But as to their impact, I would guess that the images themselves don't necessarily turn people against any given war.

The graphic images of Vietnam, from the images of our soldiers, to photographs of things like My Lai, were a major part of the conversation.  But they didn't "turn" people against the war.  The change in public mood only occured once the "credibility" gap started to emerge after 1968 (the gap between what he administration had been telling us -- "relax, we are winning the war" -- and the story on the ground).   But here again, it wasn't the "press" that turned the public against Vietnam -- it was a combination of hubris, failed policy, and the government's lies.

"Over the line" is what Bush is, not pictures of what his actions provoke. Sickening horror IN YOUR FACE, ON YOUR TV, ALL OVER THE MEDIA!

It's about fucking time.

What would you do if foreign mercenaries showed up in YOUR town and started pushing your people around? Accept it quietly?  I sure as hell wouldn't.

My question for y'all is, OK, so let's be consistent. Do you want less violence or more sex?

The Bushies love this stuff.  Gets the populace all riled up and mad at Iraq when they should be mad at the clowns in the white house.

The press loves it because it helps them sell more papers and enjoy yanking the public's chain.

We like to think that these photos will shock the complacent into action. We like to think that these photos will shock warmongering couch potatoes into informed humanitarians. The truth is much more frightening.

The process desensitization has been taking place for a solid couple of decades now. We've been "beyond the pale," and we find that it is incredibly profitable. The same machine that pulls us further into debt each year rewards us by spitting some grotesque thing or another back at our children. Like a pusher that poisons the addict, the machine imperceptibly destroys those upon whom it depends, and we just keep on feeding it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The real threat is the healthy female body and, specifically, the nipple.

Graphic photo alert:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0301/1f676d2e7a02b10390d5.jpeg

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv9n1/iraq.jpg

These particular deaths are being covered because of the atrociousness of the treatment of the corpses, and this treatment, not the deaths, is becoming the story for many Americans.  Check Billmon on this.  Check on the freepers.

These pictures will be more successful in whipping up vengeful fervor than in documenting the tragedy of war.  In the media vacuum that currently prevails, these pictures should not be front page material.

On a more prudish note, Kos, I'd like to see you revisit this issue in three or four years.  It's one thing to explain to a three-year-old death and suffering in the shape of a flag-draped coffin, a tearful mother, or even a dead body.  It's another to explain the jubilant celebration of dismemberment and desecration.

Tits are much, much easier.

They may be.  It depends on their duties.  I read they were guarding a food shipment.  Does anyone here know what their other duties were?  Especially in their own minds they may have been trying to "rebuild Iraq."

They took a calculated risk for pay, and lost.  Certainly they're not in the same category as US soldiers or Iraqi civilians who are killed there, but it's good to feel a bit of compassion for them and their families.

On the other hand, it's a despicable policy for Bushco to use such paid mercenaries/guards.  They're using our taxes (or more accurately, debt) to circumvent the stress and limitations on our military that the assinine invasion has led to.

One silver lining?  Will it become harder to recuit mercenaries?  Maybe.

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

I'm shocked that any American can feel nothing about the violent deaths of other Americans.

I don't think anyone outside their families can know 'why' these men were in Iraq.

I hope on reflection you will realize that those killed are owned more than the epitaph of 'screw them'.

I'm a loyal liberal Democrat and a Vietnam era veteran (in a non-fighting capacity), and I'm offended by your attitude.  This attitude will be quoted against other opponents of the Iraq war and Democrats in general.

I do agree that the photos and accurate coverage of what is going on should be available to the electorate.

I'm totally opposed to the government being allowed to employ military fighters or security personnel from private companies - regardless of possible economic savings.  This should be outlawed - this is more than a slippery slope, it is a danger to our republic.

It's deeply troubling that some shady private paramilitary firm has operatives wandering unescorted around Iraq. There is definitely a story behind Blackwater that (a) would deeply embarass the Pentagon and (b) we will never ever know. Because of that, I'll venture that these 4 unfortunates will not even reach the American culture recognition threshold of Micheal Spann, the world's first canonized CIA goon.

Having said that -- Kos, your comment works against the goal. These 4, whoever they are, were still people, just like the stone-throwing 14 year old Iraqi kid who gets shot by a Marine. Until we have some inkling of the story behind Blackwater, comments like "screw them" only serve to relocate the great wedge in our bipolar country a little closer to our side, when we'd rather be pushing it the other way.

I gotta say, I think you're way over the line with that one.

It doesn't make me happy that these mercs died, but at the same time the reason they were there was to fight and kill people.  Why should we get all wrought up over them when they were there for such an ignoble reason.  

This has to be the most disgusting thing I've ever seen blogged, coming as it does from a former enlisted man.

Band of brothers?  Comrade in arms?  Ring a bell, Kos?

I feel for every single person who dies over in Iraq that wasn't committing a crime. Many of these people are over there simply to provide security to people travelling in very dangerous areas.

You need to rethink this position, and post-haste, because it casts a VERY bad light on you.

The body bags were very effective, but somehow they're more somber...more likely to provoke grief than anger and the desire to retaliate.

I'm somewhat torn on this issue, and I wouldn't censor the images.  We're talking about what's appropriate, not what's legal.  I do remember during Somalia, some of the average joe population reacted with "what are we doing fighting somebody else's war?" while the other half wanted to kill em all.  Neither reaction is good policy or good values.
But that's what you get when the media does the PT Barnum bit under the cloak of self-righteousness.  

I also think that all of these images should be available and certainly not censored. I think the narrower question being debated (or the one that ought to be debated) is whether the images should be on the front page of a newspaper.

I had the same thoughts... if BushCo wanted to ratchet up the violence, what better way to get approval than exploit an attack like this. I'm most offended by the label of "civilian" in the byline. I think that leads to more outrage than reflection by the public, which allows BushCo to do whatever it wants to do to get things done. I think we'll see the escalation of violence on both sides now.