Marines outraged over TIME's new cover picture

blackascoal said:
It may surprise you tp know that there are lots of "liberals" in the Marines, in fact, there may have been some in the picture.

I'm coming to recognize that youb are strickly an ideolouge and everything to you comes down to "liberals" .. even when only republicans are involved. If you don't like it, liberals must have done it.

You have a lot of nerve talking about the deaths of US servicemen and women when it was your side of the fence that sent them off to die .. for senseless bullshit m,ade-up by republicans.

You also have a lot of nerve speaking as if you're the only intellectual here, when in fact your ideological blinders don't even allow you to honestly or intellectually discern, interpret, or analyze anything that doesn't fit in your political box.

In case you also haven't noticed, Americans aren't angry at liberals.
Click to expand...
Your argument, as usual, completely misses any point being made because you are the one who is the blind idealogue. This is a WORLD WAR TWO photograph which has become the icon of the sacrifice made by servicemen in that war, particularly the Marine Corps. I am sure you know that the Marine Corps has made a monument based on that photograph.

But, no, you have to make it about what YOU want to make it about, your objection to the war in Iraq.

And yes I have the nerve to talk about the death of U.S. servicemen. I have been in the field and watched people die. I lost a kidney, and later due to the same bullet, had to have a total hip replacement. Only that particular cluster fuck was the instigation of YOUR side of the fence, since you are so intenet on laying blame on political parties.

And for "speaking as if you're the only intellectual here", I was responding directly to an childish asshole's personal attack. At no time did I even HINT I thought I was the only intellectual, did I? But you, like the other mindless liberal assholes on here, have to make issues about personalities. I come here to debate issues, not personalities.

There was a time we debated, both of us passionately, but also respectfully.

I see, typical of your type of political philosophy, the respect has come to an end. So stuff it up your braindead ass.
 
Antiaris Toxicaria said:
Isn't it their 1st amendment right to express outrage just as much as it is a right to be able to manipulate the photo or burn flags?
Click to expand...
Who said they should go to prison for expressing their "outrage"?

Nobody said that. Everybody has said they are whiney little girls if they are "outraged" over this.
 
Onceler said:
I have understanding for them. I understand that they are friggin' morons for getting "outraged" about something so stupid.
Click to expand...
Just because it is stupid to you does not mean it is stupid to those of us who see meaning in the photo. There is a reason the Marine Corps took that photo and made a monument out of it. Though the final picture was a staged reenactment, it still captured a moment of victory bought at the cost of thousands of brave men who were willing to pay the price necessary to defend this country. The photo represents an ideal of the United States Marine Corps.

The need to become more ecologically aware is an important goal. But nobody is in danger of dying to fight the battle for ecological awareness. Nobody is going to need to risk life and limb to achieve the victory represented by the Iwo Jima flag raising.

THAT is why the modified photo is offensive. Because the original represents those who put their lives on the line - many of whom lose it in the process - in order to achieve victory. The modified photo would imply the same kind of courage and sacrifice is needed for the battle for ecological awareness. That simply is not true.
 
To see it that way, you have to WANT to be offended. Why not look at it like the Marines can do anything, and that theirs is the spirit we want to emulate when we want to achieve against the odds?

Silly...
 
Onceler said:
To see it that way, you have to WANT to be offended. Why not look at it like the Marines can do anything, and that theirs is the spirit we want to emulate when we want to achieve against the odds?

Silly...
Click to expand...
Because we are not talking about WAR. I am as proud of the marines as a person can be. I spent 40 years in active duty. I spent WAY more than the average with my face in the mud.

I also recognize what the Marine Corps is for. And until there is no such thing as war (meaning that day will never come) the Marine Corps - and units like it in future societies - will be out there putting it on the line for the liberty and safety of their society.

This is not a matter of WANTING to be offended. Equating the green movement to warfare IS offensive.

Ecological awareness is NOT war. It is important. It can save lives. But equating the problem of ecological awareness to warfare is like putting the picture of a renowned Cordon Bleu's specialty dish in a Burger King ad - and expecting the Cordon Bleu to not be offended.
 
Well, we're going to have to simply disagree. You say that picture represents the ideal of the Marine Corps; a lot of people see it as representing the ideal of America. The Marines made this public domain; this was not a private photographer who agreed to only post it at Marine bases around the world. The picture represents much more than the way you see it.

If I was a photo editor, it wouldn't have crossed my mind in a second that this picture could possibly offend anyone. I know - I'm not a Marine, but most aren't, and that's what I'm saying as far as the pic representing much more than your more narrow view interprets. The arguments you are making - as BF pointed out - are no different & no more comprehensible than many PC arguments that we hear that are so over the top.
 
Onceler said:
Well, we're going to have to simply disagree. You say that picture represents the ideal of the Marine Corps; a lot of people see it as representing the ideal of America. The Marines made this public domain; this was not a private photographer who agreed to only post it at Marine bases around the world. The picture represents much more than the way you see it.

If I was a photo editor, it wouldn't have crossed my mind in a second that this picture could possibly offend anyone. I know - I'm not a Marine, but most aren't, and that's what I'm saying as far as the pic representing much more than your more narrow view interprets. The arguments you are making - as BF pointed out - are no different & no more comprehensible than many PC arguments that we hear that are so over the top.
Click to expand...
As I said, there is a reason that photo was made int the United States Marine Corps Monument. Because it was MARINES who died in a horrendous battle in a horrendous war, so the MARINES in the photograph could claim victory by planting that flag.

But, it's typical of today. Who cares what a bunch of fucking Marines think? The photo means what ever YOU want it to make it mean, and the Marines are silly for objecting.
 
That's funny; I thought the Marines were declaring victory for America by planting that flag. You're getting into some dangerous territory by separating the military from the people they fight for.

Anyway, you're reaction is so negative & over-the-top that it isn't worth arguing. This isn't what you should be pissed about. You should be pissed about Walter Reed, or Bush saying "bring them on" to terrorists.
 
Onceler said:
That's funny; I thought the Marines were declaring victory for America by planting that flag. You're getting into some dangerous territory by separating the military from the people they fight for.

Anyway, you're reaction is so negative & over-the-top that it isn't worth arguing. This isn't what you should be pissed about. You should be pissed about Walter Reed, or Bush saying "bring them on" to terrorists.
Click to expand...
Who says I am NOT pissed about the care veterans receive? How do you know my antipathy for the veteran's administration does not reduce my complaint about Time's asinine photo to a miniscule gnat's buzz?

This topic is about a picture significant to the history of the Marine Corps that was modified for political purposes that I find greatly objectionable. So that is what I write about here.

Want to talk about medical treatment of veterans and the complete ineptitude of the Veteran's Administration? Let's start another thread.
 
Onceler said:
To see it that way, you have to WANT to be offended. Why not look at it like the Marines can do anything, and that theirs is the spirit we want to emulate when we want to achieve against the odds?

Silly...
Click to expand...

Would you be just as hard on Muslims that were offended by a doctored pictured of Mohammed? I realize that it is slightly different from the topic of the thread, but these people have a right to be offended, and immediately writing off their feelings isn't being very tolerant.
 
Antiaris Toxicaria said:
Would you be just as hard on Muslims that were offended by a doctored pictured of Mohammed? I realize that it is slightly different from the topic of the thread, but these people have a right to be offended, and immediately writing off their feelings isn't being very tolerant.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Antiaris Toxicaria said:
Would you be just as hard on Muslims that were offended by a doctored pictured of Mohammed?
Click to expand...

You bet your ass

Antiaris Toxicaria said:
I realize that it is slightly different from the topic of the thread, but these people have a right to be offended, and immediately writing off their feelings isn't being very tolerant.
Click to expand...

You have a right to be offended, I have a right to tell you you're being a fucking idiot.
 
Good Luck said:
Who says I am NOT pissed about the care veterans receive? How do you know my antipathy for the veteran's administration does not reduce my complaint about Time's asinine photo to a miniscule gnat's buzz?

This topic is about a picture significant to the history of the Marine Corps that was modified for political purposes that I find greatly objectionable. So that is what I write about here.

Want to talk about medical treatment of veterans and the complete ineptitude of the Veteran's Administration? Let's start another thread.
Click to expand...

Well what if they were political purposes you did find acceptable? For instance, what if it promoted genocide of blacks, instead of saving the world? I'm sure you wouldn't be so pissed then. Silly conservative.
 
Last edited:
Antiaris Toxicaria said:
I'm sorry that I respect people, and that my heart is not as much of a blackened ball of ideological, dogmatic retardation as yours. People are suggesting that these marines should be "punched in the face" etc. etc., which is just as bad as saying "We should kill them godd*mn flagburnin' hippies".
Click to expand...

Marines should be punched in the face if their as pussy as those marines.
 
An argument with Good Luck:

WM: WTF? That's retarded.

Good Luck: ZOMG YOU SCUM IM A MARINE AND THAT GIVES ME AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO NEVER BE DISAGREED WITH EVER SO YOU HATE AMERICA!

WM: ...
 
My Grandfather fought at Iwo Jima. He's been gone for some time now, but I can still remember his stories. For the men of his generation that fought in the Pacific and in Europe, I have the highest respect.

I can only imagine that my Grandpa would have been a little offended. Yet, I do not believe Time deliberately meant to insult the Greatest Generation. This surely would have been a conversation, but I doubt the Grandpa I loved would have called for anyone to burn in hell for it.

I believe seeing the American Flag being burned and disrespected by protestors would have bothered Grandpa much more. In hind-sight, the Times cover was a little distasteful, but it is just a magazine cover that will fade away. The true Iwo Jima image will endure as an American Treasure.

We shouldn't forget that not long ago Time selected and pictured American Military men and women as its "Person of the Year". Give Time magaizine the benefit of the doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top