Iwo Jima Vets Slam Time Cover, Dismiss Global Warming As "A Joke"

Iwo Jima veterans are outraged over Time magazine's decision to use the iconic World War II image of American soldiers hoisting a flag at Iwo Jima for the latest cover on "the war on global warming." The Business & Media Institute reports Iwo Jima veterans call the Time cover a "disgrace" and dismiss global warming as a "joke":

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."

Another Iwo Jima veteran echoes Mates' reservations about global warming being a worth cause for a reprise of the famous scene:

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."

Time managing editor Rick Stengel defended the cover on MSNBC yesterday, saying:

"One of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change. It seems to me that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot of sense to them and a candidate who can actually bundle it up in some grand way and say, 'Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that.' I don't understand why they don't do that."

Watch:

Comments

[staticnoise]

One can see the cover depicting the herculean task that humanity may be facing or one can be insulted. Those insult edmust have very thin skin, I pity on them as it must be very difficult getting through each day.

[Gandalph]

The "vets" comments are puerile, and sound too contrived to be the real feelings of real vets. They sound like the ravings of some far-right lunatics who are passing themselves off as "vets". Happens all the time in Zimbabwe!

[thatvisionthing]

All worked up over a respectful, forward-looking Time cover? Where were they for the New Yorker one last year? Now that one had bite:

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=UBNR0EL5CMHL8JUCE54KU8RWJAUJ9DC7&sitetype=1&did=5&sid=124001&pid=&keyword=blitt&section=all&title=undefined&whichpage=29&sortBy=popular

[UncleJimbo]

The Iwo Vets that complained are just Right-Wing politically,and used this Time cover to create a platform for their Anti-Global Warming positions! The cover is no insult it's a homage! Those guys are just promoting their books and themselves,they are the shameful and disrespectful ones!

[WaterRat]

Right or left, there's no in between when it comes to twisting the message of the Iwo Memorial from what it stands for.
No war memorial should have its original purpose scarred by selfish,uncaring, unthinking, thoughtless vandals.
The cover is sacrilegious! It is an insult to the flag raisers and the 6,000 who died in the volcanic black ash of Iwo.
There isn't a damned Marine anywhere who would weave a statement against global warming or anything else utilizing the Marine memorial, or, any other war memorial for gross commercialization.
This is not the first time the Iwo memorial has been tarnished by gross commercialization. U.S. News and World Report canceled a few subscriptions when they distorted the memorial's purpose with an umbrella rather than a flag, for an insurance company ad'.
A lot of apologies and a weak explanation by the magazine failed to win back subscribers.
We may disagree on certain topics, but using any war memorial to get a commercial message across - stinks.

[thatvisionthing]

Selfish? SELFISH? The idea, idea as in thought, as in thoughtful, is to save the world, which would benefit everyone.

And the flag being raised has something to do with symbolizing freedom, subheading free speech.

If freedom didn't matter to those soldiers, they might just as well have stayed home. You are shaming what they stood for and what they achieved.

[Amalek]

Get a life people.

Time restages a staged event? And that somehow is disrespectful of the military? You keep looking for things to piss you off you will be successful.

[lvogt]

The men at Iwo Jima were noble warriors but the flag raising was staged and used for fundraising.
It is an even greater challenge to save the entire planet. This is not trivial.

[WaterRat]

AP Photographer Joe Rosenthal took the second picture, when the Navy brass requested that the first flag be replaced with the larger one. Rosenthal almost missed the shot as the Marines and a Navy Corpsman just grabbed the pipe and place it atop Mt. Surabachi.
He didn't know whether he got a shot or not. But the editors back in the States saw it as a classic.
It's a symbolic tribute to the hundreds of thousands who gave their lives fighting the Japanese during the Second World War.
It doesn't need to be tarnished by cheap commercialization.

[thatvisionthing]

Saving the earth is not cheap commercialization, and making that image fresh again is a nice homage. You are conjuring disrespect where none was given.

[Rcoke]

This cover is to me a perfect illustration of the sophomoric mentality of today's journalists. They are so morally uneducated and historically ignorant as to take a sacred American Image and transform it into a stupid publicity stunt. These people have been showing for years what callous hare brains they are so the cover does not surprise me at all.

[Amalek]

Your sacred event was a staged publicity stunt.

[jasjohn128]

Coming next ... a dozen nobel laureates in Chemistry, Biology, Geology and Physics will explain the right way to field strip an M-16, maneuver quietly through hostile territory, advance and engage via fire and maneuver when the enemy is sighted, call for and direct close air support during engagement, and ultimately pop smoke and call in artillery to cover unit extraction.

[Garioch]

Is that an entry in a competition for the most bizarre comment of the month or something of that ilk?
Does anyone have any idea what jasjohn is on about?
I know you're not attempting to tell us there is anything difficult about the items you list as you know as well as the rest of us the standard the military hires.

[Amalek]

Garioch, is that an entry in a competition for the most bizarre response to a comment?

If I may help you, jas is explaining that the Marines, while competent warriors, are not crebible analyst on the nature of global warming, anymore than a Biologist can explain how an M-16 should be cleaned.

You raise serious doubts as to whether you have the intellect to pass the lowered standards of the Bush administration for the military recruits you disparage.

[isis]

Well, I got the issue and it struck me that the cover is somewhat inappropriate and so is the "war on global warming" theme because war is very bad for the environment and contributes greatly to global warming. They should have had normal people raising the tree, including hippies who have turned out to be very normal decent people.

[stringer]

They're right. It's a disgrace Time Magazine would do this and I'm glad they got called on it.

Now I happen to disagree with the veterans on global warming, to me it's a proven fact. But there's nothing like actually being in a war. The comparison is simply not apt. Those who are crusading for the environment, while there ultimate contribution might be just as important, simply cannot be compared to soldiers serving in an actual war.

It's a disrespect and one Time shouldn't have made.

[Riker]

Hmmm, now they should replace the tree with an oil rig. That's apparently what our troops are fighting for in Iraq. What else? WMD? Nope. Freedom? Please.

[wmbear]

"[W]e'll stick a dadgum tree up somebody's rear if they want that and think that's going to cure something."

--Quote from story

"DADGUM"?

Boy, I haven't heard "dadgum" in a coon's age!

[wmbear]

THAT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO THE ONE I SAW...

I forget where (maybe here) where soldiers were planting an oil derrick in the Middle East desert in an allusion to the flag-planting on Iwo Jima....

[UncleJimbo]

Jesus-Tap-Dancing-Christ! Will ALL you people just go out and rent or purchase Clint Eastwoods "Flags of Our Fathers"! That's the straight story!

[uberlefty]

Who cares if the photo was staged or not ? How do we get off on these pointless tangents? It just reduces the argument to staged, not staged, global warming, not global warming. This isnt a left right argument. Global warming is real. We have to start dealing with it yesterday or millions will die! The more we allow ourselves these pointless, media driven, excursions the more precious time is lost. Lets keep our eye on the ball people. These vets are a handful of heroes who are being used to whip up a mock controversy to distract us from the real issue. With all due respect lets listen to SCIENTISTS about this issue not ex-Marines. We all have a role to play. They have done their duty now its time for us to do ours.