Some Political Cartoons

Bear-Arms

Mentor
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
United States

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Those are great. They should be on the editorial page of every newspaper in the country.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Good stuff, and so true! We had better wake up.
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
That last one is especially great.

I am of two minds about about the anti-Arab stuff of course. On the one hand, despite the P.C. "religion of P.C." "Iraqis desire democracy" yadda yadda, portraying them as violent, scummy, and crazy is closer to the truth. OTOH, the whole fight we basically started, by backing up the right of the Yids to steal and kill on the basis of a 4,000 year old land dispute from a book of questionable authority written by-wait for it-the Yids themselves. Any court of law would call that a conflict of interest...

And of course, the Arabs seem to be the ONLY group we are currently allowed to despise, groups that do FAR more actual damage to our country, such as the a-fore mentioned Yids and the '******, are still sacrosanct.
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
Good point. I didn't really think about the first cartoon that long, but it's clear that it accepts the wrong premise that the Arabs are waging a religious war rather than a political one. (Terrorism is awful, but it's just another type of warfare in my opinion. It's the only kind that they can wage. Bush has killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq for no good reason; why isn't he a terrorist? Because he used a military instead of suicide bombers. The difference is artificial at best.)

The point that "multiculturalism" is the "real suicide bomb" is good, but it's not like the Arab terrorist being depicted is the one furthering that agenda. It would've been far too offensive- and true- if they actually replaced the Arab terrorist with a liberal or "respectable" conservative politician, Jewish professor, black criminal, or Hispanic immigrant.

But that's not allowed. A little too close to the truth.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
JD074 said:
Terrorism is awful, but it's just another type of warfare in my opinion. It's the only kind that they can wage. Bush has killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq for no good reason; why isn't he a terrorist? Because he used a military instead of suicide bombers. The difference is artificial at best.)

To not recognize the difference between US military action in Iraq and terrorism is to sink to the same level as the non-white cultures that use terrorism as a weapon.

This is not Bush's war, it is a war of the United States. Plenty of proper protocol was followed before military action was begun. The President asked for use of military force and our elected representatives granted it. Additional authority for miltary action was given by violation of UN mandates (I don't think much of the UN but in this case it was ostensibly acting in accordance with US interests and therefore was acting for the US). Just because nobody has the stomach for it now that the killing is going on doesn't change the fact that the action had a lot of support at the start.

The military action had the effect of liberating a people that lived under the rule of an extremely cruel dictator that one has to believe used some of his many billions of dollars to support terrorism against the US.

Furthermore 9/11 was an act of war against the US and the enemy, as far as I can tell, were radical Muslims and those are the ones being killed right now. They are the enemy and our Army is killing them and that is what our large expensive Army is supposed to do. You may make the argument that the radical Muslims in Iraq are not the "right" ones to kill, or that there are more of them to kill elsewhere but regardless, the enemy is being fought and with heavy casualties on their side compared to ours.

I agree that we were targeted because of our support for Isreal. There is nothing that can be done about that now. We could denounce Isreal tomorrow and bring all our troops home and radical fundalmentalists would still wage war on us. I find the war in Iraq a relief. Of all our non-white enemies in this world there is finally a place where we are meeting them on a field of battle. If only the same could be done with the other enemies you have mentioned.
 

Bear-Arms

Mentor
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
United States
JD074 said:
The point that "multiculturalism" is the "real suicide bomb" is good, but it's not like the Arab terrorist being depicted is the one furthering that agenda. It would've been far too offensive- and true- if they actually replaced the Arab terrorist with a liberal or "respectable" conservative politician, Jewish professor, black criminal, or Hispanic immigrant.

He probably wants to keep his job
smiley2.gif
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
The points that I'm making are: 1) these "terrorists" don't have the means to fight a traditional war against us; and 2) there was no good reason to wage a war against Iraq. Not only was the Bush Administration wrong, but they probably lied.

Okay, there is a difference, but I think it's more logistical (technological, economic, etc.) than moral. The US has killed a lot more innocent civilians than they have.

Given that the war in Iraq was based on a lie, and terrorism against America (and it's allies) is based on actual occupation of their homelands, they may actually be more morally justified. Scary thought.

And it's really interesting that people always point out that these bombers are Muslim, given that the first suicide bombers weren't Muslim, the Tamil Tigers. According to Robert Pape: "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any of the world's religions."

Just because nobody has the stomach for it now that the killing is going on doesn't change the fact that the action had a lot of support at the start.

Yeah, because they lied to people. Again, that makes it less morally justifiable.

We could denounce Isreal tomorrow and bring all our troops home and radical fundalmentalists would still wage war on us.

Like they do against us Switzerland and Iceland?
smiley2.gif


I find the war in Iraq a relief.

Seriously?
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Okay, there is a difference, but I think it's more logistical (technological, economic, etc.) than moral. The US has killed a lot more innocent civilians than they have.

Declaring war with a uniformed Army and being upfront about it is MUCH more moral then a sneak attack on unprepared civilians. And the US takes great pains, more then necessary I feel, to protect non-combatants. You cannot even compare the two morally, at least not by any morality I'm familiar with.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
Given that the war in Iraq was based on a lie, and terrorism against America (and it's allies) is based on actual occupation of their homelands, they may actually be more morally justified. Scary thought.

What lands were occupied prior to the invasion of Iraq? Palestine? If the cause of the Palestinian people is so righteous, why haven't the Muslims of the world united to help them? No donations for buildings, railroads, schools, hospitals.. just money for more explosives, to strap to kids. Why won't Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi friggin' Arabia accept Palestinian refugees?? Where was Muslim support of the Bosnians? Why was it the UNITED STATES OF FRIGGIN' AMERICA had to bail out the Muslims there?

Like they do against us Switzerland and Iceland?

1. Where do you think Osama keeps his money?
2. If the US and other prominent western nations fell, do you really think radical Islam would stop at Iceland?

Radical Islamicism is a political movement, using religion as a way to foment poor, uneducated people to affect the aims of the movement itself. World domination is their goal. No rights for women, infidels to be destroyed at the decree of the head Mullah, no matter the evidence pro or con.

It should be enough to realize that more and more mainstream Muslim organizations and imams have come out to denounce these type of attacks. Even in Iraq, the head of the Shi'ite movement has come out in denunciation of the idiots blowing up kids in that country.

And as one who has read the Qu'ran, I can tell you that suicide and killing of innocent civilians IS DENOUNCED, regardless of what Osama ben Laden and his idiots preach.

Religion has been misused by political leaders since its inception, its nothing new.

I agree that terrorism is another form of warfare, and has existed since there was war. To me, its just another risk that one has to face living on this hostile planet, period. Famine, scourge, car accident, disease, murder, cancer, heart disease, and terrorism, in the long run its just another way to die.
 

Mr. Lutefisk

Newbie
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
66
To this day I still have to correct people because they think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The Bush admin. cleverly smoothed the two together and America fell for it hook, line and sinker. I think the reasons Bush went to war with Iraq were: 1. to beremembered in history as a successful war President, 2. to win the 04 election 3. to make himself and Cheney lots of money through oil and Halliburton. The American people were fed patriotic slogans like freedom isn't free and support our troops (ie the Bush administration)and if you spoke against the war that meant that you hated America and you were the typethat wouldspit on the troops. And "how can you be against the war and support the troops" is another neocon favorite. The anti-war Americans fell silent, too scared to speak upuntil it was too late. Almost 1,800dead troops and 300 billion dollars later and no end in sight. Bush's lies and deceit slowly being uncovered.
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
Jaxvid:
Declaring war with a uniformed Army and being upfront about it is MUCH more moral then a sneak attack on unprepared civilians.

And what's worse for white people? Millions upon millions upon millions of white people have died due to the stupid wars that we've waged- mostly against ourselves. Our modernized, industrialized, organized, "civilized" brand of violence has had a big hand in decimating our gene pool. It started the job, and now massive Third World immigration and multiculturalism (that we're allowing) are going to finish us off. And we only have ourselves to blame.

What's good for white people is my morality.

And the US takes great pains, more then necessary I feel, to protect non-combatants.

I'm so impressed. If they really cared they wouldn't have inflicted this war on them in the first place. (And economic sanctions wouldn't have been imposed on Iraq in the 90's either, if they really cared about "protecting" those innocent people.)

White Shogun:
Famine, scourge, car accident, disease, murder, cancer, heart disease, and terrorism, in the long run its just another way to die.

And modern warfare is just another way for white people to die.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,565
Location
Pennsylvania
JD, I'm with you all the way on this one. Using depleted uranium -- the effects of which will affect countless Iraqis for generations to come and many American soldiers -- flattening entire cities like Fallujah, and torturing Iraqis and others around the world, is disgraceful. The war was planned out many years ago to benefit the oil industry and Israel and was sold to Americans through cynical lies.


The U.S. has been in a lot of unnecessary wars, but this one is the worst. It's a war of aggression, pure and simple, the kind of war Americans used tobelieve were only launched by militaristic dictatorships. If any other country had done what our government has, Americans wouldunanimously oppose it, just as therest of theworld is appalled by the neo-cons'brutal occupation of Iraq. Just becauseawarhas been declared in our name is no reason to support it. Love of country is distinctly different than unwavering loyaltyto a government. In fact, love of country compels patriots to oppose the colonial war against Iraq.


This war will have strong negative ramifications on America and Americans for many years to come.Right now it is stretching the military to the breaking point and bankruptingAmerica. We need to get our troops out, end our grotesque empirewith itssubservience to Israel and corporate interests, and begin the long overdue basic reforms that are needed in the United States.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
JD wrote:

And what's worse for white people? Millions upon millions upon millions of white people have died due to the stupid wars that we've waged- mostly against ourselves. Our modernized, industrialized, organized, "civilized" brand of violence has had a big hand in decimating our gene pool. It started the job, and now massive Third World immigration and multiculturalism (that we're allowing) are going to finish us off. And we only have ourselves to blame.

Then the Iraq War should be considered "good" for white people, the cost in life to the US is virtually nil compared to any other War ever. Yet tens of thousands of Iraqi's are dying. And like it or not they are our enemy. The rebuilt Iraq promises to be much better then the pre-war Iraq.

Look, sooner or later we would have to meet these people on a field of battle. Should we wait until they have fully developed nuclear weapons or do it now when the cost will be a few thousand troops instead of a few hundred thousand civilians.

You probably would have complained about attacking the Japanese during World War II. The arguments are practically similar.

1) they bombed Pearl harbor because we treated them so badly in matters of trade so that was the only revenge they could get.
2) Hawaii really should be theirs. We were the imperial power that invaded and took over the islands.
3) look how many troops we lost.
4) look how many innocents were killed
5) even if we defeat them they will hate us forever
6) they will never get the concept of democracy and form a long lasting representative government
7) look at the tremendous cost to out budget, we will never survive financially.
8) the US is just going to make Japan another "colony" in our quest for empire.

SHEESH!
 

surfsider

Guru
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
400
Location
Missouri
To say radical islamicism is a political movement is a redundancy. Islam is a theocracy. Muslims aren't comfortable yet with notion of the nation-state. That aside, Islam has been at war against "infidels" since its inception and is its raison d'tre. I doubt that Bin-laden pulled the date September 11 out of thin air. Sept. 11, 1683 is( depending on which historian when reads) the day of or the day before John Sobieski's defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. Vienna was all but lost until the Polish king came along. This defeat started a downward slide for Islam as a European and world power. On September 11, 1697 at the Battle of Zenta, Prince Eugene of Savoy lost 300 hundred men while killing 30,000 Ottoman soldiers. This victory resulted in a treaty signed in 1699 by which the Ottomans ceded large chunks of European territory. It pretty much continued that way for the Mohammedans, as Europeans referred to them, until they were driven from most of Europe and were rendered impotent as a military force. Islam still smarts from these defeats and they are in part what fuels the rage of such as Bin-laden. My point would be that Islam is dangerous and has never not been in contention with the West for domination. The periods of quiet have not been self-imposed by Muslims. I heard just several days ago of a poll taken of Muslims on the question of suicide bombers, this poll having been taken on other occasions, and this was the first time that support for the use of suicide bombings had fallen below 50%, plummeting all the way to 49%! I'm not attempting to indict all Muslims as potential bombers but rather to show that Islam itself can be and has been fertile ground for such thinking. More Muslims may be speaking out against the likes of Bin-laden and such but not near enough of them and not nearly loud enough.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
History works in cycles.

Islam will catch up with Christianity in secularity, its doctrines will be watered down, and they will become generic believers like many Christians.

I have known a few Muslims who eat pork, drink alcohol, sleep around, smoke, etc. All they cared about were the mundane things everyone else did. But they still went to mosque on Friday.

Though of course there will always be hard core radicals.

Believe me, I am not a defender of Islam or some kind of nuthugger. I do not believe that Iraq was directly responsible or related to 9/11. I don't agree with fighting other nation's wars all over the planet, either.

I'm more accepting of war for its primary purpose, to secure resources. Iraq is the second largest producer of oil in the world. A pro-western democracy will help provide more oil at lower cost, simple as that. If you asked me if we had national interest in overthrowing Saddam, I'd have to say yes. I don't think the US really gave a rats ass that Saddam disregarded the UN mandates. So have a bunch of other countries. But I think the Bush admin. saw a way to use it to get in and they did, successfully. In the long run, I think the US and that region will be the better for it. If you don't think cheaper access to oil is worth fighting for, watch the news and see how much bitching people do when they have to pay $2.50 a gallon for gas. Our economy runs on cheap gas and no politician wants to face an election with high gas prices on everyone's mind.

The United States military is a volunteer force. Its primary purpose is not to obtain a college education, provide you with meager retirement benefits, or get you off the streets. Its primary function SHOULD BE the defense of our nation. Regardless, IMO people need to understand if you join the military it is highly likely you will see action, somewhere, sometime, and perhaps not in a conflict of your choosing nor one you can support.

If you don't like that idea, don't join.
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,384
Location
Minnesota
Now that the U.S. corporations have a hand in Iraqi Oil, should we expect the oil/gas prices to plummet? I'll believe it when I see it. American Oil companies will charge whatever people will be willing to pay and nothing less.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,565
Location
Pennsylvania
The price of oil was supposed to drop after "liberating" Iraq, the same way the Iraqi people were supposed to greet U.S. soldiers with flowers.


Americans are stuck with gasoline because it's extremely profitable for oil companies. That's the reason we haven't turned to alternative fuels.


As far as Islam, this is falsely believed by many Americans to be a "clash of civilizations" -- Islam vs. Christianity. Well, the U.S. is hardly a Christian nation, and hardly even Western anymore as it wallows in decadence and the joys of "diversity" and"multiculturalism." It's more like a clash of Zionism versus everyone else, with Americans once again doing most of Israel's dirty work.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
As far as Islam, this is falsely believed by many Americans to be a "clash of civilizations" -- Islam vs. Christianity. Well, the U.S. is hardly a Christian nation, and hardly even Western anymore as it wallows in decadence and the joys of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." It's more like a clash of Zionism versus everyone else, with Americans once again doing most of Israel's dirty work.

Well said, Don. Kinda my point as well, you just said it better and more succintly.
smiley4.gif
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
If Islam needs resisting, let's start by ceasing to let 'em come in our countries wholesale. Claiming to fight for Western Civilization while letting them fill up with non-Westerners always gets my goat.

I think religion comes from racial character, not the other way around. What Islam is today is the result of thousands of years of how those people think and feel about the world. Christianity started as an alien imposition and destroyer of the indigeneous White folkways, but over the millenia we've shaped it to our nature as much or more as it shaped us. So I don't expect the Middle East to change. Kill the buggers, take their stuff, these may be sensible reasons to make war on them, but making war on them to turn them into enlightened Western democracies is crazy.
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
Don:
This war will have strong negative ramifications on America and Americans for many years to come. Right now it is stretching the military to the breaking point and bankrupting America.

Indeed, some would say Bush is the best recruiter bin Laden could ever hope for.

And spending 300 billion dollars- and counting- in order to gain access to Iraq's oil seems a bit weird to me as well. I know our economy needs oil and lots of it, but is it really worth it?
 
Top