You missed the whole point, no doubt because your point of view looks to support itself. The point was not about "obligation". In fact, neither obligation nor any thing remotely like it was implied. The points were that much of Western Europe: 1.) Has no sense of the lessons of their own history. 2.) Are (unspoken epithet) who themselves connected WWII with today by desecrating the graves of fallen American and British soldiers for sake of opposition to this war thereby revealing their true character. 3.) Rush to attribute evil motives to those who have only shown them good. 4.) Have a different, less enlightened value system wherein they value life more than liberty. Valuing liberty over life for the sake of your nations' childrens' childrens' children is selfless. Valuing one's life or one's neighbor's life over liberty leads many to subjugation, repression, purges, ethnic cleansing and the death of millions. Many in Western Europe are like the fellow who does nothing while hearing and seeing an evil neighbor beating his child to death while his bloody, battered wife can only look on. In fact, this fellow trades with the evil neighbor, selling him knives, brass knuckles and night sticks. When this fellow sees another neighbor headed for the batter-killer's house to put a stop to the the evil goings on and perhaps save the boy, he chastizes the other neighbor saying he should stay out of it. He says they should have another (the seventeenth) neighborhood meeting about the batter-killer first. He further says he (with veto power) will oppose any hindering of this evil fellow in his own house. (This is my view of the majority of Western Europe.) Moreover, he says that if the other neighbor does interfere, he hopes the batter-killer kills him. (This is 33% of France.) A man of character, however, does what is right regardless of the ebb and flow of the opinions of others. It's that simple. That's my opinion. I am well aware that many in Western Europe will not like it, and nearly as many will not like me for expressing it. I don't give a damn. Now for a comment on photojournalism. I am about 99% sure that this is my son. http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030327/capt.1048772132.iraq_nort hern_war_xhs102.jpg Regards, Bob. From: "rand flory" <ferret@wyoming.com> > Christiane, > > Did you look at the pictures that were taken and the manipulated final > image? There was much more going on there than just improving "composition." > The result actually was photographically very well done. But there was a > distinct change in meaning of the photographs. The two original images > showed a pretty innocent event taking place. The final image was one of a > hard-nosed "war" photo depicting the toughness of our troops in dominating > the nationals from the other side. That was not an innocent change. And > innocent or not, it flies in the face of photojournalist ethics as taught in > US universities. Walski knew better, but he took a chance, got caught, and > suffered the consequence of journalistic fakers. His firing was justified. > > >From your point of view, I can understand why you thought this was such an > innocent thing. You are seeing two faces of war and this seemed like such a > small breach compared to what you must feel is going on in the news reports > that you observe. But it is not a small breach. Photojournalism must be > accurate. If we start allowing these indiscretions, in our press, our > country will become, one small piece at a time, something dishonest and > dishonorable. I don't want to see that happen, although the potential is > there. It is our press, with its ethics and persistence, that has saved us > many times from the indiscretions of our leaders in both business and > politics. Our journalism is not perfect, but we try. > > And Bob and Jim, while I respect your fervor, I fail to see the logic of > equating a lack of support for our war (which is not supported by many > Americans as well as many Europeans) with a lack of appreciation for what we > did for Europe in WWII. Those are two different things entirely. That's like > saying that because we won the Revolutionary War with the help of France > (indeed, without their help, we probably would not have won that war) that > we have to agree with everything France says and does. Rather than this mode > of "obligation" thinking, I prefer that each man, woman and county think for > themselves and reach their own conclusions based on the data they feel are > most correct.
