Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties (CNN's online breakdown of War casualties)

CNN ^ | CNN, who else

[Maceman]

May I ask why this upsets you, or why you find it to be an "insult?" The same thing was done in WWII. I have many "Life" and other magazines from the era, including one with the Title America's War Dead that lists by name and hometown KIA up to the point of publishing...5 pages of small type.

During WWII, the reports of war dead were in a context of recognizing heroes who died for a great cause, and the reports served to stiffen American resolve so that these brave soldiers would not die in vain.

Today, the war dead are presented as lists of poor saps who died for Bush's corrupt relationship with Halliburton, and the message is that we need to stop our senseless and unwinnable action before more soldiers die for no real reason.

It's all about context. When CNN reports in their slanted fashion about war dead, it's all propaganda against what Wmerica is doing.

[Maceman]

Wmerica = America.

Unfortunate typo. Maceman regrets the error.

[JRios1968]

They both list the killed. True, they both do.

They both refer to soldiers as heroes. False. Go read the introduction to CNN's list, and put it together with their politics. It's nothing but a bald-faced way to smear the Heroes and our President.

[ordinaryguy]

I've read CNN's introduction. I also see "Heroes of War" over on the left. They do refer to soldiers as heroes.

If CNN didn't have a list of killed soldiers, someone would probably complain that CNN's politics, combined with the absence of acknowledgement that soldiers were giving their lives for the cause was a smear.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike CNN. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with publishing a list of those killed in service. I don't see that they've done it in a distasteful way.

I don't think they should be forgotten in death. Those who knew them won't forget them, and we shouldn't either.