Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Bookends II  (Read 5315 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: July 09, 2007, 03:52:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Shot at a 9/11 memorial in Vacaville California back in 2004:

[attachment=2786:attachment]

There was a flag for each individual that died in the attacks; each flag pole had a sticker with a name.

[attachment=2787:attachment]

Quite a few flags were decorated with mementos of the individual the flag represented.

[attachment=2788:attachment]

When I shot this photo, I had no idea that one day I'd be wearing that exact patch as part of the 1st Armored Division "Old Ironsides" in Iraq, participating in the fight against terror perpetrated by Islamic extremists. Fate is certainly a strange thing at times...
Logged

matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2007, 09:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

These are very political images (obviously), and I think that you have to accept that they will not have the same resonance with non-americans.
I don't find any of them to be particularly strong photographs, but the middle one appeals to me most.
Nothing indicates to me what the particular subject is or why I should be drawn in.
Overall I'd say these pictures do not instill emotion, and the flags scream (or beg) for that.
I recall images of the vietnam veterans memorial in dc, and these seem to be trying for that feeling. Unfortunately these do not succeed.
Logged
matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2007, 09:36:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Also, the islamic extremist terrorists you are now fighting were not in iraq when you first invaded - you drew them in.
Saddam Hussein was a non-religious terrorist and thug, he had nothing to do with 9/11.
You invaded iraq under the manufactured pretext that he had nuclear weapons, which (as Hans Blix clearly informed eveyone) he didn't.
The invasion of iraq has only inflamed the islamic extremist movement.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2007, 03:03:26 AM »
ReplyReply

While Saddam did not plan 9/11, he did give financial support to Al-Quaeda and allowed Al-Quaeda to train in Iraq.

As to nuclear weapons, "manufactured pretext" is just an impolite way of saying "hindsight is 20/20". Keep in mind that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians thought Saddam was trying to make nukes. When the man in charge consistently denies access to facilities, it is wise to be suspicious. Saddam happened to be bluffing for the most part, but North Korea used a similar strategy and we know for sure they have a nuclear program.

As for chemical weapons, we know Saddam had them; remember that he used them on the Kurds on more than one occasion. As to when he got rid of them, he never bothered to say, and consistently impeded inspection efforts.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2007, 04:56:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also, the islamic extremist terrorists you are now fighting were not in iraq when you first invaded - you drew them in.
Saddam Hussein was a non-religious terrorist and thug, he had nothing to do with 9/11.
You invaded iraq under the manufactured pretext that he had nuclear weapons, which (as Hans Blix clearly informed eveyone) he didn't.
The invasion of iraq has only inflamed the islamic extremist movement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are quite right there; I donīt know where you hail from, but being British I can say that I was all in favour of the initial war. However, and a HUGE however, it soon became crystal clear that good old Tony Blair was doing the thing many politicians do: lying through his rictus of death, as he did for everything. He was directly responsible, along with his spin doctors, of lying and misleading not just Britain, but the entire world.

Like the rest of the breed, he could never admit to a  mistake and reap the reward of basic honesty. How could he? You have to have that basic quality first. I have always believed that people who seek office are, by definition, the very ones who should be denied it.

Whether the photographs we are shown work or do not is too subjective to call; as has ben said, there has to be a direct emotional involvement for them, or similar ones, to have meaning.

You get the government you deserve; if you vote for people that offer the freebie life-style where everything you want is paid for by somebody else, then thatīs what you get. As there seem now to be more free-loaders than not, I see it being the socialists for ever.

Ciao - a very disillusioned Rob C.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2007, 05:06:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While Saddam did not plan 9/11, he did give financial support to Al-Quaeda and allowed Al-Quaeda to train in Iraq.

As to nuclear weapons, "manufactured pretext" is just an impolite way of saying "hindsight is 20/20". Keep in mind that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians thought Saddam was trying to make nukes. When the man in charge consistently denies access to facilities, it is wise to be suspicious. Saddam happened to be bluffing for the most part, but North Korea used a similar strategy and we know for sure they have a nuclear program.

As for chemical weapons, we know Saddam had them; remember that he used them on the Kurds on more than one occasion. As to when he got rid of them, he never bothered to say, and consistently impeded inspection efforts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan , the nations you mentioned were far from convinced; note the decided lack of support for intervention at the time. Only Blair stood shoulder-to-shoulder with your Bush, the post-politician life of the oozing American lecture circuit hot in his fevered imagination. Even in the UK there was very little support. Thatīs not cowardice or a love of cheese; thatīs lack of conviction and disbelief in the powers that be.

My respect and sadness for the poor guys fighting the cause at the sharp end, on the politicos behalf, is very real; they do deserve respect and a huge amount of sympathy for the mess they have been put into by said politicos. To curse them and blame them for going over the top at times with prisoners et al is a nonsense: you have but to imagine yourself in the īthem or usī situation of any war to get that! But as usual, itīs the guys and gals safe at home who bitch and bite the backs of those being killed.

Rob C
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2007, 05:50:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan , the nations you mentioned were far from convinced; note the decided lack of support for intervention at the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, they accepted the Iraqi regime had WMD and was in breach of its commitments - they disagreed on whether invasion was the best course of action.

I don't find the images themselves overly nationalistic, but I wish Jonathan had dropped the comments on extremism and the links.

John
« Last Edit: August 16, 2007, 07:03:43 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2007, 09:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, they accepted the Iraqi regime had WMD and was in breach of its commitments - they disagreed on whether invasion was the best course of action.

I don't find the images themselves overly nationalistic, but I wish Jonathan had dropped the comments on extremism and the links.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There you are - even here we canīt remember recent history in quite the same way! Also, thatīs just what I said: they were unable to agree about invasion. Quote: īnote the decided lack of support for intervention at the timeī.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2007, 10:04:04 AM by Rob C » Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2007, 10:38:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There you are - even here we canīt remember recent history in quite the same way! Also, thatīs just what I said: they were unable to agree about invasion. Quote: īnote the decided lack of support for intervention at the timeī.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, I read your " the nations you mentioned" as referring to JW's comment "mind that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians thought Saddam was trying to make nukes," not moving the argument to what they thought should be done.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2007, 02:30:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK, I read your " the nations you mentioned" as referring to JW's comment "mind that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians thought Saddam was trying to make nukes," not moving the argument to what they thought should be done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, itīs damn nice to read somebody actually admit they misunderstood somethoing! All is forgiven, keep the faith.

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2007, 01:30:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While Saddam did not plan 9/11, he did give financial support to Al-Quaeda and allowed Al-Quaeda to train in Iraq.

As to nuclear weapons, "manufactured pretext" is just an impolite way of saying "hindsight is 20/20". Keep in mind that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians thought Saddam was trying to make nukes. When the man in charge consistently denies access to facilities, it is wise to be suspicious. Saddam happened to be bluffing for the most part, but North Korea used a similar strategy and we know for sure they have a nuclear program.

As for chemical weapons, we know Saddam had them; remember that he used them on the Kurds on more than one occasion. As to when he got rid of them, he never bothered to say, and consistently impeded inspection efforts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
I had a vey strong feeling that an invasion of iraq was wrong from a moral standpoint, I had no idea how it would turn out and it is not "20/20 hindsight" on my part. I had never protested anything in my life before (or since) that invasion but felt I had to express my strongly held opposition.
You will remember that Blix had not completed his survey and asked that he be allowed to finish before an invasion decision was made, the bush administration refused to wait.  In addition to Blix's comments, there in fact was a lot of slippery "proof" being presented by the bush administration which turned out to be lies (ie. stolen enriched uranium from africa).
The bush administration needed a scapegoat for 9/11 and found it in Hussein, they tried a risky war which the hawks in the administration thought could change the regime and possibly the politics in the middle east for the better. The fact that iraq has a huge oil reserve helped that decision. It was a cynical and opportunistic decision made by people who would never have to pay the ultimate price for it themselves. The decision has failed completely and has grossly inflamed the hatred in the region.  
Where is the proof that Hussein funded Al Queida ? I 'm skeptical about that. You're right about the chemical weapons use on his own people, but wasn't that sold to him by western countries? Did you not ever see the video clip of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand - I think it was when the US was selling him weapons for his war against iran.
And by the way - what is the plan for the future of iraq ? Does anyone know ?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2007, 02:07:16 AM »
ReplyReply

You need to straighten out a few details yourself. Selling off the shelf chemicals is a whole different ball game to selling chemical weapons. Run through the rest of the armed forces. What kind of tanks equipped the Iraqi army? T72 and T62 - fine American products, eh? What artillery? Anti aircraft missiles? Ground to ground missiles - yep, from Boeing's secret Scud plant. What about the infantry - no doubt those AK47's were all US made (I think there is/was a US maker). And so on. Sure, Rumsfeld did go to Iraq and the US did give Saddam satellite info. But if by now you don't get my irony - the vast bulk of the Iraqi armed forces used Russian or Russian-licenced weapons.

In any case that whole line of argument is naive. That's how it goes in international politics - alliances change. And even if you had armed someone and were loosely allied at one point, that previous relationship doesn't make a war morally wrong 20 years later. Of course, finding your moralistic argument laughable doesn't mean one thinks invasion was a better thing that continuing containment.

John
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2007, 06:42:48 AM »
ReplyReply

The minutia of detail is not really the problem; the problem is political/psychological. The grand assumption is that all the world craves democracy when the fact is otherwise.

Democracy is actually very suspect.

If you consider what it implies, you have to accept that a moronīs vote is as good as your own; that a criminalīs ideas of policing are as valid as your own; that a bag-personīs (how sweetly PC!) take on taxation should carry the weight of a middle-class wage-slaveīs and so on and on. Bullshit, in fact.
People are not equal; some people believe in religious moral values whilst others do not believe in anything but secular standards based on scientific proof. Others are anarchists. You cannot provide a system that encompasses them all and at the end of the day, what numerically pulls the strings of power, is the lowest common denominator. Thatīs good value?

Why should the West assume that its ideas are better than the those of the religiously maniacal parts of the world? Who is to say that what one sees as religious madness is not what the other sees as the salvation of mankind? Why should the latter group accept the lecture from the former?

What is very clear, beyond dispute, even, is that lying politicians do us all harm whilst fattening their family vaults.
Logged

matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2007, 11:54:46 AM »
ReplyReply

John,
I see - invading a country and destroying the lives of millions of people for no valid or provable reason is laughable. That's a foolish comment.
No smug answer on a game plan for iraq ?

It's obvious that no matter how many blatantly jingoistic photographs are uploaded for critique by G.I. Joe, this is not the place to intelligently discuss politics.

Rob,
What are you talking about ?
I think that democracy and the rule of law is the best system we have, imperfect as it is (as well as the people in it).
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2007, 11:57:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Read. I said your moralistic argument was laughable.
Logged

X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2007, 10:09:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, for gosh's sake, can you leave the politics somewhere else?
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2007, 10:14:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Why? No one is forcing you to read anything. When a user posts nationalistic photographs and adds his political interpretation, that will frame how others offer critique.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 10:39:23 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

sinc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2007, 06:48:19 PM »
ReplyReply

#1 is a good National Geographic shot, although it might use a touch of additional exposure.

Good shot.
Logged

Joseph T. Sinclair, Author
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad