Five, six, seven...

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was not intended to be a political thread, except insofar as I believe that photojournalism and a free press can help to reduce the incidence of all wars, and of terrorism, everywhere. There will always be extremists, but if those around them are exposed to a free press, it will become that much more difficult for the warmongers and terrorists to preach their hatred and indeed to hide among the people at large.

In fact, I deliberately avoided using the first line of the song, because I did not want to spark a debate on 'What are we fighting for?' As for the idea that it is anything to do with the US elections, nothing, believe it or not, was further from my mind. But the scenes reminded me very much of the Country Joe and the Fish song, and I am slightly puzzled (not for the first time) at Richard's reaction.

Cheers,

Roger
 
sitemistic said:
The difference is that with the Vietnam war, Americans hated war and put a stop to the one in Vietnam. Today Americans say they hate the war, but are gutless sheep too busy watching American Idol on their new plasma TV and remodeling their homes to care.
Click to expand...

Not all of us are sheep. There are a few of us out here working to stop the Iraq war, but it seems at times, that there are only a few of us attempting to do anything at all. And that is sad.
 
sitemistic said:
Starting a war is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how do you define 'start'?

If Tibet rose against Chinese occupation, would that be 'starting' a war, given Tibetan independence before the Chinese invasion in 1950 or so and Chinese genocide in Tibet since (International Commission of Jurists finding)?

And should the United States still be a British colony?

Push someone far enough, and they will fight back. Or a few hotheads will start a war and find that they have more support than they imagined.

Then there are places where family feuds, tribal allegiances, regional groupings and 'wars' are not very distinguishable. The Balkans are a European example; Afghanistan, one for the Middle East. There has always been regional warfare in Afghanistan and along the North-West Frontier, and every attempt at intervention has failed: I forget how many Afghan Wars the British fought to pacify Afghanistan in the 19th century, but as Terry Pratchett put it of the mythical D'reg tribe, "They pacify right back at you."

Starting a war for domestic political advantage is another matter. Kashmir is extremely convenient for both India and Pakistan, as either can ratchet up the tension whenever they need to distract attention from domestic problems. Tough on the Kashmiris.

Cheers,

R.
 
All my 'Nam pictures were in the Mess. When the Dustoff came we were too busy in Triage and the OR to get busy with a camera. Long Hai and Saigon were quiet and peaceful externally but then I wasn't there for PJ. Sobering stuff.

Murray
 
sitemistic said:
I don't think the ethics of starting a war in Iraq as a response to 9/11 is at all complicated. The idea that the US could transform the Middle East into a democratic, conservative christian paradise smacks of manifest destiny.
Click to expand...

The reasons for going into Iraq as given at the time didn't seem so bad. Everything we have done since is, imho, open to question. I never felt we were trying to convert the whole country to conservative christians though. I do agree trying to convert other countries to our style of democracy is subject to question. It may not fit their culture, as seems to be the case there. Probably given time they may change, but that isn't a given by any means.

The big problem as I see it, is that in fact we are there, and have intervened in their politics and internal religious war. Is it right to just close up shop and walk away? If not, what should we do there? Whatever you think of our reason for being there, we are, and must be very careful what we do from now on.

Much more complicated it seems to me, than just simple sweeping platitudes about the wrongness or rightness of war. And as Mr. Hicks pointed out, how do you define, and where do you draw the line on that?
 
oftheherd said:
The big problem as I see it, is that in fact we are there, and have intervened in their politics and internal religious war. Is it right to just close up shop and walk away? If not, what should we do there? Whatever you think of our reason for being there, we are, and must be very careful what we do from now on.
Click to expand...
That is indeed the great problem. I was against the war -- Saddam was a complete b*stard, but that's probably what it takes to run Iraq, and I do not believe he was a significant threat outside his own country -- but for exactly the reasons you give, I am also against just walking away. I think. Even there, I'm not sure.

Cheers,

Roger
 
It seems to me bizarre that a thread about some strong photographs from Afghanistan has mutated into this discussion of the ethics of the Iraq war. Oh well, there we go.

Having said which, I don't think anyone was attempting to convert Iraq into a christian conservative country as far as I could see (and in 2003 I was a military officer attached to the Coalition Provisional Authority as a provincial chief of staff and deputy governor). We were trying to introduce a degree of democracy in conjunction with local religious norms. The fundamental problem with our approach was that the coalition didn't commit enough resources, military and financial, to deal with the situation we found - and to some extent created - after the invasion. For the first few months, the Iraqis were generally very pleased to see us and I had no problems driving around on my own, meeting Iraqis in cafes and restaurants, and doing my job. As time went by, and we failed to deliver on all of the things we'd hinted at before the invasion, the Iraqis lost faith in us and began to turn to traditional local leaders instead. The presence of large numbers of suicidal Jihadis, streaming in from across the Arab world, didn't help either.

It isn't always immoral to start a war - it kind of depends on what the imperative was to start it in the first place - but I would suggest it is verging on immoral to start a war which you aren't prepared to commit to finishing.
 
Photography, people. A discussion about war photography is not a discussion about the war, if you please. I know, I know, pot=black, but I am trying very hard to keep from espousing my views. Please.
 
Beyonce photos, Nude in the Gallery!!!

Now that I have distracted everyone, where is that close thread button????

Really though, debating the ethics of war, any war, is only going to pit members opinions against each other and lead no where but bad feelings towards each other. Please don't go too far into that abyss.

Now discussing the photojournalism is very on topic and also of great interest here.
 
bmattock said:
Photography, people. A discussion about war photography is not a discussion about the war, if you please. I know, I know, pot=black, but I am trying very hard to keep from espousing my views. Please.
Click to expand...

Thank you Bill, not specifically because I don't think you have a right to your views, but because this can get too messy if we don't follow your example. We are a photography forum.
 
rover said:
Thank you Bill, not specifically because I don't think you have a right to your views, but because this can get too messy if we don't follow your example. We are a photography forum.
Click to expand...

You know my views, and I've whacked people over the head with them many times. I am actually trying to keep from getting wrapped completely around the axle by this sort of thing nowadays. I take a lot more photos and talk about politics a lot less. I still have to drink quite a bit, though.
 
bmattock said:
You know my views, and I've whacked people over the head with them many times. I am actually trying to keep from getting wrapped completely around the axle by this sort of thing nowadays. I take a lot more photos and talk about politics a lot less. I still have to drink quite a bit, though.
Click to expand...


I think we all need a stiff drink every now and then to get us through this mess. 🙄

On second thought, maybe more than just every now and then. 😀
 
sitemistic said:
These kinds of threads will always move in this direction. Photographers aren't one dimensional. And, political and social views shape our photography.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is very hard to discuss controversial photos without discussing the reasons the photos were shot to begin with.
 
sitemistic said:
These kinds of threads will always move in this direction. Photographers aren't one dimensional. And, political and social views shape our photography.
Click to expand...

Photographers are not one-dimensional, but discussion forums can be. And bitter experience has taught me to keep my #&@* politics to myself on non-political sites. Though the urge is strong.
 
A photojournalist walks a fine line. A lot of what they see on the battlefield can't be published. Close up one sees a lot of hamburger, but you can't publish that. So, of what can be published usually includes the emotion and spirit of those participating on one side of the conflict.

Just an observation of a former soldier safely living in Austin, TX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom