I haven't purchased Time in over a decade.

Time Magazine prints offensive cartoons.

You'd replace that offensive picture.

Perhaps with the real one. 

I'm sick of seeing such mockery by idiot media mutts. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

This guy is out of his mind.

He is willing to have us all go to Heck in a hand basket for a TREE

Time rag? Surprise? Not hardly.

It is a shame to think our military have to protect these creep along withthe rest of us.

Maybe we could seperate them out and send them to their pals at Gitmo? Or build them a palace in Anwar. or....

Just get rid of them.

And STOP buying this awful rag!

Mr. Kile, you have got to be kidding. What's next? Solar panels on the Alamo? A wind turbine on the Washington Monument?

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

This is just sad...no not the Time cover, but your and the Vet's reaction to it. Iconic WWII imagery is used for non-military purposes all the damn time. Only when it alludes to a cause that you happen to be against is it suddenly this Seriously Offensive Problem.

If you want to critique those who have overdetermined the AGW issue, go for it. I'll be right there with you, in fact. But sweepingly condemning them for using WWII iconography that is constantly used in non-military contexts and acting like that very act alone is what's offensive - as opposed to a simple ideological disagreement - is transparent and shallow.

We believe this is a respectful use of this symbol of American valor
and courage and serves to highlight another great challenge facing our
nation

Personal beliefs about the validity of Global Warming notwithstanding, this is a perfectly legitimate explanation. I'm quite certain that when WWII imagery is deployed for conservative purposes, you all wouldn't have such a problem with it. Just admit that your indignant outrage is not about use of this image, but about use of this image by a cause you perceive as liberal. That's all I ask.

Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva

As a boot Marine in 1965 learning the history and traditions of the Marine Corps, I and my fellow recruits could only hope that when the time came we could uphold legacy given to us by those men on Iwo Jima. Those four men represented the thousands beneath that summit, the dead and living. A survivor told me that all who landed were causualties and heroes, except of course himself. Men like him always say something like "I hid as much as I could". Ask about their wounds and you'll get a "Just stupid, I stuck my...".

It is because of all this that the editors of Time cannot have any appreciation of the meaning behind that picture. If they did Time would not have equated that battle and its dead heroes with a crisis that may not be a crisis. Even if valid, it may a natural climatic variation the human race will have to adjust to or another short term flucuation. Time could lead a crusade to stop the evironmental disaster in China, but because those ruthless, self-interested communists might ban the magazine, Time will not. In any event, the cover shows Time's ignorance of Mainstream America, again.

The propagandists at Time Magazine have no shame and will exploit anything to advance the eco-hysteria. My grandfather lost a hand and an eye fighting in the Pacific and to see Time Magazine disgrace what he did is appalling.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Dad was an Army medic. 96th Infantry, Letye and Okinnowa. He was never a big fan of the Marines but this would have really pissed him off. He passed away a few years back; I'm glad he didn't have to see this s#*t.

JasonC just doesn't get it. Using this picture to promote the anthropogenic global warming agenda is in fact the reason why it is offensive and it is entirely legitimate for anyone to be offended by its use.

Comparing the Battle of Iwo Jima, or any battle from WWII (or any military battle period), with the AGW movement is utterly asinine on multiple levels. Not being able to recognize this does not make what Time did acceptable.

First of all, the Battle of Iwo Jima was a real battle that cost many American lives. It was one of many battles in which we fought to preserve our country and our freedoms. The picture that was taken highlighted the defining moment in the Pacific front. It became an icon immediately after it became public and is still an icon over 60 years later. It represents real life struggles and victory. It encapsulates our perceptions of the determination and triumph of the American military.

The use of the picture on the cover of this magazine is representing a political issue. It is not real...at least not in the sense that it is factual. There is no evidence that we will be facing "another great challenge" allegedly posed by global warming. There is not even evidence that we are responsible for it. And it is not a great concern to the American people (despite the attempts by Al Gore and the media). A new ABC News poll shows just how insignificant the subject is among Americans.

This causes Time's use and alteration of the photo to become a very polarizing issue for not just military veterans and their families and friends, but it also creates hostility among the people who recognize the blatant propaganda being pushed by this magazine. And all the opposing groups are justified. It is also irrelevant whether or not they oppose other misuse of iconic military images. It does not make anyone a hypocrite to point out the propaganda of Time and to be offended by it. If the misuse of pictures has been done by others, shame on them...but it neither negates the utter stupidity of this magazine and their stated advocacy of the political issue of AGW, nor does it justify the absurd use of an iconic picture to equate AGW alarmism with the war against Nazism and Imperialism during WWII.

Using an image that represents something as emotional as this image conveys is not only irresponsible if using it unaltered to prove a non-related political point, but when the image is altered to advocate a certain position for something as divisive as the global warming issue - which is entirely political at this point - it becomes little more than cheap political propaganda at the expense of those emotions and the ones who are emotionally touched by its original significance.

It doesn't matter why people find this offensive and not another misrepresentation of similar images. If this was the only instance in which they were offended, it would still be justified. Arguing about whether or not they are hypocrites or if they ought to be offended is simply a distraction from the real issue...that this image is in fact offensive for many reasons in both the personal and public view.

So, JasonC, your argument misses (or dismisses) the entire point. The problem here is double-edged. We should be offended that the iconic image of war heroes is being misused for a political issue AND because it is being used to advocate a propagandist agenda. Either one by itself would be enough to stir negative emotions, but the two combined are a recipe for considerable outrage.

*If you like the comments, check out the articles.

This is the same anti-American rag that printed articles about the Haditha affair based solely on lies supplied by people friendly to our enemies.

To Hell with Time.

Theme for Election '08: Who cares?