Can any tree huggers justify desecrating the Marine Corps' iconic photo at Iwo Jima?

Question

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080428,00.html

Not only is this disrespectful, it is a phony issue used improperly. There is no respect for the 3 men who died on the island in the picture or the thousands of Marines killed or wounded.

Answer 1

As a military person who is now working in Baghdad with Marines, I can tell you they generally don't care about it. Photoshop happens. Marines are more concerned about their actual military traditions and history, not a photo of one battle that was retaken several times to get a good picture.

That said, both sides on the environmental issue are going to take the picture up as an example for their side of the issue. Which was indeed the point of the magazine- to provoke discussion (and sell their magazine). Isn't that what we should expect journalism to do?

If you are upset that it takes photoshopping of famous pictures to stir up people, that's a whole other discussion waiting to happen...

Answer 2

It's not a phony issue at all, but have you written to Time Magazine?  The people in here can't do anything about it and are not the ones responsible.

Answer 3

I agree that it is disrespectful and was used simply to create a "catchy" cover shot to go with their "catchy" phrase.   Another style of photography or symbol or landscape should have been used instead and could have been just as dramatic.  To equate the military and their service to our country and their subsequent deaths doing so with global warming is greatly off-key.  Yes, global warming is an urgent matter -- but a different eye-catching tactic could have and should have been used.

Personally, I hate seeing the term "Winning the War against...." or "Win the War against...." or "Fight the War against...." used so easily and widespread.    It's simply used too much and while the majority of causes that are being fought are truly valid and important, I think another term could be used with equal fervor.

Answer 4

Way to go.  

Conflate issues into a confusing morass so that you can further you own agenda. Throw in some inflammatory rhetoric and fallacious statements.  Stir thoroughly and troll.  

How then does it become respectful for you to use this image in the exact same way as the publishers of Time?

Oh, because you are right and the "tree huggers" are wrong.  Oh, please.  It's called hyprocrisy.  Look it up.

If you weren't a hyprocrite, the question would be more like "What do you think of Time magazine altering an iconic image to sell magazines.  Is this a desecration?"  Period.

Answer 5

The picture would seem to speak of the struggle with global warming. Global warming, the pollutants and domino effect of are impacting or killing the global population as well as other species with it.

How does a baby have banned pesticides, mercury, fire retardant, incinerated garbage, etc inside them before they take their first breath?

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus. That will link you to a study on polluted newborns where the toxicity ratio is 100% and reproductive problems. What happens when we can't reproduce anymore?

Billions are affected by the environmental challenges and hundreds of thousands or millions die each year. This picture is symbolic of the struggle.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h... and see what the tree huggers are talking about. I used to bash tree huggers in my ignorance until it was explained to me...no trees, no breathing, think about it.

Answer 6

im sure they didnt mean it to disrespect....theyre lifting a tree...which in all reality is what the world needs more of.....i dont think you have to be a tree hugger to know that

Answer 7

They use the words "war on...".  It's their attempt to use a war photo to equate that with the fight on global warming.

Before you react too strongly, I betcha someone owns that picture and just made a bundle of money by letting TIME use it.