U.S. jet afterburners. As was the destruction of the date harvest in Basra in 1995 by millions of insects dropped from U.S. planes on the crops. The U.S. tried to starve Iraq from without and within."
Helena
BBC is reporting another atrocity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039420.stm
Dear God! men women and children.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home