|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Peace |
|
“The human cost of war”: Local groups display Illinois soldiers’ boots |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ricky Baldwin
Email: baldwinricky (nospam) yahoo.com (verified)
Phone: 217-328-3037 |
15 Sep 2005
|
|
A much-acclaimed exhibit of empty boots representing those killed in Iraq is coming to Champaign-Urbana September 16-19. See below for schedule. |
(Champaign-Urbana) Sometimes it’s hard to visualize the human cost of war and other horrors. A pile of glasses or shoes at the Holocaust Museum in Washington can serve as a gut-wrenching reminder of what genocide really means. There are surely other examples. But such reality-checks for current or ongoing events are usually rare if not nonexistent.
“Eyes Wide Open” is a dramatic, moving exception. Created by the American Friends Service Committee in Chicago, this exhibit includes 76 pairs of empty combat boots tagged with the names of Illinois soldiers who have died in the Iraq war. The exhibit also includes a memorial to the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died during the conflict.
There is also a touring national exhibit that includes over 1000 pairs of boots, also created by the AFSC, which has received much media attention wherever it goes.
Local religious organizations and community groups are working together to bring the exhibit to CU.
Friday, Sept. 16 from 8 – 4 on the UI Quad (English Building Lawn)
Saturday, Sept. 17 from 10 – 6 at West Side Park in Downtown Champaign
Sunday, Sept. 18 from 2 - 6 at Douglass Park in Champaign
Monday, Sept. 19 from 10 – 4 at Carle Park in Urbana
Co-sponsors include St. Patrick’s Social Action Committee, First Mennonite Church, UC Friends Meeting, Activist Forum, Illinois Disciples Foundation, Community United Church of Christ, University YMCA, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, St. Jude Catholic Worker House, Union of Professional Employees, Muslim Women’s Outreach, 85% Coalition, Channing Murray Foundation, School for Designing a Society, CU Citizens for Peace and Justice, and McKinley Presbyterian Foundation, Prairie Greens, the Chapel of St. John the Divine, AWARE, UIUC Campus Greens, Unitarian Universalist Social Action Committee, & the Episcopal Chapel of St. John the Divine
Contact: Carol Inskeep 344-9155
Or carolinskeep (at) yahoo.com |
See also:
http://www.anti-war.net
http://www.afsc.org/eyes/default.htm
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: “The human cost of war”: Local groups display Illinois soldiers’ boots |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2005
|
If you're trying to recognize fallen soldiers by name, then why are you politicizing the event with sponsor groups that are notoriously anti-war?
There are far better and more respectful methods of recognizing fallen soldiers that are non-partisan. |
|
American Support for Iraq War at All-Time Low - Poll |
by Reuters
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2005
|
Mortland wants to assume that all soldiers would be pro-war or might want a "non-partisan" display unconnnected to opposition to the war. Since the military demographic somewhat resembles the rest of the US population, there have always been at least some in the military who thought this war was a bad idea and there are most likely an increasing number of military personnel who agree with the American majority -- that the war is a bone-head idea foisted on the nation by a president out of touch with reality or not interested in it in the first place.
Dose of Reality
NEW YORK - Support for the war in Iraq among Americans has tumbled to an all-time low, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
Only 44 percent of those surveyed said the United States did the right thing by invading Iraq, the lowest rating since the question was first asked by the poll more than two years ago, the poll showed, according to The New York Times.
Furthermore, more than eight in 10 Americans are very or somewhat concerned that the war is costing money and resources needed in the United States, the poll showed.
The poll results come as the United States faces a bill of as much as $200 billion to rebuild the Gulf Coast after the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. President George W. Bush has promised not to raise taxes to pay for it, as Americans also grapple with high prices at the pump in Katrina's aftermath.
The poll also showed sharp racial divides in how the war is perceived by Americans. Only 36 percent of white Americans felt the war was having a negative impact in their communities, compared to 58 percent of black Americans.
Nearly 60 percent now disapprove of the president's handling of the Iraqi conflict and nearly half of all Americans are not proud of what the United States is doing in the war, the poll found.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted from September 9 through September 13 among 1,167 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The results of the poll were published at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks in and around Baghdad since U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003, as a wave of bombings and shootings claimed more than 200 lives.
© Copyright 2005 Reuters Ltd
http://www.Reuters.com |
|
This is a Mess of Our Own Making |
by Tim Collins
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2005
|
Tim Collins told his troops this was a war of liberation, not conquest. Now he says that he was naive to believe it
This is a Mess of Our Own Making
Tim Collins
When I led my men of the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment across the border into Iraq we believed we were going to do some good. Goodwill and optimism abounded; it was to be a liberation, I had told my men, not a conquest.
In Iraq I sought to surround myself with advisers - Iraqis - who could help me understand what needed to be done. One of the first things they taught me was that the Baath party had been a fact of life for 35 years. Like the Nazi party, they said, it needed to be decapitated, harnessed and dismantled, each function replaced with the new regime. Many of these advisers were Baathists, yet were eager to co-operate, fired with the enthusiasm of the liberation. How must it look to them now?
What I had not realized was that there was no real plan at the higher levels to replace anything, indeed a simplistic and unimaginative overreliance in some senior quarters on the power of destruction and crude military might. We were to beat the Iraqis. That simple. Everything would come together after that.
The Iraqi army was defeated - it walked away from most fights - but was then dismissed without pay to join the ranks of the looters smashing the little infrastructure left, and to rail against their treatment. The Baath party was left undisturbed. The careful records it kept were destroyed with precision munitions by the coalition; the evidence erased, they were left with a free rein to agitate and organize the insurrection. A vacuum was created in which the coalition floundered, the Iraqis suffered and terrorists thrived.
One cannot help but wonder what it was all about. If it was part of the war on terror then history might notice that the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda ever: a sort of large-scale equivalent of the Bloody Sunday shootings in Derry in 1972, which in its day filled the ranks of the IRA. If it was an attempt to influence the price of oil, then the motorists who queued last week would hardly be convinced. If freedom and a chance to live a dignified, stable life free from terror was the motive, then I can think of more than 170 families in Iraq last week who would have settled for what they had under Saddam. UK military casualties reached 95 last week. I nightly pray the total never reaches 100.
The consequences of this adventure may run even deeper. Hurricane Katrina has caused a reappraisal of the motives and aims of this war in the US. The storm came perhaps in the nick of time as hawks in Washington were glancing towards Iran and its newly found self-confidence in global affairs. Meanwhile, China and India are growing and sucking up every drop of oil, every scrap of concrete or steel even as the old-world powers of the UK and US pour blood and treasure into overseas campaigns which seem to have no ending and no goal.
It is time for our leaders to explain what is going on. It was as a battalion commander trying to explain to his men why they would embark on a war that I came to public notice. The irony is that I made certain assumptions that my goodwill and altruistic motivations went to the top. Clearly I was naive. This time it is the role of the leaders of nations to explain where we are going and why. I, for one, demand to know.
· Colonel Tim Collins gave a celebrated speech to his troops about their mission to liberate, not conquer, in Iraq. He has since left the army.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
http://www.observer.guardian.co.uk |
|
Re: “The human cost of war”: Local groups display Illinois soldiers’ boots |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2005
|
Up Your Dosage:
You are truly a master of putting words into other peoples' mouths.
Let's try reading my very simple post again, shall we? |
|
OK, Was This What You Mean by "non-partisan"? |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2005
|
I suppose you'd much prefer that the president play soldier again by dressing up and maybe driving a tank armed with one of your beloved 120mm DU sabot rounds on his way to a cemetary somewhere?
Then the prez could actually be seen publicly mourning at the funeral of some of the fallen. I'm sure he could work in at least one funeral a week into his busy schedule of cutting taxes for the wealthy, but he seems to not have time for that. Karl Rove makes sure he stays away from such displays, to avoid those inconvenient pictures of flag-draped coffins next to the man responsible.
Besides, that wouldn't meet your requirement for "non-partisan" since Bush always seems to entangle himself in the flag when he ought to be acting humbly grateful that so many died to ensure his re-election after blowing the Osama hunt, ruining the economy, and lining the pockets of the wealthy with money that ought to be going instead to pay for his war-cum-re-election campaign. |
|
Re: “The human cost of war”: Local groups display Illinois soldiers’ boots |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2005
|
That's an amazingly callous and politically-charged statement from one who supposedly supports this joke of an "in remembrance of" display.
What's wrong with quietly and respectfully visiting a national cemetery?
How about a small care package - no strings or organizations attached - for the family of a local fallen soldier? Maybe organize a seperate organization that focuses on that - and only that - for all Illinois servicemen and women?
A moment out of your day to pray for those no longer with us?
Unfortunately the yellow ribbon thing has received some flack as being associated with supposedly "pro-war" types. But how about a letter to the editor that simply says "thanks" to those who served, still serving, and the families of those who didn't come back?
Why don't you donate a few dollars to one of the locally deployed National Guard or Reserve units' Family Readiness Group funds. Or donate to the Red Cross, earmarked for military family support?
With any of these options, you also have a second option - you can make it as private or as public as you like. Publicity isn't the primary motivation, and politics isn't a consideration.
No one's asking you to - how does that go? - oh, yeah, "wrap yourself in the flag," put yellow ribbons on your car, join the army, marry a soldier, or qualify your political statements with "...but I care about the troops!"
But I PERSONALLY am asking why something as solemn as recognizing fallen soldiers must be politicized. Yes, they're gone. Yes, the fact that they are soldiers means that they are an extension of the government, both in life and death.
But they are still people, and their memory and names do not belong to anyone but their families, regardless of what you may think of their choice to serve.
And don't forget that regardless of the fact that they CHOSE to enlist or take a commission, they did NOT have the choice to follow or not follow specific orders.
So talk about the fact that soldiers are dying - I certainly don't like hearing about friends who lose lives or sustain injuries, and if protesting about it gets us (us being soldiers - my friends and "other family") out, so be it.
But don't make a mockery of OUR (the military community's) tradition of honoring lost troops in our units with empty boots, kevlar and upside-down rifle for your own selfish political ends. |
|
Then Tell Me Why |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2005
|
Well, Mortland, what makes you think that any of us have NOT paid our silent respects already, in far too many cases? I've got kin myself in this mess and I really hope that it doesn't come to that, personally, for me. Cindy Sheehan, I'm sure, has had at least a few of those moments over the last couple of years. But as far as you're concerned, if she -- or anyone else -- feels moved to do anything else, she's just a drag on your day.
But let's cut to the chase. I could go on at length about all the ways you're repeating the party line. But I won't; maybe you've drunk the koolaid and can't tell us anything else.
But tell me why it is, when we have a president who seemingly can't miss a chance to jump in front of the camera with LIVE soldiers, airmen, Marines, he somehow can never find the time to share the camera with a few of the fallen?
Sure, we had Chimpy McFlightsuit letting us know a few years back that it was "Mission Accomplished" and most recently the speech in August on yet another military base somewhere in the Southeast. I'm hardly the first to note this president's penchant for 'disciplined' audiences with a martial backdrop.
"Live soldiers? Bring 'em on."
But when it comes to sharing the burden, acknowledging the losses, this president is in the same place he was in Vietnam -- curiously AWOL. |
|
Re: “The human cost of war”: Local groups display Illinois soldiers’ boots |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2005
|
1) Cindy Sheehan is an embarrassment to her son. I had that discussion with my own mother - someone against the war - to ensure that we could come to an agreement on the most effective yet honorable way to both keep from embarrassing the family AND to get her point across publicly. I can't imagine what Casey is feeling right now for all the muck and publicity that she has dragged his name through. He was a grown man who knew the risk, did his duty and was taken from us, and no one can ever take that away from him - except for his mother who desecrates his memory by politicizing it.
2) To name her little charade "Camp Casey" is a slap in the face of the 2ID. I'd be pissed right now if I was wearing the indian-head patch.
3) You are a petty, worthless, pathetic individual who will never understand what it means to have given something greater than yourself. For all your rhetoric, for all your condescending attitude, you still don't get it. And that's fine - you won't get it. You are a lost cause - you think you are fighting the good fight, but you are fighting YOUR fight. So go right ahead, you have a good life.
What's really sad is that you actually think that you ARE giving something greater than yourself, by dragging me into this pissing match. And yet at the end of the day, soldiers are still soldiers, and you've only blown another blood vessel on a message board in Central Illinois.
4) If you have brethren in the fight, then god bless them and their units. But don't embarrass them - they have enough on their plates right now.
5) You may have paid your silent respects to those in the fight, I never said you didn't - but you do them a public disservice by embarrassing them with the support of displays such as this one with the boots.
6) Can you show me exactly what portion of my posts in the last few days has ANYTHING to do with the president or anyone involved in his administration? I've only been responding to specific posts - and none of it has had anything to do with Washington. I'm starting to get that "broken record" feeling from you.
Seems like if you don't like what I have to say, you could A) call it the "party line" (that's getting old, by the way) or B) don't read it. But you just have to have the last word, don't you?
When none of my posts have even TOUCHED on the president, and yet most of yours seem to keep coming back to that subject, that "party line" comment starts showing its true colors - why don't you look in the mirror for a moment?
Sorry, I'm not going to let you blatantly drag me into a political fight. This is about dead soldiers, and that's it. |
|
