Taking into consideration the original image (which was so totally NOT shown in the US at the time, but went through the media pretty much everywhere else) that sculpture sort of loses the strong appaeal that image used to carry - and what's with the kid anyways?
Ummm...I can only hope that you are joking. This display-- a pair of boots, a military-issue assault rifle with barrel pointed towards the ground, and a helmet resting atop the gun-- is a common salute/memorial to dead soldiers within the military these days. This particular magazine cover could hardly be called the sculpture's "inspiration." I would put down a lot of money, besides, that the soldier in the picture did not get any call for approval over these words and would doubt even that he supports them (based on my experience with current members of the US military, even those who disagree with the war seem offended by comparisons to Vietnam).
I am with you in sentiment, but must question the "facts" you are trying to present.
If you actually read the linked-to Snopes article, you would find your/their accompanying text is kinda inaccurate; it was a commission paid for and designed by US soldiers. This quote in particular is very telling about how little difference there is between the statues he was "forced" to produce for Saddam and the "grateful" nature of this production:
The officers didn't question Mr. Alussy further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he's harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since.
"I made the statues of Saddam — even though I didn't want to — because I needed money for my family and to finish my education," he says, reclining in a room decorated with several of his paintings. "And I decided to make statues for the Americans for the exact same reasons."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 09:53 pm (UTC)(which was so totally NOT shown in the US at the time, but went through the media pretty much everywhere else) that sculpture sort of loses the strong appaeal that image used to carry - and what's with the kid anyways?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 03:54 am (UTC)I am with you in sentiment, but must question the "facts" you are trying to present.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 04:04 am (UTC)The officers didn't question Mr. Alussy further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he's harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since.
"I made the statues of Saddam — even though I didn't want to — because I needed money for my family and to finish my education," he says, reclining in a room decorated with several of his paintings. "And I decided to make statues for the Americans for the exact same reasons."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 04:05 am (UTC)Got a link handy?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 04:11 am (UTC)What boggles the mind is that this same article is linked to by the site you're quoting itself as proof of what it is saying.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 04:22 am (UTC)Dur... I just noticed that when I re-read your comment. That's verrrrry interesting.
Oddly enough, DNS isn't working for that domain now. Bummer.