posted on April 8, 2003 05:46:35 PM new
Helen - the one thing that I missed in your answer was how to get rid of Saddam. Should we just leave him to his vices until he gets bored? I understand that the concept of diplomacy is a good thing but there is nothing in this mans history that would leave one to believe he would ever step down of his own accord.
Remember, 6 Arab nations aked him to and he thumbed his nose at them.
"Helen - the one thing that I missed in your answer was how to get rid of Saddam."
I wouldn't vote to tackle the problem. Evil leaders will always be with us. Do you suggest going to war with every ruthless leader in the world who is guilty of oppressing or mistreating his people? Such leaders will be replaced by another leader possibly as ruthless or more ruthless than Saddam.
Of course we know that liberating the people of Iraq is not the reason for this war. Without gaining strategic position in the mideast, power and oil, we would not be going to war.
posted on April 9, 2003 01:35:27 AM new
"Donny did not tell the story of he individuals, she did nothing to pay homage to their suffering or sacrifice, or to express sympathies for their pain, or loss. She used the images as her weapon of attack. I'm willing to bet that every one of those images was accompanied by a explanitory caption or story - none of that was included."
I consider posting the pics with the accompanied chirpy quotes of "the happiness the Iraqi people are feeling are invaluable!" and " "Everyone who refuses this war — why?"" to be more than sufficient commentary. And, more caption than was applied to the picture that started this thread.
And that is the "some reason... (that I) ...feel that we are not aware of the ravages of war." When we gush over a blatantly staged photo of a cute little girl with a flag and start burbling about the happiness of the Iraqi people and how we can't understand why people would refuse this war - Yes, I'd say we are not aware of the ravages of war.
And we should be aware. It's horror and abomination, and no one should be lauded for taking the feel good way out by pretending it's not what it is.
"she did nothing to pay homage to their suffering or sacrifice, or to express sympathies for their pain..."
Posting the pictures was homage to their suffering, an acknowledgement that this is the face of war pays more respect to these people than most things I've seen on these boards. Oh, but wait, it doesn't seem sufficiently caring?
posted on April 9, 2003 04:17:16 AM new
Condescending, sexist? Yes, Crap, No.
It's the only notion that would make sense in the manure that's being thrown in this thread.
Some of you must live in a cartoon world. Get off your duffs and walk out your front door.
Irrational ideas based on naive ideals. That's crap. Life is not fair, Not always logical. Just because you want something one way or another doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.
Some of those on this board would make good UN representatives. You could talk about the problems forever. Never fix them just talk about how you know the right way.
We all have different ideas as to what's the right or wrong way to do something. Many of us can't agree so why would you think the world would agree on anything
Life can be good for most but will never be for those that spread there hatred, fear and doom. If your depressed, see a doctor.
Many of these same people are the ones that called the President a moron a few months ago. Now he's a megalomaniac trying to colonize the world.
Which is it? He can only be one or the other. A moron or an Evil genius.
If you can't understand my banter on different subjects or posts, let me explain.
Some of these posts are so stupid, cruel, anti-American or full of hate, I find, I need the comic relief.
posted on April 9, 2003 06:23:49 AM new
I calls 'em likes I sees 'em... this started out to be a perfectly great thread, something everyone could enjoy, but nope the sad sacks decided to smear it with their sh*t...
People have the ability to start their own threads, if they are smart enough to do so...
posted on April 9, 2003 06:34:54 AM new
I have one question for Donny and Helen.
Why is it that in your opinion every picture of happy people is a fake but pictures of injured are real. Are many of these photos not taken by the same photographers?
How is it that any quote from an Iraqi citizen that is relieved that someone has come to remove Saddam is a fake, but not the ones expressing dismay? Are many of these people not interviewed by the same reporters?
And how are they faking the live images I am watching as I type of people celebrating in the streets and attempting to toppling Saddams statues?
posted on April 9, 2003 06:51:53 AM new
This is great!!! On CNN right now there is live footage from Firdos Square, showing Iraqi citizens slamming away at the statue base of Sadam - after putting a rope "noose" around the neck of the statue!! It is awesome!!!
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 9, 2003 07:22:32 AM newYes, I'd say we are not aware of the ravages of war.
Neon, I would have to disagree... I am very aware of the ravages of war... it just some people cannot accept the positive and must always focus on the negative.
This thread started out as something nice and could of been a great place to see the Iraqi people rjoicing in their freedom, I doubt few here posting did not realize that poeple have been maime, severly injured and killled... donny, helen and junqumqemama are just so filled with hatred for our American troops and in general America, they feel the need to bring out the bile...
I for one don't mind, because I know who is ultimately responsible for those injured and killed...Saddam Hussein. So all they do for me is make a reminder of why we need to be there...
They could of very easily started their own thread.
posted on April 9, 2003 07:28:17 AM new
I agree...and great pic, twelve!
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 9, 2003 07:43:58 AM new
Twelve - Check the source of the quote again - That from Donny - not me. I'm the one that asked that they not feel the need kill every thread like this.
This is one arguement where you are not supposed to be attacking me
posted on April 9, 2003 07:52:48 AM new
Neonmania, the photo that started this thread is staged, it's propaganda pure and simple. Someone gave a cute kid an American flag and snapped the shot. Or do you believe that kid happened to have a little American flag on hand at home and brought it out to wave at an opportune moment?
For a photo of wounded to be equivalently staged, you'd have kill or mangle someone with the aim being getting a photo. Hey, let's cut that kids arms off and set him on fire. What a great picture that would make!
That's one reason why the first photo in this thread, as a view of war, is crap. The other reasons, I've already explained.
"How is it that any quote from an Iraqi citizen that is relieved that someone has come to remove Saddam is a fake, but not the ones expressing dismay?"
I don't put too much faith in any statement of approval of the force in power made by anyone dependant on the force in power for survival. Many of the people we'll see cheering the American forces are the same people we saw at the massive pro-Saddam rallies cheering Saddam. You cheer whoever controls you. If you've ever read Catch-22, you'll recognize that. If you haven't read it, you should.
When a person expresses a sentiment contrary to what would benefit him, that I trust. For example - If a man is desperate for water and curses the person offering it to him, I trust that as reflecting the thirsty man's true feeling towards the offerer. If a man desperate for water blesses a man offering it to him, that might be a true expression of his feelings to the water offerer, and it might not. It might just be that he wants that water.
When a person, especially a person in a war zone, asks: "Everyone who refuses this war — why?" I'd think that person was either simpleminded, or putting on "for the camera." I'd guess putting on for the camera, no one could be that stupid. It's one thing to say that one is glad the regime is overturned, that the pain was worth the benefit. It's quite another to seem to be completely unaware that there's any pain involved. The "why" of being opposed to this war can range from reasons of complicated world relations to something as uncomplicated as the knowledge that there are people experiencing horrors because of this war that wouldn't have experience them otherwise. When a boy who's lost both his arms says he'd rather die, that's true. When another man claims not to be able to see any reason why a person would oppose a war, that's stupid. It may be true, but it's stupid. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, that he just said it for utility. Why it's posted as reflecting understanding... well, there's no camera here.
"And how are they faking the live images I am watching as I type of people celebrating in the streets and attempting to toppling Saddams statues?"
In addition to these being many of the same people who cheered at Saddam rallies, you should know that propoganda isn't only staged images like the photo of the girl in this thread. Sometimes propoganda means showing real things, but only showing the things you want to show to get the result you want. Our media goes heavy on the happy feel-goodness of war. Cheering crowds, nice American boys out in the desert who look a lot like our own sons or friends or brothers. Lots of talk of liberation and Saddam's oppression. We show us giving out a bottle of water... or an army medic putting a bandage on a kid... We don't see much of what the truer picture is... people desperate for water who aren't getting enough and hospitals that have no power or water and are overflowing with injuries. I see a picture of a happy kid clutching an MRE packet. I heard a lot about the one British ship that brought in 200 tons of supplies, The Sir Galahad. How wonderful. And yet I know that under the suspended food for oil program the populace needs the equivalent of 35 of those ships PER DAY! Is that one ship a real humanitarian effort, or is it propaganda?
I heard it said on one news channel that America is seeing a different war than every other person in the world is seeing. I've browsed around enough to know that's true. I've tuned into web broadcasts from many different countries, European and Middle Eastern. We're being propogandized so heavily it's incredible, but we don't realize it because we depend heavily on this one point of view. It doesn't look skewed to us because we don't have a point of easy reference.
If someone who had never seen an elephant or any representation of one asked you to show them what an elephant looked like, and you brought out a picture that showed only an elephant's tail and showed it to them, would you say that would be a fair representation of an elephant? Could a person then say - Ah, so that's what an elephant looks like! The picture is a picture of a real part of an elephant, but certainly not the part that we would call the distinguishing characteristics of an elephant. That's what giving glimpses of things that happen in war, but really don't represent what war is, is like.
posted on April 9, 2003 07:56:59 AM new
Apologies neon, should of realized it came from someone that has admittedly stated they are a liar and proud of it...
posted on April 9, 2003 08:30:09 AM new
::Someone gave a cute kid an American flag and snapped the shot. Or do you believe that kid happened to have a little American flag on hand at home and brought it out to wave at an opportune moment?::
Since there is no caption to the shot mentioning where it waa taken, for all I know it is a stock image taken here in the US at a parade, at a support rally, etc. There have been a number of those here in my city.
My first assumtion is not to seek out the fault.
::I don't put too much faith in any statement of approval of the force in power made by anyone dependant on the force in power for survival. Many of the people we'll see cheering the American forces are the same people we saw at the massive pro-Saddam rallies cheering Saddam. You cheer whoever controls you. ::
I don't know about you, but the looters did not seem to be under anyones control to me. They were not cheering in support of the US, the were celebrating the fall of Saddam.
As for watching coverage from sources outside the US. I have also watched foreign broadcasts out of Mexico (no, not the the NBC owned spanish station - but actual stations from Mexico) Yes, there is a different picture, often one much more brutal but I don't see that so much as propaganda but as a difference of cultures. US TV has always stayed away from images judged as very disturbing where most countries are not. It is not the practice of american media to show images of the dead or severley injured and that has been the situation long before this war. I don't see a continuation of this practice to be part of a propaganda display.
Tell you what, you go ahead and believe that none of those people today felt relief or freedom. I'll remember the picture of Iraqi kids dragging the head of Saddam down the street.
posted on April 9, 2003 08:53:21 AM new
"Since there is no caption to the shot mentioning where it waa taken, for all I know it is a stock image taken here in the US at a parade, at a support rally, etc. There have been a number of those here in my city."
Are you making the argument that the first picture posted WASN'T supposed to be a representation of an Iraqi child, in Iraq, celebrating the American presence? Surely even if you argued that it was a stock photo, taken here, using it to start a thread would lead to the presumption that it had something to do with the matter at hand? Especially in light of the pictures posters next comments:
"The smile on the little girl's face and the happiness the Iraqi people are feeling are invaluable!
Here's a great article, with pics of citizens toppling a Saddam statue..."
If that's the position you're arguing, it's pretty thin.
"I don't know about you, but the looters did not seem to be under anyones control to me. They were not cheering in support of the US, the were celebrating the fall of Saddam."
Looters are a whole different animal, more opportunistic than political. They were looting not only Iraqi gov't offices, but also the U.N. building and shops owned by other citizens. I think looters are happy 'cause they're looting... although why the guy running off with the plastic flowers was happy is beyond me. I'd love to make a t-shirt with his picture, and the caption - Iraq fell and all I got were these crummy flowers.
"US TV has always stayed away from images judged as very disturbing where most countries are not. It is not the practice of american media to show images of the dead or severley injured and that has been the situation long before this war. I don't see a continuation of this practice to be part of a propaganda display."
This is not true, and I remember when it was different. I remember Vietnam, and I remember when we were shown what war looks like. The media coverage of Vietnam is directly tied to why we're not seeing the reality of war here today. The government is afraid that if we see what war really looks like, we won't be so quick to support war.
This is only a continuation of policy since Gulf War I, it's a dramatic deparature from what war coverage used to be. But if you can't remember that, you lack a frame of reference.
posted on April 9, 2003 09:02:27 AM new We're being propogandized so heavily it's incredible, but we don't realize it because we depend heavily on this one point of view
Considering the amount if anti-american sentiment out there, I wonder who is actually the one falling for the "propaganda"... But I guess backing our troops and supporting them would be too much to ask.
The Sir Galahad. How wonderful. And yet I know that under the suspended food for oil program the populace needs the equivalent of 35 of those ships PER DAY!
Where did you come up with this figure... that ship unloaded 211 TONS of food and supplies, after transiting mined waters...
Scheduled ships are to arrive THIS week...
There are also food and supplies waiting in neighboring countries... only ones keeping them from getting it are the Iraqi soldiers..
Iraqis had 4-7 weeks worth of food and supplies distributed to them just before the war started, so just now maybe running low....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 9, 2003 09:04 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2003 09:12:28 AM new
"Where did you come up with this figure... that ship unloaded 211 TONS of food and supplies, after transiting mined waters..."
Yes, of course. I said that the Sir Galahad carried 200 tons of supplies, and you correctly noted that it carried 211 tons of supplies. That 11 tons makes all the difference.
posted on April 9, 2003 09:15:48 AM new
The TV policies to not show bodies of the dead and injured have extened far beyond war. You didn't see the bodies of the people that jumped from the towers, you don't see the bullet riddles bodies of gang shooting victims, you don't see the decapitted bodies of auto accident victims. Our media, quite possibly as a result of the lingering effects of images of Vietnam has deemed these images not fit for public broadcast. Did you think they would change it for this war?
As for the photo - you are changing your arguement. The arguement was whether or not it is a fake or staged photo not whether it was a legit photo used to make an incorrect implication.
You saw the photo one way wih one implication. I saw it differently. So in other words, your problem is with the way that you percieve others will interpret things.
As a photographer, I can tell you that you will never control the way people interpret images. I have one striking image of an athlete friend of mine. Everyone that sees the photo percieves it differently I have gotten 10 different stories the people believe to be the story behind the image, none of them are in fact correct.
[ edited by neonmania on Apr 9, 2003 09:24 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2003 09:22:33 AM new
I did not include a caption with the picture with which I started this thread, as there was no caption - it was on the front page of the Drudge website....just as there is no caption for this one...
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
[ edited by wgm on Apr 9, 2003 09:22 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2003 09:39:13 AM new
"As for the photo - you are changing your arguement. The arguement was whether or not it is a fake or staged photo not whether it was a legit photo used to make in correct implication."
No, I didn't change my argument, you changed yours and I responded to your new argument.
You changed your tack when you brought this into the discussion:
"Since there is no caption to the shot mentioning where it waa taken, for all I know it is a stock image taken here in the US at a parade, at a support rally, etc."
Let me put it this way. If it's a picture of a child in Iraq recently, taken during the American occupation, it's staged because someone gave her that flag. If it's a photo of a child at last year's Fourth of July picnic in St. Louis posted as a representation of the happiness of the Iraqi people as a result of the U.S. occupation, it's a fake in the sense that it doesn't show what the poster implies it does, a child responding to the U.S. occupation.
If you post a picture of a child and in your next post say something like - look at the smile of that child, the happiness of the Iraqi people today is invaluable, I'm going to take it that
A: The reference to 'that child' is to the picture of the child posted
B: That the child is Iraqi, and
C: That it's happening today (or recently).
That's not a convoluted conclusion. Again, you can argue that implication is a leap, but that argument is mighty thin, especially as this is a Yahoo news photo.
"Our media, quite possibly as a result of the lingering effects of images of Vietnam has deemed these images not fit for public broadcast. Did you think they would change it for this war?"
In the context of what we were discussing, tv's coverage of the war, you originally said that "US TV has always stayed away from images judged as very disturbing..."
And I refuted that. TV has not always stayed away from images judged disturbing. In the matter of accidents, homicides, perhaps. In the matter of war coverage, absolutely not.
" and " "Everyone who refuses this war — why?"" to be more than sufficient commentary. And, more caption than was applied to the picture that started this thread.
