Hmm. Funny. I’m not an internationalist and I agree with London_Calling. I haven’t read the issue though.
TIME isn’t provincial though, not in the least…they must have better reasons for focusing on American soldiers in 2003, specifically in Iraq.
Can’t say i’m offended exactly, just eye-rolling at the sheer cheesiness of it. It must have taken them, what, five minutes to come up with that piece of fluff?
Hell, even I can’t exactly argue against it, it’s not like American soldiers don’t deserve to be honored, it just seems like “Man of the Year” isn’t the forum to do so. Not that I have a better suggestion. Bush, I suppose, or Bush/Saddam, echoing the previous cover. Maybe Dean, he stepped up as the lead challanger this year. Yeah, it’s unoriginal, and possibly controversial, but at least it has some substance.
I see time still hasn’t grown a pair since it failed to give bin Laden (or the highjackers themselves) the title in 2001, when they became (much to everyone sane’s horror) the most newsworthy people of that year, and possibly the decade.
Not much then.
The point isn’t that American GI’s are in Iraq. The point is that they are in Iraq, Afghanistan (and various other -Stans), Kosovo, South Korea, Philippines, and about a zillion other countries (and all the Seven Seas).
Brutus - in the interests of fairness, yes I have to concede you make a fair point there. I remember being in Germany in 1980 and learning just how many American service people were permanently stationed overseas in the European theatre. I dare say the numbers of American service people who are currently stationed throughout the world at the moment are demonstrably higher.
Also, Minty Green? Just for your reference, I’m a very long term reader of Time Magazine - certainly since the late 1970’s. It’s my personal observation that during the 1980’s TIME embarked on a policy of regional internationalism - and they ended up having some 35 different regional versions of TIME getting released each week. During that period, TIME was amazingly global and worldly in it’s approach I found.
However, since the merger with AOL things have changed it seems to me. From an editorial standpoint, effectively our local regional version of TIME is indistinguishable from the US version - save for the occasional sports story.
All I’m saying here is that it’s a shame how it’s happened. TIME used to be a Global Magazine first, and an American magazine second - but some time in the last 10 years that’s changed.
Although according to TIME itself, still some 58% of all weekly sales are derived from countries outside of the USA - hence the little bit of controversy we’re seeing.
“I dare say the numbers of American service people who are currently stationed throughout the world at the moment are demonstrably higher.”
You “dare say” wrong. 
(with respect)
There were more troops stationed in Europe during the 70’s and early 80’s before the drawdown than there are worldwide right now.
About 400,000 troops in Europe at that time (Bulk of forces in Germany). Compared to about 350,000 worldwide now (Of which about half are in Iraq).
Regards,
-Bouncer-
cites:
http://www.bicc.de/publications/reports/report04/report4.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm
But they never had pictures of naked natives for years.
Thanks Bouncer! Much appreciated. That’s a surprising statistic isn’t it?
And capacitor? Very funny. 
I remember “Richie Cunnigham” used to make references to all those naked boobies in National Geographic all the time.
As to the OP, the argument would be the same no matter which American were chosen (if one were). That this choice somehow “insults” other countries. While I (and I suspect pretty much everyone) agree that the coalition forces are all deserving of attention, it seems to me that the American Soldier HAS generated more stories and more impact upon the world this year than any other single group or single country military organization.
Unless you want to argue that the Polish component of the Coalition did more groundfighting or air missions?
If you have to chose between the combined organization that does 15-20% of the work and provides about that much manpower or the organization that does 80-85% of the work and manpower… which do you in fairness choose? Understanding that the Coalition NON-US force strength is about 21000 and the US strength by itself is over 130000.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I can understand why they chose the American soldier, and not just soldiers in general, or our allies’ soldiers. People have been very punchy about Irag becoming another Vietnam. One major facet of the Vietnam war was that the soldiers coming back from war were not viewed as heros. Many were considered criminals and their return was not celebrated. Perhaps, since many Viet. Vets are now older and (presumably) in places of some influence, they are trying to insure that the American soldier is not derided and rediculed like that again, especially by the American people.
I agree with the OP. Singling out “American soldiers” is fundamentally dishonest in that it implies that the inavsion and occupation of Iraq was accomplished only by Americans. It’s cheap, pandering, sentimentalist, jingoistic bullshit. This article pissed directly into the faces of every non-American soldier who died for Bush’s lies. It’s disgusting. TIME used to have some credibility with this distinction. Now they just pick whatever “person” they think will be the most salable to fat, stupid, lazy Americans who just want a cheap way to feel good about themselves without having to think or be challenged.
No, I had to run out to the store earlier so I picked up the magazine, and sure enough, it’s all about Americans in Iraq. No others are mentioned except a page showing where troops are deployed in the world and #'s serving in the armed forces.
Although I’ve already said I think Time should’ve included soldiers from other countries, I’m a bit baffled by how incensed some people are over this. C’mon, folks, this is Time Magazine, not some intellectual journal of world events or something. It’s news for the masses. I never thought Time was anything else.
At least no one in this thread has blamed FOX News for this yet…
This is small potatoes.
Just imagine all the fuse-and-gasket-blowing if TIME had picked GWB as Man of The Year.
Damn, Diogenes the Hypocrite is living up to his new name! So the action in Iraq has gone from a ‘unilateral’ attack by us (as you yourself said many a time), to a multilateral action? Well, whatever paints America in the worst light possible, eh?
Exactly, Brutus.
Golly. Some people find the wierdest shit to fuss about.
- PW
It IS unilateral as far the decision and the control of the invasion. it’s ]i]victims* are international, though.
I think you got it wrong about who needs to “Deal with it.”
Harry Vanda and George Young from the Easybeats.
As far as the OP goes, it’s a storm in a teacup IMHO.
If they’d picked a representative from each of the coalition countries, it would have looked every bit as manufactured. It’d have provoked arguments about unilateralism, and it seems they’ve come up in this thread now anyway.
Just as a bit of trivia for the musically interested amongst us, George Young as mentioned in the post above, is the eldest of the Young brothers - otherwise known as the powerhouse guitarists of legendary rock band AC/DC.
George Young and his longtime erstwhile partner in crime, Harry Vanda were the backbone to a wonderful band in the 60’s from Australia called The Easybeats - a band easily as talented as say, The Kinks. But it was a hard road to hoe back then, to try and make it from Australia on the big stage.
In no small part, the story of The Easybeats figured in the lyric by Bon Scott in AC/DC’s epic tune “It’s a Long Way to the Top (If You Wanna Rock and Roll)”. George Young and Harry Vanda were the engineers and producers on all of AC/DC’s Australian recordings - including the above mentioned song.
When David Bowie came to Australia for the first time in 1978, at his first ever press conference, he announced the conference was NOT allowed to continue until Harry Vanda and George Young were brought up on to the dias to answer questions with him. They were as surprised as anyone else, but from Bowie’s point of view, it was the ultimate compliment he could pay.