posted
The captioning was stupid and redolent of a donkey, but you must admit that there'd be a helluva lot more criticism of America now than there was then should such a thing happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, Rakeesh, but the photo takes it for granted that criticizing by Americans is treasonous and cowardly, and therefore suggests that we don't have a right to disagree with our country's choice of action, and that there are no possible other reasons for doing so.
(And I don't think the situations are nearly as analogous as all that.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't either. The link is essentially a bumper sticker with a fancier picture. It's taken one idea-that the reaction today would include much more criticism of America than it would have over sixty years ago-and totally tricked and `roided it out to the point where it's totally different and redolent of donkeys.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, I believe that Jay's purpose was not to start a rational conversation, which I believe you and I could have on this topic, but rather to inflame. I would love to have a discussion in another thread, but I don't believe Jay should be rewarded or encouraged for destructive behavior.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I have said in the past I post great stuff like this to see what you all will say about it. It’s always very interesting and intriguing. I found the parallels in the picture with today’s conditions very festinating. It’s rather sobering to see. Not to mention it was so funny!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you have a different strategerie for that than I do. You throw a pie...I throw a pie with razor blades Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I find your willingness to use a national tragedy like Pearl Harbor as a way to make cheap jokes at the expense of your political opponents to be both childish and inappropriate.
Did you stop to think about the many many people who lost loved ones at Pearl? Regardless of their political affiliation, they probably wouldn't want the memory used for such lame political attacks.
I suggest you think beyond your own puerile need to antagonize and think about other people, including the families of killed and injured servicemen, before you use them for your silly purposes.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, hey, fair is fair. Germany wasn't behind 12/7. Nor did they get nuked. Apparently Truman had better aim than comrade Bush.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't it strike you as a bit desperate that Republicans have to reach THAT far into tastelessness to try and make their ridiculous point stick?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, one more fine example of how unfair we can be, and how easy modern technology makes it to attach a political group you don't agree with, with a situation totally dissimilar to our own, and show what "asses" they are for being in the picture you thought of and created yourself.
I kinda feel bad for whoever thought this one up, God should have given them a bigger brain.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention whoever thought it was a good idea to post it here...
...Wait, that was Jay.....
BTW, my Uncle died in WWII, so I really find it a bit offensive that you would post this. Aren't you one of the ones who are always claiming the ones are the insensitive ones regarding the Armed Services? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only person here who sees this as nothing more than a political cartoon, and not much worse than many other political cartoons that are printed every day in papers across the country?
Personally, I laughed.
Edit: I'd also like to add that I forwarded it to my father, whose father served in WWII and who is friends with many WWII vets. I still think he will find it funny. He'll likely print it out and take it to show to his vet friends. The oversensitivity is a little out of hand - or do none of you ever read political cartoons or satire?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Cow on this one (animal power!!). You may not agree with it, and you may be annoyed at Jay most of the time in general, but come on. The sanctimonious posturing is getting a little thick.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the Cow and the Rat. Some things aren't even worth the effort to get offended by. It's just a stupid little political cartoon. Read it, roll your eyes at it, and move on with your life.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every face on the life boat is the face of a man seeking his own advantage first. I saw today that the news was all full of protest and bombings in Iraq as being linked to the elections, they had to work hard to avoid all the hope and quiet over here.
Bob I thought that while we disagreeded you were at least a decent if misguided fellow. Now I think you have slipped beneath my notice. How many WWII pictures showed ships sinking and troops dying with the caption "Somebody Talked"
Now the caption should read "They will not keep silent so our enemies take comfort..."
quote:Every face on the life boat is the face of a man seeking his own advantage first. I saw today that the news was all full of protest and bombings in Iraq as being linked to the elections, they had to work hard to avoid all the hope and quiet over here.
I haven't seen any but the merest blip about the post-election protests. Most of the coverage has been extremely positive.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every face on the life boat is the face of a man seeking his own advantage first.
An interesting exercise is to come up with three politicians who could be in that boat about whom this calumny would be self-evidently and laughably false to everyone.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think it is offensive. For you to call that posturing is ridiculous, Dog.
I am more offended by that phrase than by the cartoon, to be honest.
How many times have people overreacted (IMO) to comments about your religion on this board? Because what they were criticizing MATTERED to you it didn't seem like an overreaction, I am sure...but to a lot of us the response from this board was often disproportionate to the comments...
I said I found the cartoon to be "a bit offensive", but didn't report it, and didn't ask him to remove it. I just thought the fact that he thought it was funny said a lot about his actual attitude towards others, and thought I would mention it.
You don't have the right to decide what people care about, and hearing you describe any of this as "sanctimonious posturing" is insulting and demeaning.
I will remember this the next time you post an honest feeling/opinion about something you care about.
I just get sick of being referred to as unAmerican, upPatriotic, and self serving, when my family and I have sacrificed more for this country than most. If anyone has a right to an opinion about these issues it would be us.
We have earned the right to disagree, thankyouverymuch.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well the "America brought it upon itself" routine is kinda accurate if you postulate thta it was America that was blockading Japan with economic sanctions. In fact Japan's militarism may very well have started with America pressuring England to not renew its Alliance with Japan a decade or so before hand.
Also if you consider that no one was sanctioning Italy of Germany for its militerism until it was too late, you kinda see the position Japan was in.
Though Japan's occupation of Manchuria was wrong, Japan's invasion of China was wrong, however I think we can all safely say that a Unified China would not have been possible without Japan's invasion in the first place. The Sino-Japanese war of 1898 infact helped bring down the Manchu's eventually in 1911 with the foundation of the Republic of China, and eventually in 1949 the People's Republic.
Other then that, aside from remembering Nazi sympathizors like Charles Limburgh there isn't all that much in common. (though charles eventually signed up for the airforce and helped defend the US, so its all good)
IP: Logged |
posted
You do know that SaudiArabia provided 15 of its citizens as part of the 19 9/11 skyjackers -- 80% if the SaudiArabian named as the "missing 20th skyjacker" is counted -- recruited the rest through its international evangelical programs, provided 90%+ of alQaeda's funding, and 100% of alQaeda's ideology. So if 9/11 were the equivalent of PearlHarbor, the nearest 1940s equivalent to Dubya&Gang's actions would have been declaring war on Guam and the Philippines.
More realisticly, you do know that Dubya's grandfather, George's father aided the Japanese militarists and the Nazis in their attempt to arm themselves through evasion of US law. So had Dubya&Gang been in charge during 1940, the US would have allied itself with the Nazis against the British. And Japan would have never been subject to the US&British TradeEmbargo. Thus Japan would have never have had a reason to attack PearlHarbor.
posted
As much as I don't find these types of cartoons conducive to actual discussion - and note that I see as bad or worse going the other way at least once a week - I'll simply confine my remarks to wondering how many people will get as outraged about aspectre's post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: when my family and I have sacrificed more for this country than most.
While I agree with everything else you said in your post, this little tidbit has me wondering. How do you know? I had two grandfathers in WWII, two uncles in Vietnam, and my brother most recently was a Marine. Other than military service, my family has still done much for this nation, especially the efforts of my grandmothers for the war effort in WWII.
I guess my point is, how do you know for sure that your family has sacrificed more than the majority of others? I'm not criticizing, just questioning what sounds to me (without knowing your family situation or history) like hyperbole.
Other than that I agree with you 100%. I think everyone has the right to VOCALLY dissent from whatever the opinion of the day is, regardless of their contribution, it's a native, in born right as an American. I don't mind when people argue with me because they disagree with my point, but when they attack my right to disagree at all, that's when I get pissed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[total tangent] Actually, I think there were sanctions against Italy over their invasion of Ethiopia. Oil embargo, I think it was. [/tangent]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I didn't so much state that the picture was offensive--rather, I (correctly) pointed out that Jay was not interested in a conversation, and so I saw no need to give him one. I think Jay *was* interested in fireworks, but I personally find that manipulative, and I refuse to be his monkey. As for the rest of you, Dance Monkeys, Dance! *clap*
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Actually, I think there were sanctions against Italy over their invasion of Ethiopia. Oil embargo, I think it was."
The embargo was by the League of Nations, of which the US was not a member. And while the US did embargo munitions sales to Italy
quote:Following negotiations of Sir Francis Rickett, a director of Rockefeller's Socony Vacuum Oil Co, with Mussolini, in which it is apparent that the Rockefeller interests assured Il Duce of supplies of oil for a war on Abyssinia in exchange for a thirty year monopoly of the Italian oil market and the ratification of their Ethiopian concession, as well as other considerations, border incidents on December 9, 1934, between Italian and Ethiopian troops, in connection with a dispute over the Italian Somalian frontier, served as a pretext for the waging by Italy of an undeclared war. In the midst of the war, on September 1, 1935, the press announced the text of an Ethiopian concession, negotiated by Sir Francis Rickett, to the African Exploration and Development Co., organized in 1933 as a subsidiary of the Socony Vacuum. The names of Mellon, Mitchell and Teagle were mentioned in connection with the deal, and in the following month, October 15, the press linked an Ethiopian arms order to the Rickett deal. This followed the traditional practise of the Rockefeller Empire, of playing all ends against the center. Shortly thereafter, the British, acting on behalf of the League of Nations, offered Haile Selassie a negotiated peace for surrender to the Italians of the oil-rich Fafan Valley in the Harrar Province---the original 1923 concession to the Rockefeller interests. This was rejected on December 12, 1935. In the meantime, belated economic sanctions were ordered by the League of Nations to go into effect November 18, 1935, and continued until July 15, 1936, after termination of the war. The Rockefeller empire, which had assured Mussolini in advance that no effective sanctions would be applied in respect to that absolute essential of modern war---oil---made good on its assurance. On December 4, 1935, the press announced that the Rockefeller interests would defy the League and supply Mussolini with oil from the Romanian fields; on December 12, Socony Vacuum announced the building of two refineries for Mussolini in Naples; and on January 8, 1936, it was announced that Italy might get oil from Germany.
From: Emmanuel Josephson's Rockefeller, Internationalist -- Chedney Press, New York, 1952, pp. 202-3
posted
The average American family hasn't had 8 members of his family in the service, all within one generation. The average American hasn't served himself.
I am NOT saying only those who have served should ahve an opinion, nor that one families opinion matters more because more of their family members died...
I never said that one had to have any of that to have an opinion on the war....just that I KNOW my family has payed it's own price...in time, in divorces, in blood, and in lives.... to be able to live in America and be able to have our OWN opinions without being accused of being self-serving cowards or traitors.
Not all of my family would agree with some of my points, so even within those who have served there are disagreements about many issues; but the one thing we should all agree on is that we have earned our own rights to act as we believe is right.
Funny thing is that most of the time people making those claims have no idea where I stand on most of the actual issues. Half the time I am not sure, as my opinions are constantly evolving. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just curious. And you're right, I can't imagine anything approaching the average family in America has had that many members in the service all in one generation.
I hope you know I wasn't attacking you or anything, it's just that I hear so many people say the "My family has given more than so and so's family..." line so many times, it starts to lose its meaning when so many people are using it so flagrantly. And either way, I totally agreed with you.
posted
That wasn't what I was trying to say...I have no idea what anyone else has done, or sacrificed. It isn't a "better than your family" thing, but rather a reiteration of the fact that my family has payed it's dues fully, to the best extent of our ability.
Just off the top of my head, I was Army as was my dad and uncle (who died at Omaha Beach); my two other uncles were Navy, my aunt was a full bird in the Marines and was activated for all of Desert Storm. I have had cousins in the Air Force for years now as well, and my SIL was Army as well.
Jenni has a CMH winner in her family tree as well.
My grandma was active in DAR and we had many family members on BOTH sides of the Civil war not come home. My family has lived and died for this country since before it WAS a country, so I think we have a right to say what we believe in if anyone does. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that bothers me about the cartoon is not that it's simplistic (which it is) or that it serves to amuse and outrage people whose minds are made up (which it is) but that it's misleading. The situations aren't even close to being similar (picturing politicians that protested the invasion of Afghanistan immediately after 9-11 might have been closer, but then there weren't as many of those). But by making jokes such as this serious concerns can be mocked and dismissed and people complaining can be accused of not having a sense of humor.
As it is, it's the political equivalent of a fart joke.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The thing that bothers me about the cartoon is ... that it's misleading.
See, this could be said about any movie by Oliver Stone, or most of the "historical" movies that have been made (Pearl Harbor, The New World, Pocahontas, etc, etc...)
Lots of things are misleading. Political cartoons very often so. In fact, their humor is often derived by taking a complex issue and boiling it down to one panel. It either provokes thought, outrage, laughter, or another emotion... but the intent is to be provocative, nonetheless.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
My family has lived and died for this country since before it WAS a country, so I think we have a right to say what we believe in if anyone does. 
