Is photography art? Be honest.
>>4527330Artists are given a thin chance to prove themselves. If they cannot pass, they move to photography to cope. If photography was accessible and affordable in Hitler's time, maybe he would not have committed the atrocities he did.
>>4527330Camera operation is not an art in the classical sense. The camera is a tool to produce an image. The image produced by a camera can absolutely be a form of visual media. This is especially true if you were to produce a physical print from the negative.If I drew/painted someone's portrait so well that it was completely indistinguishable from a photograph would that be considered art or no?
>>4527333I should say that the image a camera produces can absolutely be used to make art with.
>>4527330It's a middle artNever highSometimes low
>>4527336Why cant it ever be a high art?
>>4527337It's just creative journalism. Simple as.
>>4527336What about street? Is rape art?
>>4527341Rape is art if you use it as a cudgel against the patriarchy like Gaspar Noé. It is unacceptable in every other case.
>>4527341Have you ever played sengoku rance? It's not art. It's kino.
>>4527338I can absolutely be more than creative journalism.
>>4527332>Implying the savior of Europe did anything wrong.
tricky one. you're not truly creating anything, just capturing things already in existence. but there is definitely a requirement of skill, involvement of personal twist/style etc which all result in a photo providing the same visual pleasure that a painting provides for example.
>>4527355>a requirement of skill
>>4527330I'll biteLargely the question of whether photography or anything else is art is a debate for people who don't actually practice photography. It only seeks to rank images from a viewers perspective as a substitute to actual culture.For example, this anon ranks artworks based on which media is used, regardless of the artworks themselves. This cannot be done out of actual interest for art, since if ever we were to make paintings pass for photograph, someone using this logic would disregard the art in favor of his ranking system. >>4527336(lack of interest for art result in absence of culture)>>4527338This other anon offers a more thought out opinion, but still abide to a strict categorization of artworks, saying nothing is created with photography:>>4527355This comes from a valid reasoning, as a photograph is largely the outcome of what was standing in front of the camera. But capturing a realistic image on the sensor of a digital camera is only a tiny, recent part of what photography is. Many photographers refined their printing technique for years, and it would be absurd to tell them that they are "not creating anything" when they are producing a physical object they spent thousands of hours fine tuning to fit their exact vision. Its also clearly unfair to anyone doing staged photography.It's understandable why there is this inferiority complex in photography. The skill needed to achieve a realistic image using photography is almost inexistant today, while it could take thousands of hours using painting. But actual photographers do spend thousands of hours refining their art. Usually, like me, because they like it. It matters very little to me whether anyone considers what I do art. The pursuit of creating beauty and communicating my vision is enough. That is also what I'm seraching for in other's people "art", or not, lmao.P.S: If you're a digital photographer, do yourself a favor. Buy a cyanotype kit and print your favorite photo.
>>4527378noooo I forgot to add this photo to the post
>>4527330>is something X? >never give a definition for XKind of makes all the discussion pointless
>>4527330I'll just quote myself: photography can be art but it doesn't have to. Intent matters and a monkey with a CCTV camera isn't an artist even if some frames captured along the way are interesting to look at. Winogrand is an example of non-art photography for the most part. He had some art pictures where he was obviously directing, but for the most part he did the photographic equivalent of dumpster diving and then showing some "gems" he found along the way (only well regarded by (((critics))) because of the lore surrounding them)
>>4527382You fool, the discussion IS the definition
>4527388nophoto yapping>/pol/ user gets drunk>lands on /p/many such casessad
>>4527330>ITT Americans who suffered an India-tier school system that did not teach them to differentiate between 'objective' and 'subjective', opinion or fact...It's funny to share little gems like this thread with my friends from other countries that have career paths other than slave or mcdonalds. Look at you all, trying to define art and seperate it into tiers as if you're not just pissing into the wind... as if you will change even one mind... as if you, the amazon worker from south dakota will be the man that finally brings an objective definition to art. Retardation must be really endless sisyphean suffering, I pity you.
>>4527400>Of course I know what art is, I learned the definition in school
>>4527400>friends from other countries that have career pathsyeah its either waiter in cdmx (caba has no jobs) or post office worker
>>4527401It's okay, no one expects you to be able to read. But you're welcome to re-read my post over and over again until you get the message. Because it looks like you haven't really parsed the words. One one at a time lil bro :D
>>4527403>Troll post full of frustration seething against a strawman constructed because America lives rent free in his head>1 sentence answer trying hard to extract the relevance of the post to the current conversation>NOOOOOO you didn't get it you were supposed to also insult Americans and orange man on the photography board
>>4527403>>4527400>Trust the experts to define art, which can not have an objective definitionLet me guess, you also believe in "objective" ethics?There's the philosophical definition of art, which is a matter of metaphysics and endless debate because there are no objective value systems without something resembling religion, be it gods, karma, vibrational energies, or whatever. The only way art can have a correct definition is if you first enact a theocracy. I will, can, and do go as far as saying that you can not actually have artistic integrity if you are a materialist atheist. Meaning is an illusion.And then there's art as a market, in which case the philosophy is marketing, and was never real. It's nothing more than customer consensus, and customers telling future customers how to properly demand new products without confusing the supply chain (which doubles as a dumping ground for the family embarrassments of the parasite class). This latter one is what you get from "the experts" in "school" and the formalism surrounding it is entirely to justify how the parasite class uses art to pretend their stupid children are actually successful. In this case art is clearly worthless and it is a total waste of time to care about. It's just the parasite classes preferences in home decor.
>>4527404>>4527406>americans: reads a post about how trying to define art is stupid>"duhhh!!!! deyz sayin dey no the meaning of art u guisee!!!!"Lol. Lmao, even.
>>4527401>>4527404You know these anons were mentally raped because they're feebily trying to copy the poster they're replying to with laughing images. Immitation sure is the sincerest form of flattery, but also the sincerest form of melty!
>>4527406>The only way art can have a correct definition is if you first enact a theocracywtf I love the Vatican now, Deus Vult!
>>4527407>anti-intellectual thirdworldistLet me guess, you actually fell for the bald faced lie that arabs are native to "palestine" and the pharisees are somehow settler colonialists in their ethnic homeland?
>>4527407>>4527408
>>4527330>the obtuse cuckold is still getting btfo in 2026lmao
>>4527410>american coping
>>4527330If the "establishment" hangs it on a wall in a gallery, it's art. Art is what The State determines through training and legitimizing in an academy setting. This applies to those producing "art" or using their "trained" skills to determine what "is" art. Everyone just eats scraps off their table.
>>4527504>t. cucked npc
>>4527330Art is the communication of another persons perception.
>>4527537So your post is technically art?
>>4527539It could be if that's you how perceive it.
>>4527540I thought you were communicating another persons perception.
>>4527545esl
>>4527562>ESL doesn't know how or when to capitalize letters.KEK
>>4527389Nope, it's just pointless yapping unless people have common definition to work withIf you were right, we should see a coherent definition emerging from this discussion, but I don't see that
>>4527537this
>>4527330Photography is art, but not everything captured with a camera is photography.
>>4527564>If you dont use capital letters on the internet then you cant speak englishwhat?
>>4527692You heard me, bitch.
Yes but not all art is equal.Major arts require an initiation and training at a young age, the rest doesn't. Guess where photography lies.
>>4527696ok reddit
>>4527704Reddit obsessed lil chuddie seething kek
>>4527705>no full stopESL
>>4527708Dammit you got me good with that one. I guess we are both ESL now, fellow brownie.
>>4527330Photographs can be art but not all photographs are art by default. Same with paintings, video games, sculptures etc.
>>4527717>constantly thinking about jeetsngmi
>>4527953>>4527676What makes the difference between whether or not its art?You guys keep leaving out the part that actually matters
>>4527978Art is made, not merely taken. That is the difference.
>>4527979What do you mean by "made" and "taken"? What's the difference?
>>4527980The artist is an active subject with a vision. The snapshotter is just pressing a button. He could be replaced by a monkey or a cl*nker. The only art in the later is the con, where they come up with some bullshit after the fact to pretend their stuff had meaning.
>>4527978Garry Winogrand makes art. He selects only the best photos he takes to tell a story.This tripfag doesn't even take photos and constructed all of his opinions around excusing his low IQ hatred of every photographer that succeeded while he didn't, while sparing the few safe boring ones he likesThere's your difference
>>4527987It's actually jarring to see snapshot spelled out as such on this board.What category do I fit in if I take my camera for travel and shit but still try and make things look nice? Even if it's just abusing UWA distortion or intentionally trying to take a clean subject/background?
>>4527996"actually takes photos" which actually makes you more of an authority on the subject than the neo-nazi retard you replied to
>>4527996If you're actually putting some thoughtful intent into it it's obviously photography. The mere act of abusing UWA for a certai effect qualifies.
>>4527998>deciding to use a focal length for its look makes it photographyoh, so you are a winogrand enjoyerthe man was a notorious lens autist who thought of lenses in terms of aesthetics instead of "light gathering equivalence" like the common gearfag. one of his favorites ended up being an f3.5 just because he liked the way the photos looked.
>>4528000Why is that monkey holding a chimpanzee?
>>4528004It's art, courtesy of the greatest 20th century photographer. Garry Winogrand.Art doesn't make you ask"What was the intent behind this? Is this really creative? Can I grade this like a teacher grading homework? How much effort was required? is this just luck, or a REAL composition" Art makes you ask"Why"
>>4528000>I like the pictures this lens takes. Im going to stick with it.>Noooooo the charts say THIS lens is the correct choice! I think you have the two mixed up chartfags are soulless gearfags.
>>4528007nice reading comprehension
>>4528009My B
>>4527330>I left a snarky remark on this guy's post and he block meWhat was he expecting?
>>4528006>Art doesn't make you ask what was the intent behind itdude I'm sorry you might have never seen art
>>4528000>>4528006Phonesnap tier garbage. I get it, you think it's art because it's black and white or something. Slop slurpers will slurp slop.
>>4528049If you care about intent, you don't know art. >>4528060I think it's art because I think it's art. And you're a retard because you're retarded.
>>4527978To me art is a skillful expression of oneself that has the power to evokes emotion in the viewer. For other people this definition could be slightly different and I don't even think it matters at all.
Film photography can be art. Digital photography is never art. All art requires limitations. The modern digital camera is without limitations.
>>4528244>All art requires limitations.>The modern digital camera is without limitations.Dynamic range is still a limitation. And what if I put a manual lens on my digital camera and lock the ISO to 100? Would I be creating art then? Your take is absolutely retarded. I guess Michelangelo didn't create any art because he didn't use wooden sticks to chisel his granite. Steel and iron tools are without limitations.
>>4528339Go to bed bro.
>>4528342It's 10am here and I'm procrastinating.Let me flip the screen shut on my digital camera and only use the vewfinder for that TrUE AnAlOg FeEL. Look Ma! I'm creating art now! Not enough? Well I'm only gonna shoot 36 pics before taking a 3 minute break to scratch my balls. Exposure preview in my EVF is cheating? Ok, I can disable that too. Am I an artist now? Your analog photos go through a lab that uses a digital scanner to create your JPGs so you can post them to Instagram. Those scans are altered by digital algorithms to produce those "real analog colors". What you actually see in the end is no different than what Fuji cameras do with their "Film Simulations". To get a true analog photo you'd have to have them printed oldschool way on photographic paper. Nobody does that anymore and even then the paper stock affects your colors a lot. And no, editing your "digital" photos is not cheating. Almost all well known analog photographers would doge and burn their prints like crazy. None of that shit is unaltered. Shooting analog is fun but autists like you give the hobby a bad name.
>>4528244>art requires limitationsI see your point but>The modern digital camera is without limitations.This doesn't make any logical sense. First it's a medium limitation, since you don't make music, sculpture, or write books with a digital camera. It's even ultra limited within photo as it's completely unable to print an image by itself. And of course focale, resolution, etc, all limit digital cameras.>Film can be art but not digitalRetarded gearfag take. Art is about the practice and the exhibition, not the fucking camera. Segregating what is art based on the tool used to produce it is peak slave morality. Film is le good so it's art, digital is le bad so not art. It's downright eerie knowing some people are consciously enforcing these kinds of silly flowcharts that decide for them what to think about art or other things. I'm saying all that shooting exclusively film myself.
>>4528345Woah 10am is too late for you consider going to bed a 8am lmfao your post is the definition of autism. No one makes a print in the darkroom. Are you serious lil bro?
Photography is documentation, not art
>>4528390Explain how documentation cannot also be art? What if the limitation that a camera can only "document" reality is what makes photography art in the first place? Do we cry about painting because it is simply placing pigment on a canvas?
>>4528394Nta. Documentation and archiving is just the capture and storage of data. Record keeping, if you will.Extrapolate that concept to visual moments in time, and you get photography. The vast majority of photography is this.Unlike other anon, I actually do think art is "possible" with a camera. Definitely not the norm. Absolutely not achievable with the majortiy of people using a camera. But, if you intentionally curate or influence a photo in a way that evokes a significant emotional or mental response from someone, then the photo is artistic. Simply having a subject, background, and it looking pretty are not sufficent to pass for art. Emphasis on significant. Plenty of retard normies go "waow" if you show them a properly exposed shot of some random landmark that's been done a hundred-thousand times before that.
>>4528405The vast majority of painting is not art either, and especially by your definition.
>>4528412Correct.I can not fling paint at a canvas and call it art. My toddler finger painting doesn't count either for the same reason. Intent, conviction, and execution are all equal measure.
>>4528405I agree with this to the exception that I think art is a scale not a binary property. I would say any "retard normie" can make art with a camera if they make the effort of thinking through something they want to express and make basic effort for the photo to express it. I think it's a bit easy to say that it's not art because if only normies go waow. If there is truly such a thing as normies, it's only natural they'd be sensitive to different form of art than an intellectual 4chan poster like me. Maybe it's "bad" art because it's shallow or something, but why would it not be art?
>>4528405>Explain how documentation cannot also be art?Notice how you didn't actually answer the question asked.
>>4528405I don't think it has to successfuly communicate anything. What really matters is whether or not the creator influenced the image in any meaningful way other than pressing the button. For example if you are Gregory Crewdson's assistant in charge of taking the picture, you're not doing art. But Crewdson is. Because he made the picture that's being captured. He is the photographer. Similarly, the people who crafted things for him to fulfill his vision may well be artists too, depending on their vision being relevant. For example if you have to get something that looks like foam on water then whoever is in charge of that effect has to know how to make it look the way it has to.
>>4527400God, imagine unironically being this nihilistic, pessimistic, defeatist, and conformal. I'm so fucking glad I'm not a European. What a miserable existence.
>>4528389>No one makes a print in the darkroom.???
>>4528441You misread my post and my post was also confusingly phrased.
>>4528345>Nobody prints anymoreactually we do
>>4527330Are you asking me for my opinion on this, or yours?
>>4528244Limitations aren't what makes film photography art, is the darkroom manipulations. An exposure is just a mere canvas for the artist to work on.
>>4528813"art" is not a stat you level up by doing more work>+1 intent +1 intent>CROPPED AND LEVELED! +4 intent>ART LEVEL UPit's not a video gamenot a sportyou can do almost 0 work and still end up with art
>>4528877I didn't say anything about intent, I said manipulation. The pictorialists were right.
>>4528813>>4528879You can absolutely make art without manipulating the exposed image. Also Stieglitz was a kike in bed with proto-MoMA.
>>4528879>it cant be art unless you mess with itTrying desperately to put photography on the level of painting by playing in photoshopJust paint>>4528885It doesn't matter. Photography is a middling art and the only criteria is human vision was required to select the photo. You can't make it more art by doing more work or claiming to prove "more intent". In the end you're still just presenting a reproduced image and all that matters is the message people take from it.>muh "kikes"If your argument requires complaining about jews, you don't have an argument.
>>4528901It wasn't the argument, it was a mention in passing you jew rat. >Photography is a middling art and the only criteria is human vision was required to select the photoThen it follows the artist would be the curator, not the photographer. And therefore someone browsing Google Street View and picking what he likes could be said to be doing the art of photography. Which is absurd, just like your entire ideological framework for this.As Adams said, you don't take a photograph. You make it.If you're merely taking the picture, then you're not doing photography.
>>4528909>Curiously, doing photography is not actually doing photography, in fact, real photography starts exactly at the criteria i set to exclude dozens of successful famous photographers that I dislike because many of them are JewishOh wow so incel adams dodged and burned a bit yeah garry winogrand NEVER did that (oh wait, he was also a darkroom autist) thats why his photo of rocks and leaves is more arter sure
>>4528916I'm not arguing about the darkroom. I'm arguing about crafting the picture before the exposure even happens. Winogrand infamously left behind thousands of undeveloped pictures. It's anti-photography. It's rolling the dice and what you get is some garbage that only gets shilled because of his connections. Life's too short to waste it on winoslop.
>>4528918>i waited for sunset>thats real photography!I don't think you're smart enough to get this.it doesn't matterit's not a sportit's not a video gameit's not a testphotography does not require certified sick camera skills and it doesn't matter if you discarded 1000 rolls of motion blurred photos or shoots you knew you wouldn't like (if anything, discarding a roll without developing it is a sign of being more self conscious...)what matters is the interaction between the viewer and the work, and the fact that photography is inherently at the intersection of journalism and theatre.^if this sentence alone doesn't click for you, it's no wonder you're fucking retarded enough to be a nazi. you don't have a brain.
>>4528923If no one sees a piece of art, does it cease to be art? In your retarded vision, it does.It's degenerate, external-validation driven, effeminate and jewish.
>>4528931>Despite the arts being male dominated and based on publication for all history, the most important part of art being the audience instead of "meeting my arbitrary standards for intent" is suddenly "effeminate"Read through this slowly. Baby steps. Think hard.A great man is measured by the mark he leaves on history.A woman measures a man by how much he impresses her personally according to fluctuating standards that have less to do with intellectual rigor and more to do with which people she does and does not like.Which one of these describes you?
>>4528938You mean a historical character, not "a great man". Your post is a gigantic fallacy.
>>4527330That is an extremely narrow definition of art, and sadly this person isn’t the one to establish that definition. Nobody knows what art is, but people will fight tooth and nail nail to say their medium IS art and someone else’s ISNT in order to legitimize their own outputs. We all should know by now that a signed toilet is just as much art as a Rembrandt.
>>4528945>We all should know by now that a signed toilet is just as much art as a Rembrandt.That's just jewish subversion to get back at the Greeks.
>>4528943>great men aren't real actually, they're a social constructmaybe the real subversive revisionists were your kind all along
>>4528947Not only great men are measured by the mark they leave on history. Terrible men too.Was Jack the Ripper a great man? Or just a murderous kike?
>>4528951You're not very smart if you thought this was an own.Jack the ripper is indeed measured by the mark he left on history. As a mentally ill serial killer, probably an englishman high on drugs. That's not a great mark so he's not a great man.
>>4528953>probably an englishman high on drugsoy vey, Aaron Kosminski the EnglishmanYour entire argument is fallacious. Some great men are ignored by history, others maligned by it because it's written by the victors who go as far as criminalizing investigation. A few are celebrated as the great men they were.
>>4528957>Great men are ignored by historyIn other words, they didn't do much good but you personally like them because they pass your vibe check and don't give you the ick
>>4527330it's photography
>>4528960>ignoring the "some"Fucking retard. Did circumcision cause you brazenness in lying or were those just your hyhyl genes?
>>4528969Concession acceptedConfirmed: Garry Winogrand was actually a better photographer than Ansel Adams. Engaging with life, freezing fleeting microseconds in time, and calling it the ultimate expression of photography as itself > waiting for sunsets, accurately reproducing them, and calling it a higher form of art.Face it. Winogrand wasn't just an artist, his work was the peak of groupe f/64's ethos and redefined photography for decades to come.
>>4528971Guess I'll post the pasta...Street "photography" is the dullest franchise in the history of photography.Seriously, each shot following random people from some urban hellscape as they endure their suicide-inducing environment is indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the genre’s only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of black and white, all to make life unmagical, to make action seem inert.Perhaps the die was cast when street "photographers" decided unauthorized candid snaps were the way to go; they made sure the genre would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody - just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for their books. Street "photography" might be anti-human (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-aesthetic genre in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.>a-at least the photos were clever though"No!"The juxtaposition is dreadful; each street book is terrible. As I look at each one, I notice that every time a the opportunity appears the snappers take a picture of someone making it seem like their head is the one on a sign and showing their legs or vice-versa. Then, some picture of a puddle, an umbrella or a hobo. Art!I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that pattern was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The street snapper's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that they have no other style of communicating. I once read a lavish, loving review of the genre by the same Elliott Erwitt. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are enjoying street photography at 21 or 22, then when they get older they will go on to enjoy Elliott Erwitt." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you consume street photography you are, in fact, trained to consume Elliott Erwitt.
>>4528986Pasta = concession
>>4528989There's nothing to concede, you didn't make any real argument. Maybe go read some of Plato's and Aristotle's works if you want to have a chance at forming a relevant argument.
>>4528992This post further cements my suspicions that cANON is either Iranian, Serbian or Azeri
>>4528993Keep digging, maybe one day you'll find your precious dox
>>4529000He's not trying to doxx you idiotHe's mocking you by comparing you to unaccomplished thirdies who reference random old texts they think will impress people without bearing the fruits of the intelligence themselves
>>4528997Somehow you've made an even stupider post than the "photography is just reproduction" so it cant be an art post. Really fantastic job bro.Now go ahead and please enlighten us all about how a hobby cannot be art.
>>4529006>the fruits of intelligence
>>4529017Bold of you to assume the people doing this cared about their people's prosperity and not seizing power permanently by creating a problem that can only be solved by tyranny. The people literally demanded the complete opposite of this and voted entirely on the promise of "no new wars" when kamala was explicitly saying war with iran was on the table (after the DNC ousted every moderate lol)iran is, indeed, destroyed. reduced to religiously motivated coastal pirates. the middle east can no longer offer the world their oil because iranians hilariously destroyed that infrastructure instead of striking israel (weird innit). guess who controls the remaining supply? additionally a famine has been imposed on south asia and most of africa, and europe has been severel weakened so russia has an easy win ahead of them.americans are going to get vanned not as front line soldiers but as oil field workers. you're witnessing a communist takeover and the great american realignment (wherein you will realize israel funneling american tech to china was not a hostile act)
>>4529022>iran is, indeed, destroyedlol>reduced to religiously motivated coastal piratesMore revenge motivated I'd argue, even their atheists want payback and a nuke now>the middle east can no longer offer the world their oil because iranians hilariously destroyed that infrastructure instead of striking israel (weird innit). guess who controls the remaining supply?What would striking Israel give them other than trigger the Samson option and getting themselves wiped? Iranians showed the world they're the smartest in this conflict.Gas prices is how they take the beast down. They rode the tiger for 47 years.
>>4529026Bro… he kinda btfo you. The US just engineered total indian death and created the conditions for ending democracy in the states and you’re focusing on the arbitrary price gouging in fuel markets. If iran literally did nothing and appeased the US immediately nothing would have changed for another 4-8 years and they would claim to be champions of global stability. The losers in this war are people who didnt want the US to turn into a dictatorship.
>>4529040>arbitrary price gouging in fuel markets.migger cope is amazing lolthere's oil scarcity thanks to a war of choice and the prices reflect that. The economy is melting down. America lost most of their bases and proved itself to be a paper tiger. And soon enough Iran will have a nuclear weapon, thanks to the Don who made the ideal of avoiding nukes as devised by Ali Khamenei a nontenable position.
>>4529054>i-iran won actually just look at the gas prices>it's over for the US because... gas prices>guys why is trump, who has historically opposed aiding ukraine, posting about allying with russia and cutting off russian diesel>guys why did putin turn his back on his ally iran because he likes israel more>oh no they were actually playing 5d chess
>>4529106*european dieselreally thoyou have no idea how good this has been going for the elite
>>4529107The elite sure, the American populace and superpower status not so much. Losing influence by the hour. Have you seen the bond yields?There's a conspiracy theory that claims the war is a scapegoat for the crisis that was already brewing with the clanker bubble and other stuff.
>>4529113>Superpower statusBuddy we expended some wunderwaffe waging a lazy war and have most of our forces on standy we'll be fineWhen a country has the power to conventionally carpet bomb the entirety of the houthi rebels in an evening and has never actually been above "war crimes" you must assume they are not letting loose because they're playing a game you're not aware of.
>>4529121Does carpet bombing win a war? Didn't you guys carpet bomb Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq? What was the last war the US managed to win? We know the USSR won WWII. By the time America entered the theater the war was already won.
>>4529125Houthi disruption to shipping could be significantly minimized at very little cost, and a deal could be made cucking out a bit ot the houthis. Won? No, they'd come back or we'd have to destroy way more than the world would sit by and watch be destroyed. The US doesn't seem to care that much regardless because houthis strangling europe is exacerbating what the US tried to induce.I have to admit, actually taking iran out would be much harder or require some serious war crimes, but it seems the strategy was to provoke them into losing their cool to kickstart a global resource crisis at the expense of american consumers and then exploit the resulting geopolitical instability for profit, re-alignment, and famines bordering on genocide.
