13 ms·

The tone of the article, and the actions of main protagonist, makes a disturbing picture of war. In this setting war is fun for one side (protagonist is taking

The tone of the article, and the actions of main protagonist, makes a disturbing picture of war. In this setting war is fun for one side (protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks) and life-death situation for other side. Who is the bad guy here?

payne92 9y ago
War IS disturbing. It's most certainly life-or-death for both sides, even when resources are asymmetric. When young men and women are forced to war against their will, they will find small ways to keep their own sanity and humanity -- they rest of us cannot possibly hope to relate.
- golergka 9y ago
  Why necessarily "against their will"?
  - quickacct 9y ago
    Most likely because of the draft in place during the Vietnam war for American soldiers and the necessity for military service among young Vietnamese men defending their homeland.
    - golergka 9y ago
      I was under impression that this comment was talking about war in general, not only about Vietnam war.
      - quickacct 9y ago
        I would argue that even voluntary service is just (or can be) as stressful as involuntary service. Many people join the military for the benefits or out of a sense of duty. You may find that sense of duty misplaced, but regardless of the reasons I'm guessing most young men don't join the military to become murderers and witness their friends getting torn apart. So yes, even voluntary servicemen must make light of the hell they're living in. EDIT: Just realized my comment kind of comes off as argumentative but I think we're in agreement on this one judging by your other comment.
        golergka 9y ago
        Now you're returning to another point of the comment I was replying to, which [point] I was not arguing against. I was only pointing out that a lot of people go to war out of their own free will.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    Well, regardless of their will. Congress (or in jacked up cases, the President) decides where and when and with whom the US military wars, and its members are bound to follow.
MichailP 9y ago
Just found interesting comment from Jack Ma, about US strategy. He said that US had excellent strategy of focusing on IP and design while moving manufacturing and services to other countries. Large amounts of profits were generated, and then squandered on wars (instead of infrastructure). And then there was a nice analogy, in comments sections of the interview: "When I was 12, I made 100 dollars during a summer job we all used to do, I saved 71 dollars throughout the year and then bought fireworks and spent pretty much all of the money on 4th of July. I think our government is doing the same at a larger scale."
jrockway 9y ago
> protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks Documenting this stuff is important. The photographer didn't decide to have a war, he's just there documenting it. What you take away from the images is your own interpretation, with more concrete data about what went on than you'd get from the accounts of others. This sort of thing makes for good art as well, because it's a pretty nice looking light show -- juxtaposed with the caveat that it's all for state-sponsored murder. War is one of humanity's darkest moments, but these photos show that there can be beauty even in life-or-death situations.
- MichailP 9y ago
  You are right, it is important to have documents. The soldier obviously had passion for photography, judging by the aesthetics of the photos. I just got irritated by the asymmetry of the situation.
  - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
    Are you're saying that engaging in war is somehow more just if the sides are equally matched? If so, that strikes me as a strange criterion.
    - irixusr 9y ago
      Not more just. But when the situation is more asymetrical the more farcical the powerful side's complaints of the weaker's perfidy. (Tons of examples. The most universally accepted were Germans killing 1-10 civilians in retaliation for dishonorable uninformed partisans)
    - trentmb 9y ago
      "Pick on somebody your own size" isn't particularly bizarre.
  - omginternets 9y ago
    War is absurd like that. This is why it's (usually) best avoided.
golergka 9y ago
> In this setting war is fun for one side (protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks) and life-death situation for other side. I think your comment is distorting reality on several levels. First of all, you take the fact that one side had a journalist and jump to a conclusion that the war was "fun" for them. How does "taking photos" entail "just for the kicks", exactly? But the second distortion, which does not pop out that much, but is much more serious, is to measure different side's moral stance in a war by their suffering. You, implicitly, say that the side that suffers the most is by default on the moral high ground. Is it your honest opinion on ethics of war? That suffering is the measure of morality? I'm asking it because this kind of logic entails several very curious conclusions. For example, the moment one side gains the upper hand and the other loses it, they immediately switch places, bad guys become good and vice versa. Also, the weaker side can start conflicts and break armistices and will remain a "good guy" as long as it ensures that it has higher casualties, especially civilian. And, of course, any technology that would make my soldiers or civilians safer, and, therefore, leads to less suffering on my side, makes me less moral - and, therefore, is immoral on it's own.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. As all rules of thumb, it not always work but it normally does. A consequence of this rule is asymmetry, because you only go to another country if you have the upper hand and something to win; And a consequence of force asymmetry is more suffering for one side than the other. So, yes, suffering is, even if not a direct one, a good proxy for moral stance.
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
    >There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality. Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces. Etc etc.
strken 9y ago
It probably wasn't very fun for the man who was originally killed by AK47 fire, or his friends. Who is the bad guy here? Well, everyone I know who has been anywhere near a war came away worse. I don't think war turns you into a good person, whether you're firing automatic weapons at sleeping men, blasting a hilltop trying to kill someone's son, or sleeping with a machete in a town where the rule of law has collapsed.
- irixusr 9y ago
  The guy who got AKed could have burned his draft card, gone to jail for a few years and loose his SS benefits. That's not fun either, but he wouldn't have died in a jungle half way across the world a young twenty-something to prop up the cowboy delusions of Kissinger.
  - tim333 9y ago
    Maybe he could have claimed a heel spur.
mc32 9y ago
Snipers typically have location information asymmetry, else one would not see many snipers as a useful role in the military and rather a kamikaze role which in the great majority of cases it's not --good snipers are rare and you don't want to lose them.

payne92 9y ago

War IS disturbing. It's most certainly life-or-death for both sides, even when resources are asymmetric. When young men and women are forced to war against their will, they will find small ways to keep their own sanity and humanity -- they rest of us cannot possibly hope to relate.

golergka 9y ago
Why necessarily "against their will"?
- quickacct 9y ago
  Most likely because of the draft in place during the Vietnam war for American soldiers and the necessity for military service among young Vietnamese men defending their homeland.
  - golergka 9y ago
    I was under impression that this comment was talking about war in general, not only about Vietnam war.
    - quickacct 9y ago
      I would argue that even voluntary service is just (or can be) as stressful as involuntary service. Many people join the military for the benefits or out of a sense of duty. You may find that sense of duty misplaced, but regardless of the reasons I'm guessing most young men don't join the military to become murderers and witness their friends getting torn apart. So yes, even voluntary servicemen must make light of the hell they're living in. EDIT: Just realized my comment kind of comes off as argumentative but I think we're in agreement on this one judging by your other comment.
      - golergka 9y ago
        Now you're returning to another point of the comment I was replying to, which [point] I was not arguing against. I was only pointing out that a lot of people go to war out of their own free will.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Well, regardless of their will. Congress (or in jacked up cases, the President) decides where and when and with whom the US military wars, and its members are bound to follow.

MichailP 9y ago

Just found interesting comment from Jack Ma, about US strategy. He said that US had excellent strategy of focusing on IP and design while moving manufacturing and services to other countries. Large amounts of profits were generated, and then squandered on wars (instead of infrastructure). And then there was a nice analogy, in comments sections of the interview: "When I was 12, I made 100 dollars during a summer job we all used to do, I saved 71 dollars throughout the year and then bought fireworks and spent pretty much all of the money on 4th of July. I think our government is doing the same at a larger scale."

jrockway 9y ago

> protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks Documenting this stuff is important. The photographer didn't decide to have a war, he's just there documenting it. What you take away from the images is your own interpretation, with more concrete data about what went on than you'd get from the accounts of others. This sort of thing makes for good art as well, because it's a pretty nice looking light show -- juxtaposed with the caveat that it's all for state-sponsored murder. War is one of humanity's darkest moments, but these photos show that there can be beauty even in life-or-death situations.

MichailP 9y ago
You are right, it is important to have documents. The soldier obviously had passion for photography, judging by the aesthetics of the photos. I just got irritated by the asymmetry of the situation.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  Are you're saying that engaging in war is somehow more just if the sides are equally matched? If so, that strikes me as a strange criterion.
  - irixusr 9y ago
    Not more just. But when the situation is more asymetrical the more farcical the powerful side's complaints of the weaker's perfidy. (Tons of examples. The most universally accepted were Germans killing 1-10 civilians in retaliation for dishonorable uninformed partisans)
  - trentmb 9y ago
    "Pick on somebody your own size" isn't particularly bizarre.
- omginternets 9y ago
  War is absurd like that. This is why it's (usually) best avoided.

golergka 9y ago

> In this setting war is fun for one side (protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks) and life-death situation for other side. I think your comment is distorting reality on several levels. First of all, you take the fact that one side had a journalist and jump to a conclusion that the war was "fun" for them. How does "taking photos" entail "just for the kicks", exactly? But the second distortion, which does not pop out that much, but is much more serious, is to measure different side's moral stance in a war by their suffering. You, implicitly, say that the side that suffers the most is by default on the moral high ground. Is it your honest opinion on ethics of war? That suffering is the measure of morality? I'm asking it because this kind of logic entails several very curious conclusions. For example, the moment one side gains the upper hand and the other loses it, they immediately switch places, bad guys become good and vice versa. Also, the weaker side can start conflicts and break armistices and will remain a "good guy" as long as it ensures that it has higher casualties, especially civilian. And, of course, any technology that would make my soldiers or civilians safer, and, therefore, leads to less suffering on my side, makes me less moral - and, therefore, is immoral on it's own.

RobertoG 9y ago
There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. As all rules of thumb, it not always work but it normally does. A consequence of this rule is asymmetry, because you only go to another country if you have the upper hand and something to win; And a consequence of force asymmetry is more suffering for one side than the other. So, yes, suffering is, even if not a direct one, a good proxy for moral stance.
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  >There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality. Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces. Etc etc.

strken 9y ago

It probably wasn't very fun for the man who was originally killed by AK47 fire, or his friends. Who is the bad guy here? Well, everyone I know who has been anywhere near a war came away worse. I don't think war turns you into a good person, whether you're firing automatic weapons at sleeping men, blasting a hilltop trying to kill someone's son, or sleeping with a machete in a town where the rule of law has collapsed.

irixusr 9y ago
The guy who got AKed could have burned his draft card, gone to jail for a few years and loose his SS benefits. That's not fun either, but he wouldn't have died in a jungle half way across the world a young twenty-something to prop up the cowboy delusions of Kissinger.
- tim333 9y ago
  Maybe he could have claimed a heel spur.

mc32 9y ago

Snipers typically have location information asymmetry, else one would not see many snipers as a useful role in the military and rather a kamikaze role which in the great majority of cases it's not --good snipers are rare and you don't want to lose them.