You dont have to agree with the politics to honor the people brave enough to serve their country.

Do I agree that our soldiers are deserving of the title?

Absolutely.

Do I think that Time magazine is doing this for any reason other than to pull at the heart strings of the public and try to make the war seem more "purposeful" than it really is?

Definitely not.

I do not think it should of been the "American" soldier. Many nations of the world have heled, and continue to help, with the War (and Reconstruction) of Iraq.

I definitely agree with it, but I also think that it should be for all the soldiers who had to go into this thing, not just the Americans.

No, the award obviously belongs to Saddam or Osama, this decision was obviously just done to be popular.

No..it should have been Tony Blair so that I could post the magazine up on my wall and gawk at it all day long!

mmmm...

You are one sick f*cking puppy.

does anyone remember sometime back in the 1980s when their "______ of the year" was the PERSONAL COMPUTER?

it even said on the cover, "machine of the year".

i sh*t you not.

It's not that surprising, uwg.

The American Soldier, though I salute them and congratulate them, is not one person.

The whole "Person of the Year" award is dumb on two accounts:
1. The person of the year is the one that makes the most news that year.
2. It is chosen by a handfull of people at the offices of TIME magazine.

It should be based on the most popular and/or heroic person in the news that year. And it should be chosen by the Readers of TIME magazine.
Maybe Newsweek can start one called "Hero of the Year".

Noldor, we heard of many US soldiers last year who died, were injured, were captured, or who were just taking a shower, or messing around with other soldier buddies.

And?

Yeah, another freakin award...whoopdee fringgin do.

nope, gonna have to go with the american Marine

Yes Im trying to make myself feel better

TIME's choice mirrored that of Kentucky Monthly. Outstanding choice.

The concept is fine, but it's totally uncreative. My first thought was that Time's editors just got too lazy to settle on one influential person and went for the most predictable, appeal-to-the-generic-apple-pie-eating-m asses cover possible.

How incredibly boring and un-thought-provokimg.

uh, "provoking," that is.

I'm thinking they used "soldier" as a cover-all. It'd be silly to write "America's soldiers, troops, seamen and airmen"...it wouldn't fit well on the cover. lol
I'm honored they thought of us, though, even though it looks like a stunt to sell papers. Does anyone know if they've ever chosen Bono? (he definitely beats a friggin' pc...)

I think its just plain rediculous...

No, the person of the year should be a single person.

I agree, yes.

I do agree.

I agree with the others that have said that it belongs to all the soldiers that have gone to Iraq, not just the Americans.

sure

#14

Have i read somewhere that the Time person of the year for 2004 was George Bush? (don't get Time over here) Has the world gone crazy?! it's like saying Microsoft is the company of the year, or GM crops being the innovation of the year..