First of all, size is waaaay to large. And the shape is too boxy aswell.
Again, it looks as if you got a bunch of images, copy and paste, trim-trim-trim, add scanlines, boost contrast/saturation and text. That just doesn't cut it in terms of design dude. I see you're trying to expose the horror of war, but people will rather turn away from this ugly sig than see the attempted message behind it.

1. No, the size is not too large. The size is the size that I set Photoshop's size to be. It was meant to be that big. Feel free to show me how I can fit all of that onto 350 x 150.

2. I got a bunch of images, copy and paste, trim trim trim, spent a while doing effects on them, gradient maps, photo filters, levels, etc.

3. It wasn't meant to be a Photoshop masterclass. I was just making something because I was eager to use Photoshop again.

4. People on another forum loved it, people who I feel far surpass most or all of the people on MGSF (not including OcelotSnake, who ceaselessly amazes me) graphically.

You don't have to use six different images to get a point across.
Also, forum signatures usually look better smaller. Yes I know I've been a culprit of this before, thats why I don't do it anymore.
What gradient map does is replace the colours in the image with the ones you select. Usually if this is done on the main target, it doesn't look pretty. This is something I'd suggest for fading away a simply background instead.

You're right, I don't HAVE to use six images to get my point across. But there's no reason not to. Besides, since I wanted it to be this size, if I just used images that were too bigs or left gaps you'd be criticising that instead.

Anyone can make a small forum signature look good. That's why on all of these "GFX EXPARTS!!!!11!" sites they all have stupidly small signatures that are about 320 x 100. You ask them to make one that's 500 x 430 they'll give up in about ten minutes because they have no idea how to make it flow. I had a particular look that I wanted to do this, I wanted it to look complete.

The gradient was meant to be ironic. The graphic itself is bright and colourful, and war is dark and dismal. That's what the text was meant to represent, does anybody see past the 'heroism' the newspapers advocate?

not everyone has a small sig on gfx sites jcc,they might like small sigs cause they don't have to overload the thing with a buncha shit,you only need one focal point in a sig,not 6,and i find it more fun to make a small sig rather then big ones or LPs :o

There aren't six focal points. There are two. Bush, and the child soldier. The rest are around the sides for a reason.

There's nothing to distinguish the two intended focal points, though, aside from the fact that the child soldier is positioned in the center of the image. Some sort of fade, I think, should be employed to both work the metaphor a little bit more and to give the image some perspective. Metaphorically, you could argue that we all focus on the soldiers, when the true nature of the beast that is war can be seen in the child soldiers. Graphically, as I said, it would direct the image a bit more.

Agreed, with these points said, the avatar looks pretty good, you can see how the smaller size and single focal point used is better.

Like you told me about my poem, you can use our criticisms to improve upon it.