Image impact
May. 2nd, 2008 10:27 pmHaving a very interesting conversation with Foxtrot comparing a couple of images. Rather than recreating the discussion here, I'll post the two images and see what y'all think of them.

Edit: Some people weren't seeing the proper image on the left before. I replaced it with a different version of the image, should work now.

Edit: Some people weren't seeing the proper image on the left before. I replaced it with a different version of the image, should work now.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:31 am (UTC)the difference between it and the first one? WWII was the last war where we knew we were on the right side. we were positive Hitler was evil, and the Nazis were evil, and maybe we didn't love our Jews but at least we didn't cook them alive, so yes, we should punch Hitler in the face, that is right and good. even a pacifist can support that because they started it by trying to take over the world and killing the Jews. with the Arabs, it's not so clear...we went after al-Qaeda in revenge for 9/11, and the Taleban were sheltering them so we took out the Taleban, and that was good because the Taleban was evil. and then we invaded Iraq, because...um...WMDs? we took out Saddam, and he was tried for his crimes against his own countrymen. he hadn't done anything to us. it feels very uncomfortable in a breaking-the-Prime-Directive sort of way. sure he was bad to his own people, but what gives us the right to say anything, do anything, step in and bomb his country? we went to war against the Nazis because they were a direct threat to us and we were joining other countries in doing so. but we started it with Iraq. they had no WMDs, they were no threat to us, or even probably to Israel. we fought them for contrived reasons and didn't win cleanly.
if al-Qaeda declared Arabs the master race and started exterminating everyone else, i think i'd be a lot less uncomfortable with the second image.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:49 am (UTC)