The Continued disrespect of our Armed Forces...

Posted By Deebow

and the perpetuation of a hoax to boot...

The best part of this story may be some of the quotes from some of the veterans of that battle...

Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.”

“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.”

Mates also said making the comparison of World War II to global warming was erroneous and disrespectful.

“The second world war we knew was there,” Mates said. “There’s a big discussion. Some say there is global warming, some say there isn’t. And to stick a tree in place of a flag on the Iwo Jima picture is just sacrilegious.”

But the trifecta for this little journey into libtardedness is the quote from Time managing editor Richard Stengel about what he believes the reporters and the news-room of Time Magazine need to do to be most effective in their jobs;

“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”

I believe that alcoholics call this "a moment of clarity."  Thanks Richard for admitting what we already knew was there...

And great job on that cover....

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/28239812

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Continued disrespect of our Armed Forces...:

Comments

[winemkr]

Every Marine knows who he is and what his corps is all about. The absolute integrity of the Marine Corps precipitates any reaction other than shock.

I don't have words to describe my disgust, but I do have my fellow Marines and I have a deep knowledge of who we are and what our mission is.

I choose to rise above the vitriol that I could easily spew and just say that this is despicable, and if there is an organization that can carry the weight of the moronic idiots who choose to dishonor the men who faught for a noble cause then it is certainly the UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS.

Have said that, I would also like to point out the Time Magazine can suck my green dick.

[douglas]

I thought this Vet's comment was a real gem:
" Lt. John Keith Wells, the leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi and co-author of “Give Me Fifty Marines Not Afraid to Die: Iwo Jima” wasn’t impressed with Time’s efforts.

“That global warming is the biggest joke I’ve ever known,” Wells told the Business & Media Institute. “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.”

I also thought the comment by the editor was interesting, both for it's candor, and it's stupidity. When he says "People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do." I just laughed. Experts? I think they'd be hard pressed to even qualify as expert writers. They are certainly not experts in virtually anything they write about, so what exactly makes them think that people should listen to their opinion? A few years of J school brainwashing, I guess.

[Mr.Sparkle]

Time is a crap mag but most newspapers and magazines do take stances.

The IWO JIMA picture is a fake anyway.

[LongTabSigO]

Maybe we should photoshop weapons into that famous picture of heroic journalists!

Oh wait....there IS NO picture of heroic journalists...

Never mind.

[Subsunk]

Yep,that Journalism degree qualifies them to be experts in practically everything, don't it? Let's see them make a bridge, deliver a baby, perform heart surgery, drill for oil, and pick up a rifle and walk point then.

Oops, not quite expert enough to do those things? Well, at least Carl can also walk point.

They are Jacks of all trades, and Master of none, including their own.

Mr. Sparkle, I don't think I'd continue espousing the position that the Iwo Jima photo is fake. You may believe it is staged, but we've examined that "fake" charge pretty well here in the Colonies. The only thing fake about it is the outrage you generate amongst yourselves when you imagine it isn't a serious symbol of the Triumph of the American Marine in the face of a determined and implacable for, over the long odds held against him by doubters and quitters such as you find in the NY Times or Time magazine today.

winemkr, you certainly have an eloquent way of making your point! And I'd even pay money to see Time's staff do just that.

Press on, Men. Great post, DeeBow.

Subsunk

[Subsunk]

...implacable foe...

[Mr.Sparkle]

You're correct, staged even. My bad use of language.

Also on global warming I just don't see why humans are taking the chance. What have we got to lose either way? The vast majority of scientists seem to agree there is a human-related effect so why don't the 'conservative' politicians act conservative?

[Valerie]

Pictures like this are what you get from a press that confuses a US military uniform with a fashion statement.

The global warming comment from Mr. Sparkle has a similar origin. There have been lots of stories stating without any basis that the "consensus" of scientists on this issue, is as he said. No wonder he is confused. He is simply a person with no technical background quoting the lies he has seen printed.

Scientists in general agree that we are on a warming trend. Scientists do NOT agree that the current trend is caused by human activity. That leap was made by a politician. And, it is scientists who have been pointing to the many flaws in the data, analysis, and proposals surrounding this issue. The major criticism on this issue is based on scientific questions, not political philosophy.

Whatever else they are, scientists are not generally "conservative" or "liberal." They tend to be unconformists. And our press has no more idea about what scientists are like than they do about soldiers.

[Miss Ladybug]

Mr. Sparkle,

You ignorance in showing. That photo of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima was not staged. The photographer, when he took that shot, didn't think he'd captured it. Later, there was another, posed, picture in front of the flag. In the fog of what was WWII, he just sent off his film, thinking he only had a quality shot of the posed photo, so when his paper asked him about the now-iconic shot, which he didn't think existed, he told them it was "staged". Only later did the photographer learn that they were not talking about the same image.

[Mr.Sparkle]

Ladybug that is interesting but confusing! I always had thought the famous picture was staged because it was the 2nd flag to be raised (being a bigger and better flag than the first one) apparently because the sec. of the Navy had wanted the first flag for himself but the commander of the marines believed it to be a marine relic and therefore ordered the 2nd to be put up!

But I'm probably talking crap.

Valerie I just want to hedge our bets. It's not as clear cut an argument as you suggest.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

[Miss Ladybug]

Mr. Sparkle~

http://www.montney.com/marine/iwo.htm

[Subsunk]

Also on global warming I just don't see why humans are taking the chance. What have we got to lose either way? The vast majority of scientists seem to agree there is a human-related effect so why don't the 'conservative' politicians act conservative?

Posted by: Mr.Sparkle | April 18, 2008 at 06:23 AM

How about the health and welfare of our kids and grandkids? Let's not bother actually being more productive so there is more pie for everyone to share. Let's just stop growing as much food, manufacturing as many homes, developing new drugs and health care technologies, eliminating scientific advances which increase productivity, and making as many pies in the name of global warming so that the greater number of people striving for those things can begin fighting over them instead of peacefully procuring their own from the more productive economies of the world. Let's have more War, not less.

That's the ticket! Now I know how come you are absolutely brilliant in your comments. Because you have no imagination! Why don't the "progressive" thinkers act "progressive" and espouse policies that will actuallt feed more people and find more and cheaper energy instead of making so many simple things so much harder to accomplish?

Because of their "staged" controversies over global warming which lines their pockets instead of an energy company's providing a fuel we already know we need. Now "progressives" feel the need to make money off of wind technology and solar technology that costs 4 or 5 times to procure than the costs associated with oil and gas. Who's pocketing that moeny in the name of Greener environments and Carbon Credits? "Progressives" who just manufactured a completely new industry out of...... the wind.

Why won't conservative people just be safe and accept global warming as fact? Why won't "progressive" people just be safe and accept my scenario as possibility?

Have a nice, dark, unpowered day filled with the inability to do anything after sunset since the power isn't available.

Subsunk

[Subsunk]

Miss Ladybug, you are a dear. What an excellent answer to the "staged" supposition. If "staging" is what it took to get a larger flag, which could be seen all over the island, and cheer our Men's souls, then "staged" is a definition I would be willing to accept.

God Bless Every Man on That Island and the Country they served and The Marine Corps they enshrined for the next 1000 years.

Subsunk

[Mr.Sparkle]

!

You're totally right, people do make money off this and it's always helpful to be skeptical. Putting a wind turbine on your roof sounds to me as barmy, but increasing the electricity production towards renewable or nuclear and cutting the pollution from big business, at some cost, still seems like a worthwhile and intelligent not emotional effort.

Basically I am not sold on the argument that ignoring cause will just be okay, or that putting effort into environmental production will place us into a dark age.

[Mr.Sparkle]

And 3 of the soldiers in the 2nd photo were killed later in the battle. There is a video of the 2nd flag rising which is brilliant.

[defendusa]

Mr. Sparkle-
You do know that quoting the IPCC is making yu look more stupid than the dunce int he corner? The IPCC is an organisation (I put the S in just for you) that does ZERO research and only "interprets" data... That to me suggetsts purely subjective crap as they can spin the facts any way they want to scare people. And, you'd think you'd be scared that someone ist rying to claim Carbon Credits will save the world, yeah? Well, here's a thought: On Mars the temps are rising at the same rate as in the US. But, there is only water, no humans, technology or anything else...What say you about that little pehenomenon? I say absolute horse shit that Global warming exists at all. JMO

[Ojoe]

"People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do..."

Experts how? At BS, really, to answer my own question.

And I for one, don't trust you at all. & I think many other people don't trust you either.

And I hope to God that our efforts to get more carbon out of the fossil beds and into biological circulation where it belongs, will stave off the next ice age.

At the height of the last ice age, the Laurentide ice sheet covered five million square miles, extended down into Ohio, and it knocked over A LOT of trees.

Meanwhile hands off Joe Rosenthal's famous photo.

[TheJewelryLady]

I would think the families of these brave men would have a good case for defamation of character for the unathorized use/altering of this photo.

[Fenris]

For the record, "staged" version or otherwise, there are NO soldiers in the photo of the flag-raising on Mt Suribachi. There were 5 Marines and a Navy corpsman.

Yes, it's an important distinction. Don't call a US Marine a "soldier" to his face unless you really, really want some excitement in your life.

[Subsunk]

You're totally right, people do make money off this and it's always helpful to be skeptical. Putting a wind turbine on your roof sounds to me as barmy, but increasing the electricity production towards renewable or nuclear and cutting the pollution from big business, at some cost, still seems like a worthwhile and intelligent not emotional effort.

Basically I am not sold on the argument that ignoring cause will just be okay, or that putting effort into environmental production will place us into a dark age.

Posted by: Mr.Sparkle | April 18, 2008 at 08:10 AM

You do realize that the use of "renewable" fuels to produce electricity requires almost twice as much fuel (wood chips, sawgrass, manure) to achieve the same heating value as coal, and STILL produces Carbon Dioxide, the "greenhouse gas", in question, right? So switching completely to "renewable" fuels like wood, or sawgrass, or manure will require more fuel than we use now from coal, oil, and gas, and will increase the CO2 produced to provide the same amount of electricity. It will also remove trees from the reduction of CO2 side of the equation, which eliminates a method of reducing CO2, so the effect is even higher from burning those fuels. The only renewable sources which do not increase "greenhouse gases" are wind, solar and nuclear. And wind is unreliable (when the wind dies down in the summer is exactly when the greatest air conditioning loads are experienced), and when the sun is at its worst, solar cells would be best positioned to handle that peak, but they are at least 3 to four times more expensive to install than comparable coal or oil handling equipment per produced Kilowatthr. The cost tradeoffs are not certain to win any solar converts or it would have happened already. As a rule of thumb, unless your Kilowatthr charges are around 20-25 cents per kWh, solar cells are not so cost effective. Most electrical utilties in the country are cheaper than that using nuclear, natural gas and coal. (The most cost efficient fuels are nuclear, followed by coal, followed by gas, and then oil.)

I have no disagreement with your claim that nuclear would be better. After all, I am a nuke. Been one most of me bloomin' life. Its a good source of energy, provided the safety is maintained well enough. And it usually is. But the Greenpeacer's of the world have raised the biggest barriers to that fuel with emotion, not with scientific fact. When you can overcome the enviro's objections to this technology, call me. I'd like to get involved in those jobs.

Subsunk out.

[Subsunk]

Excuse me, I left off geothermal sources. But they are usually area dependent (as is solar and wind) and they provide a miniscule amount of current electricity production. Hydroelectric production is obviously the cheapest source of power, but there is scant room for more dams to be built in this country and their capacity is dependent on the weather anyway. Not a good source to depend on unless you live in the right places (like Idaho).

There are other technologies which are not advanced enough to make a difference, but they will one day. My opinion is the whole lot needs to be pursued where they make fiscal sense. And right now, that is the way the energy ball is bound up anyway.

Subsunk out.

[Tincan sailor]

I think Joe Rosenthal must be spining in his
Grave,Talk about dis-respect :-(

[vet66]

Let us not forget the protests from the "nattering nabobs of Nantucket" when faced with wind generators on the horizon said "Not In My Backyard!"

Now there is true concern for humanity! Then there is that pesky fact that some of their monthly energy bills rival the minimum amount required to support a family of four in the U.S. for a year.

Talk about a credibility gap. Can we really be surprised that they tramp on Hallowed Ground without a clue as to the sensitivites of those who fought and died for that same ground?

[Rich Casebolt]

Prosperity is the "fuel source" for environmental protection.

The problem is, many of the enviro-fundamentalists are also socialist in their worldview, and take prosperity for granted in their calculus ... which leads to thinking that "even if we're wrong about the human contribution to global warming, what we are doing is still for the greater good".

However, when one diverts resources from the pursuit of prosperity into environmental-protection efforts that are ineffective, you end up choking the golden goose that, among other things, feeds other, effective environmental-protection efforts.

And you effectively end up throwing out the baby (insert your favorite species here) with the bathwater.

When you are wondering where the rent money (or your next meal) is coming from, saving the whales becomes a low priority ... and you become more inclined to fillet Willy than free him.

[Rich Casebolt]

Let me make this perfectly clear ... I also do not support pooping in our nest for the sake of mere profit.

Wise utilization of resources with man as a part of nature ... not preservation of a "pristine" earth with man cast as its enemy ... is the proper focus here.

But what you see at the hardest-core of the environmental movement, is a parallel (or is it a common, overlapping?) condition with the hardest core of the anti-war movement.

The latter, blame America first ... and sometimes descend into hate-America-first.

The former, blame humanity first ... and sometimes descend into hate-humanity-first ... or at least hate for those who are not True Believers like them.

At least it's not time to call up Rainbow Six to deal with such as these ... yet.

[Doc63]

Just an ol Doc's two cents, first I am disgusted... HANDS OFF THE PHOTO! And Just for the hell of it... what if the earth climate changes regardless of what we "try" to do and it is just supposed to be? Kinda like the whole asteriod might hit us thing awhile back. What if regardless of the absolute maximum reduction of our "carbon footprint" nothing changes? What I believe is not what many "huggers" believe. We can make changes but to what end? It will all end for us like the Dinosaurs one day anyway right?
Semper Fi
Doc, Out

[dslrogers]

"Yes, it's an important distinction. Don't call a US Marine a "soldier" to his face unless you really, really want some excitement in your life."

That's right because he would be greatly honored to be called a Soldier of the U.S. Army!!!;-)

Essayons,

David

[thebronze]

"But I'm probably talking crap."

As usual...

[thebronze]

"That's right because he would be greatly honored to be called a Soldier of the U.S. Army!!!;-)"

Um...no.

[Miss Ladybug]

Thanks, Subsunk ;-)

I've known that photo longer than I could name. My father had (maybe still has, in boxes out in the garage) that Time-Life series on WWII, and I used to look at them. It was only in more recent years I learned of the whole "controversy" about it being "staged", and the reasons why some people think that. Just trying to spread the knowledge around, like any good teacher ;-)

[Ken]

Boy this one got off track rather quickly.

Rather than argue about the merits of "Global Warming" or the staging of the photo, I think this thread should focus on Time Magazine's desecration of a sacred American image.

I imagine Time's response will be something along the lines of "we didn't realize this image was held in such high regard" which will just about say it all.

[Deltabravo]

Ken, actually I was wondering what other hallowed American images Time could desecrate on one of their covers to make their stupid point. I'll keep my suggestions to myself, because I'd get banned.

[GI]

Mr. Sparkle bringing up the IPCC is quite humorous considering the IPCC during their recent conference in Bali had 400 scientists protesting against the claim of a consensus on man made global warming:

http://tinyurl.com/4dk2px

Of course the IPCC let none of these scientists speak thus keeping the illusion of a consensus in the records kept for the Bali meeting.

Getting back to the TIME cover controversy, does anyone think that TIME magazine would ever alter a photo of Martin Luther King to try and draw a equivalence between the fight for civil rights and the fight against global warming?

Of course not because the analogy is ridiculous just like it is utterly ridiculous to draw a equivalence between fighting World War II and fighting global warming.

[Deltabravo]

GI, you're getting really warm as to what one of my imaginary photos would have included.

I'll just stick a potato in my cakehole right now... ;-)

[douglas]

I wonder if Time would think it appropriate to use a picture of the Goracle recontextualized to promote a mobilization against Islamofascism?

Heh.

[Deltabravo]

Please, could he have a turban shaped like a bomb attached to his head in the photo?

[Ymarsakar]

Experts in what, spreading enemy propaganda and lies that get people killed? Yeah, they're real nice experts at that.

[JusCruzn]

Boy am I glad I DON"T have a subscription to Time. Yeah they are really some experts at desecrating a very sacred picture. Wish someone would stick that tree up Stengel's ass. Hope all the vets out there that have a subscription to Time will cancel it after this!

[steveH]

Sparkle;

Re. your quote up at 7:33am... It's not from the IPCC report itself, but from a commentary about the report.

Sadly, it doesn't quite correspond to the content of the report itself, which is *far* less certain of anthropogenic causes for observed warming over the past century.

And while, as mentioned elsewhere upthread, while we've seen warming on Mars and other planets while watching warming here, during the past couple of years we haven't been seeing warming at home or offsite; temperatures have been pretty much flat, if not sightly declining.

And the next sunspot cycle is late getting started. As in two or more years late.

Time (and the other usual suspects) manage to get technical details wrong on just about anything they publish, and have for decades. Why should one expect them to finally get this right?

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Hey Sparkles.

For fun, let's say there is global warming.

What would you say is the bigger problem: 9.5 billion people by 2020 requiring food and related resources, or a warmer Earth. I and most people who still have oxygen flowing would say that the shortages of food - fresh water - and other resources is a much bigger problem than Jimmy Buffet possibly having to shore up his beach house down in the Keys... And I certainly have my doubts about ocean rise. Water expands when it freezes, so what does it do when it melts?

And the 'majority of scientists' ? How about not true. How about the fact that the media, infested with people like sock boy, will neither pay scientists for their articles refuting global warming, or would even print them for free since it disagrees with 'an issue' that they love to have running through their brains - Evil Corporations destroying the Earth and Bush didn't sign Kyoto so that's another log on the hate fire. This is a Mental... Disease...

Back to the main point.
There are Riots going on Today because of Food.

Global warming creates more places where you can grow the stuff, and as the ice melts, more water that can be desalinated and used to keep people alive. A warm Earth is a time of Plenty.

More people die from cold than from heat.

Anyone who thinks global warming, even if it exists, is a problem for mankind has shit for brains.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Subsunk, just saw your post on the food thing.

Just for more fun consider:

- CO2 is at what percentage of the atmosphere? Nitrogen and Oxygen take up 99% with 1% left for CO2 and other exotic gases. CO2, according to Wikipedia is at .038% of the atmosphere, but I've also heard another study that said 0.685. Either way, it's insignificant.

Again, plants need CO2, the more CO2 the more healthy you will find your plant life.

The CO2 level in the Martian Atmosphere is 90%+. Why is Mars not a molten mess? Instead it's tempurature is always in minus numbers. Hmmm, do we think the Sun might have an influence on the tempurature of a planet relative to it's distance? Do we think the Sun's output is constant? Well, we know it isn't. It goes in cycles, just like the climate of the Earth. When was the last time you heard an all time record high being made? I can't remember one.

Anyway, I read recently that:

- The tempurature of the Ocean has gone Down since 2002.
- With the amount of ice and snow in China and other places this last winter, that any global warming that had occured in the last 100 years has been completely reversed this year.

If you really need, I'll go find the URL's, but take my word for it.

And honestly, does anyone really trust people to decide what the temperature of the Earth should be? How arrogant is that?

Global warming is primarily a vehicle for the creation of collection of taxes. As a side effect, people like Al Gore get rich playing idiots like flutes.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

The photo was not staged.
I remember watching a documentary where Joe Rosenthal explained that he grabbed his camera and snapped just as he noticed the 2nd raising and the picture was a stroke of luck..
__________________________________
Joe Rosenthal's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph taken on the Pacific island of Iwo Jima is one of the best-known war images ever made. The Allies invaded the island, more than six hundred miles off the coast of Japan, on February 19, 1945, hoping to establish a staging area for bombers. Rosenthal, a photographer for the Associated Press, landed under gunfire three hours after the invasion began. The Marines fought their way to the top of Mount Suribachi on February 23 and raised a small flag. Later that same day, five Marines and a naval medicine corpsman raised this second, larger flag at the summit and were recorded by Rosenthal. Contrary to popular belief, the moment was not staged. In thirty-one days of brutal fighting, 6,821 Americans died, including three of the flag-raisers. Rosenthal inscribed this print to Wyoming Democratic Senator Joseph O'Mahoney.

[douglas]

I'll also chime in about the IPCC report. This is from the report:
""Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

In other words- 'unless we mispelled something or double entered a line, please don't bother us with scientific issues. We've already made a summary of the report touting our ideological line, and can't let science get in the way of that.'

Check this out and see if you still think the IPCC report is worth the paper it's written on.

[Miss Ladybug]

C_Bob~

You must have missed my exchange with Mr. Sparkle this morning ;-)

[Soldier's Dad]

The circulation of "Time Magazine" fell by 17 percent between 2006 and 2007.

For the math challenged...that is 1 out of 6 customers told them bye bye.

At the same time...the circulation of "American Riflemen" increased.

Apparently..there has been an increase of "Bitter Gun Toting Riflemen"(Obamamesiah said so) and a decrease in the number of people prepared to pay for libtard fishwrap.

[JusCruzn]

Cincinnati Bob is correct about the photo not being staged. There were several interviews with Joe Rosenthal and they all said the same thing about the second flag raising. I believe the reason they put up the second flag was that the first one was too small and could not be seen from too far away. Joe did say in all the interviews that it was pure luck he got the shot. He didn't know it was coming and just grabbed his camera and clicked away. Bill (Genhaust?) not sure my spelling of his name is correct got some of the first pictures of the smaller flag as well as some video of it. Bill was killed not long after the flag raising and his remains were never found. Bill was an official USMC photographer but I believe also furnished his stuff for Stars & Stripes. I believe there is someone searching for Bill's remains and maybe they will find some more rolls of undeveloped film.

[Davod]

"People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do..." Why does Maxwell Smart come to mind - "Trust me. I know what I am doing."

The picture should have never been considered for publication. That it was is more than just callous and indifferent, it is part of an effort to hide or demean US history.

A similar incident occured recently which got less of a hearing - Obama Insult Comparing the Campaign to the Bataan Death March.

[jordan]

Wow Davod, that is a moving and powerful video. A nice reminder of why ironclad loyalty, to country and to your brothers, is so important and uplifting. Bad on you, Obama.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Hi Miss Ladybug. Yes, I'm afraid I did. Solly!

Interesting factual addition to what I remember from the documentary.

Thanks.

[Cameron]

To be honest, I don't see this as malice from Time. It's just a group of people who honestly had no clue how negative the reaction to using that photo would be. But let's be real; how much research can we expect from the media these days?

As a former Marine and someone who grew up in a military family, I am annoyed and disgusted that they chose to use that photo. I've had people try justifying its use by going on about how its a symbol of struggle against impossible odds to achieve a goal. And that is the point in the discussion where I shake my head in pity and walk away.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Cameron, I absolutely agree with you. I can see someone simply grabbing a 'well known' 'military associated' photo to use for their latest brain fart. The context of any of this is completely lost on them.