Is this too far?

[usmc1]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have written a letter protesting a political cartoon by Tom Toles in the Washington Post depicting a quadruple amputee G.I. in a military hospital being checked by "Dr. Rumsfeld" who is saying, "I am listing your condition as battle hardened", with other characters saying, "I'm prescribing that you be streteched thin. We don't define that as torture."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsa...=Toles&date=01292006

Very strong stuff. Certainly makes a point, whether you agree with the point or not, the point was made.

But the question is, was this over the top? While editorial cartoonists certainly have the right to tackle controversial issues in a provocative manner, do they also have a responsibility to exercise self-restraint?

Where is the line? Does this cartoon inflict anguish on those that it inferentially seeks to protect?

Does the fact that it is merely a cartoon representing a certain group rather than the photo of an actual maimed G. I. mitigate it?

How does one make the point of the horrors of war, without depicting the realities of those horrors?

[usmc1]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have written a letter protesting a political cartoon by Tom Toles in the Washington Post depicting a quadruple amputee G.I. in a military hospital being checked by "Dr. Rumsfeld" who is saying, "I am listing your condition as battle hardened", with other characters saying, "I'm prescribing that you be streteched thin. We don't define that as torture."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsa...=Toles&date=01292006

Very strong stuff. Certainly makes a point, whether you agree with the point or not, the point was made.

But the question is, was this over the top? While editorial cartoonists certainly have the right to tackle controversial issues in a provocative manner, do they also have a responsibility to exercise self-restraint?

Where is the line? Does this cartoon inflict anguish on those that it inferentially seeks to protect?

Does the fact that it is merely a cartoon representing a certain group rather than the photo of an actual maimed G. I. mitigate it?

How does one make the point of the horrors of war, without depicting the realities of those horrors?

[Garry]

quote:

Originally posted by usmc1:

How does one make the point of the horrors of war, without depicting the realities of those horrors?

Why not show the "realities" of war as they are? There are all these games desensitizing kids of violence that showing them and others the reality of war should hit home. Our society has gotten to the point that blood shed is not a big deal anymore. You put a face on that and it becomes more personal, makes a person realize what is going on.

Just my $.02 worth.

Jr.

[nacktman]

Too far? That is up to the individual seeing the cartoon.

Reality is a hard pill to swallow at times.

The context of the editorial when juxtaposed onto the reality it lampoons pales into nothing.

Far too many Americans are living that reality and the need to cap their number is getting more desperate each day.

All means to cause a cessation of the influx of Americans into that fraternity should be used.

[Guest]

quote:

Originally posted by Garry:

quote:

Originally posted by usmc1:

How does one make the point of the horrors of war, without depicting the realities of those horrors?

Why not show the "realities" of war as they are? There are all these games desensitizing kids of violence that showing them and others the reality of war should hit home. Our society has gotten to the point that blood shed is not a big deal anymore. You put a face on that and it becomes more personal, makes a person realize what is going on.

Just my $.02 worth.

Jr.

I totally agree with Garry. The fact that American servicemen and women cannot be photographed coming home in caskets is denying freedom of speech. The censoring of images of American servicement and women injured in hospitals is also against your Constitution.

Bush and his cronies do not want a wave of anti-Washington sentiment to happen any more than it already is in the American media. They don't want you and your fellow citizens to act up like they did with another losing battle, Vietnam.

[hm0504]

I think the cartoon is raising the issue that U.S. troops are exhausted and stretched much too thinly.

From that perspective, I'm glad the cartoon is drawing attention to that issue.

Sorry to get on my hobbyhorse again, but if the U.S. is planning on militarily (through occupations) winning in Iraq and in the War on Terror, it would have an army of about 2 million. Otherwise, it is simply burning out the troops it does have and will be practically army-less at current deployment rates.

[tinner666]

Gotta use troops. Can't nuke them. Nukes might damage the sandpile known as the mideast.

[Boreas]

I think that sometimes a cartoon or whatever needs to be extreme to make a point about something like this. Rumsfeld and the rest of the Admin are sending people away to fight on limited resources. When they return wounded, I understand that they have trouble getting appropriate medical treatment through the military hospitals. That is wrong. If you break it, pay for it or fix it!

Like others have said here, the government is doing its best to not allow the reality from being seen in the media and are spinning the events like mad. Someone has to punch through the rhetoric and such.

[jon71]

As far as the joint chiefs protesting that just tells me that the truth hurts. If they were doing their job they wouldn't be seeing this message.

[Baremore]

Hey folks, lighten up! Take another look at the cartoon and at the patient's clip board at the foot of the bed. It says US Army. Rumsfeld is saying the THE ARMY is hardened. The little guys are saying THE ARMY is stretched thin. The "patient" represents an army that has been battered beyond belief, and the idiot republican SecDef doesn't see it that way - he thinks the Army is battle hardened, and can't see the army is wounded.

[Bob S.]

As a Conservative, I can say that I find that cartoon very tame.

And as Baremore mentioned, the cartoon seemed to be talking about the Army being stretched thin.

Complaining about that would define being thin skinned.

Bob S.

[KetchumMaine]

Too far?? I say it is a good start, now go at 'em with something really hard hitting.

The First Amendment is not the name of a toilet tissue. People will always take offense to someone else's opinion. In the U.S. they need to learn to deal with it. We have the right to say what we want as long as it does not cause undue public alarm. If you don't like that, move to a country where your petit little mind can be spared from the anguish of having to process such opinions.

That is all I have to say about that.

[NudistGuy47]

I see the cartoon as stating a harsh reality. Sometimes the truth hurts and those who the truth is directed towards must be ready to accept the truth. I am with Bob S stating that complaining about the cartoon is being thin skinned.

[Hooked]

The message is great however using someone who lost all his limbs in a comical light is just not in good taste (unless it's that Monty Python skit). But then again, it's just a drawing but I do see how it could be potentially offensive to those who really have lost limbs in Iraq.

[nacktman]

Thin skinned? How about No Skinned!
Judging from the reactionary diatribes on the right-wingnut websites I'd say the Theocons are all pithy about it.
Damn the truth hurts, and they scream louder while covering their ears saying "lalalalalalalalala" just like any petulant child not wanting to hear something.