From Mad Magazine
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Time : 6:30 AM
Courtesy of My friend at
Poetic JusticeTroops in WWI were defended by foxholes...
...troops in Iraq are defended by Fox News.
The Korean War was caused by post-WWII instability...
...the war in Iraq was caused by post-9/11 gullibility.
During the Revolutionary War, a young woman named Molly becuse famous for her pitcher...
...during the Iraq War, a dumb woman named Lynndie because famous for her pictures.
During Vietnam, draft-dodgers abruptly fled the country...
...during Iraq, draft-dodgers corruptly led the country.
In WWII, the liberation of Paris caused songs and revelry...
...in Iraq, the liberation of Baghdad caused bombs and rivalry.
During WWII, the Reich blamed their problems on the Jews...
...during Iraq, the right blames their problems on the news.
A great image of the Revolutionary War is of Washington on a boat, courageously crossing the Delaware...
...a grating image of the Iraq War is of Bush on a boat, outrageously lost and unaware.
During the Gulf War, the Patriot missile was used to repel our enemies...
...during the Iraq War, the Patriot Act is used to repeal our liberties.
Poetry Man is great. good post.
This explains everything. Thank you, thank you very much. As Ive been saying all along liberals arent anti-war, they are anti-Bush.
Now think about this for a moment. Other wars were, whats the word Im looking for...romantic? justifiable? necesaary? Well the poem you all are praising says exactly that.
BUT
This war is bad??? I hope for your sake that you didnt actually read the poem (typical lib m.o. to praise or scold something they didnt read i.e. Coulter) for if you did read this and were not just supporting a fellow bloggers artisitic expression then you have once again exposed yourselves for the hate-mongering frauds that you are.
That being said. I like it. Very creative, full of crap, but creative none the less.
mad magazine always has been,,, creative.
I don't like war, but as the poem points out this is a war being fought for injustice. It is a war being fought against the poor (formerly known as the middle class) for the rich corporate terrorists. It is further a war on dissent and the dissent is against anyone who tries to stop the lies.
Citi. if you want to complain you'll have to stand over there. Yea.. keep going.. this is for your protection.. there, stand behind that fence.
It is not a poem. At least not by me. It is from
Mad Magazine, donkeyhue. You don't understand Mad Magazine and you do not see it for what it is. Fun, yet deadly serious. :>P
I wish I had thought of it! Drat... :>(
I would like to ask you and all your readers a favor. I would like as many Bloggers as possible to check out my site and comment on my most recent post: Bloggers of the World Unite. I understand that this may, at first, appear to be flagrant fishing for readers and obnoxious self-promotion, but that is not my intention. I want to see if I can generate some ideas, and if I can make a few people aware of my little corner of the blogsphere in the process we all win.
Follow BZ to the IntrepidFlame
speaking of mad magazine ... i've been watching 'mad tv' like crazy these days -- i actually think it's far better than SNL. Comedy central runs one after another early weekday mornings -- often two or three in a row.
i've turned into such a major slacker. blogging and watching 'mad tv' ... perfect together.
I love MadTV!
Donkeyhue- This explains everything.Thank you very much!!!!
As I've said before,you dont support the war, you just hate the liberals!
Your logic works far better in the reverse. IF we can call that logic. I won't. Instead of defending the war OR the President which if PRESSED you know you cant- you instead seek to point out gaps in the "uncredible left".
"liberals aren't anti-war, they are anti-Bush."
What next, gonna go on about Clinton's blowjobs to make your point?? YAWN. Prepare to be schooled:
I am not a liberal but I do know it is possible theoretically to oppose a war based on sound reasons and ALSO oppose an administration who not only began the ill conceived war but who has not been held accountable for deception.
This is typical "right talk" instead of judging a war on its merit along a "just war" standard/criteria, instead of reflecting objectively on whether or not this is a cause to send people to die for- you must instead focus on the merits or lack thereof of the opposition-in this case the liberals.
Further, we are not in preschool and are capable of both objectivley disliking the Bush Administration AND the war. You seek to make a point about war-questioning or Bush bashing but instead have made a point about neither.
Wanna discuss the refusal of rational people to pay for books by Hagmeat Coultergeist? Yeah,Ive read few of her books because I don't like vomit in my study. I don't buy books by Jackie Collins either. So? Thats being a consumer. By your logic I cannot dislike Coulter unless I have studied her entire disgusting repertoire?
I didnt realize it was from Mad magazine, which I loved as a kid, but my point holds true.
Lily,
Once again you cant debate the merits or my argument so you criticize my style, and feign boredom because you cant. Thats weak, but I cant really say I expect more.
The only thing that was illogical was you praising a poem that romanticizes past wars and claim to be anti-war. Its a farce, and you are a hypocrite on this issue.
All wars are flawed. No wars have ever gone swimmingly. Your hatred of Bush does not give you a free pass to pick which ones warranted dancing and revelry and which ones deserve scorn. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Now if print this page out and fold A to B for a secret message
c o m
A . . . . . .. . . .. . .
B m i es
Didn't read it? But ,meanwhile the point was that liberals don't read..
YAWN.
A little war comparison for the politically challenged.
Revolutionary War: American colonists fight for self-determination.
WWII: Hitler invades Poland, captures the Sudentland and conquers France. He then begins bombing England. He forms an alliance with Italy and japan in his quest to establish a Third Reich. Also sends millions of people to their deaths in the worst case of genocide ever recorded.
Iraqi War:Saddam..uh, well even though he made no threats against his neighboring countries, didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that the current administration claimed they did, had no links to al Qaeda or 9/11, and only sent about as many people to their deaths as George Bush did as Governor of Texas, he was a bad guy who needed to be taken out, diverting American forces away from Afghanistan and capturing Usama Bin Laden, because he was a bad guy, and he was....a bad guy and well, he had a funny moustache.
There are good wars (unless you think Hitler was a good guy who we should have let have the world)that are well fought and a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq doesn't qualify on the slightest of terms.
WWII was fought to spread Communism, end of story, thats why you hippies romanticize about it. Sen Joe McCarthy was right, as much as you try to villify him. The FDR admin was running amuck with reds, and "Uncle Joe" Stalin couldnt fight both the Krauts and the Nips on two fronts...enter Nephew Sam aka FDR.
...but thats beyond the likes of your grasp.
No wars are just. All wars are just. Its all a matter of perspective. You guys have picked your side. I pick America.
Learn your history b4 you speak to me H and D. Until then pipe down. I have no time for revisionists, I can barely tolerate apologists, and I certainly suffer no fools.
When you think you know something, read more, then come to my site and well explain how you know nothing.
Ill even give you some homework, a heads up, if you will.
Explain the poli-socio cause and ramifications of the US Naval blockad PRIOR to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
(didnt learn that in HIS 101 did ya?)
Typical Lower Life FormWell said H and D, and my point exactly. You know nothing but Hallmark Ideologies, catchphrases, things you read on protest signs as you worry bout how you will spend your trust fund to "save the earth"
Your insults mean nothing. At least LOC, Lily, Glenda et al have a position. Please defend yours, as I did mine...or piss off.
I know facts are like soap to hippies, but try...try harder.
I am troglodyte
Hear me EE-Aw!!
I would like to direct our war optimistic friends to this well written peice on KOS... The take a long hard look in the mirror.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/21/10507/7113
If I may kindly do so, I will redirect you to a book that I honestly think you'd enjoy and appreciate.
"The American Aurora" Trust me. Differing opinions aside, its a must for all bloggers.
I think the monkeyhue missed my point entirely.In WWII we were defending nations from agressive actions taken by an obviously deranged ideology.
In Iraq
we are agressors attacking nations based on an obviously deranged ideology.
I was going to try and avoid discussion with ignoramuses but the sheer stupidity and ignorance of your comment has compelled me to enter the arena one last time.
I would like you to defend your statement:
i would recommend reading something a little more relevant than "The American Aurora"Have you read it?
Do you know what its about (stop googling)?
Why do you think French History is more important than American?
Considering that blogging is a part of the new press, I dont see the irrelelevence of a story about a Paper that fought to keep the press free at a time when laws were enacted specifically to censor dissenting opinions. I could be wrong.
...or maybe going forward we should just burn any books that I recommend for the crime of irrelevance.
Rino-nothingatall,
By using your logic, any nation in the world would have reason to invade the US.
We have WMD.
We have used them in the past.
We are threatening to invade our neighbors.
We have attacked our own people in the past. (By the way the tens of thousands of people killed by Saddam is an inflated number and doesn't come close to matching the half million people who died in Iraq due to US imposed sanctions following the first Gulf War).
A pre-emptive strike is a violation of international law. Since we have flagrantly violated it, it makes us a cruel and despotic regime.
Oh please, the rules don't apply to us. We can use White phospourous on a city and burn people from the inside out. We can fill a soccer field with the bodies of civilians, but oh my god, how dare they shoot at us when we invade their country. Dont they undestand that we have to kill 100,000 or so of them to save them? damn!
Left of Center,
It is better than that. The corporate terrorists are free to starve children to death by charging ridiculous amounts of interest. It is not just the outright corporate terrorist murders that kill, but the starving of children and their parents through interest that also kills. Our course given that the dead people are usually non-white, non-rich, and that it isn't as exciting to watch has some towers filled with rich white people falling over, idiot America doesn't care.
Look at all the giving that idiot america did (following 911)so that some rich white whores could get a disproportionate it amout and go spend it on shopping sprees that will further fund the destruction of non-white children around the world. If you want to help, give your money to those who actually need help and don't charge them interest or demand it back with threats of violence (aka terrorism).
Thank you Hype
For making my point for me.
You really are stupid. Very stupid. Very very very very stupid.
Paine wasnt opinion????
I very rarely dismiss someone so easily, but you my friend are clueless and are a waste of my time, as its apparrent you are either...
in ...
high school
college
denial
or incredibly STUPID
You didnt answer my Q...why?
bcus you cant.
Dont bother replying, you had your chance and failed. You are a kid in a mans world...stick to your Noamchamsdjkj or whatever your hero is today.
Maybe you should read my comments
But you are weak HYPe
I said we fought FOR communism, because we did.
No need to reply as you cant, was fun while it lasted.
You obviously know nothing.
Say something worthwhile or be gone
Very very very very weak.
Did I say very...
Hype you are a child, walk away.
In your dreams you cant debate me.
Walk away.
LOC...I'm gone a few days and you've picked up some new friends...hmmm!
yes, I whent safari! The more the merrier.
So troll by your logic, we must wait until we are attacked by some nut case like saddam before we can shut them down.
so AFTER a nuclear bomb explodes in midtown, THEN we can retaliate.
You see troll, that's where we will never agree. Personally i'd rather kick the crap out of anyone that i think is a threat BEFORE i get hit. If you would rather get punched in your face first, that's ok by me, but if i see someone winding up, i'm not waiting for him to swing.
Now of course i assume you don't have any problem with our war in Afghanistan, because the taliban did attack us first, but what if we had intel that told us they were helping osama to plan and finance 9/11? should we have done something about it first? Or do you think it's the right thing to wait for the towers to come down before we act?
History wasnt your strongest class was it?
In the interest of not giving you a perch, but teaching you how to fish...
I want you to answer that yourself.
Your homework.
What caused the US involvement in II?
Who benefitted most afterwards?
(Ill give you a clue. The answer cant be found in a Speilberg movie)
If you are going to avoid answering the question dont ven bother repsonding with your google jibberish.
Once again...
What caused the US involvement in II?
Who benefitted most afterwards?Take your time, I can wait til Monday if you need the week-end.
I missed a lot apparently.
Its a discussion worth having though.
Donkey , you are correct .. nobody can defeat you're argument, But you fail to mention the reason why.
Simply put , you do not infact have an argument.Or to be more honest I could ask .. WTF are you dribbling on about ?
Btw , that's a rhetorical question , Please do not answer. Having read you're replies to the others on this thread I have already learnt all I need to know about you're pseudo vision of history and I certainly won't be reading you're reply. I will just skip over it.
Saying that , dribble away. Maybe if you give a donkey a keyboard and enough time he will come up with something worth reading...
Just not yet.
PS now I have used a straw man argument against a person whom seems to live on straw man arguments as a means to hide the lack of content in his/her comments.
So using my powers of deduction , let me take a guess that you're next comment will be a straw man attack on ickle old me...
Such a shame I wont be reading it.
Rino,
The Taliban never attacked us, it was allegedly al Qeada, although Usama's rap sheet with the FBI doesn't list it as one of his many crimes. Nor did the Taliban finance the actions of al Qaeda, and were actually eager to get them out of Afghanistan and turn them over to the US until Bill Clinton lobbed a couple of bombs at an aspirin factory there following the bombing of the US Cole (which was another Mossad "false flag" operation. The financing for 9/11 came from Israel through the Pakistan ISI(inter Services Imntelligence). Actually, 9/11 was an inside job between the neocons and the Mossad who needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to implement their agenda of controlling the resources of the Middle East (ie, the oil). Saddam wasn't swinging his arm to hit us and was in fact no threat to any one at all, having been severely weakened under US imposed sanctions following the first Gulf War.
Let me put it to you in a way that you might get through that thick head of yours.
If you're walking down the street and see a suspicious character coming towards you, and you
think he may take a swing at you, and so you "kick the crap" out of them, who would go to jail? In a civilized society (of which we claim to be) one simply cannot have another "kicking the crap" out of whomever they perceive as a threat, just as you can't shoot your neighbor because you think he may be thinking about breaking into your house.Paranoia is not justification for criminal acts, of which, pre-emptive strikes are considered under international law.
As to donkey's question of who benefitted most from WWII, the answer is simple. Zionists, who were looking to create their own state in Palestine received it immediately following the war.
Hype and Troll
Come to The Aurora and we can continue this. LOC has been more than gracious already.
No offense but you obviously know very little, but I will still give you an open forum, heck if you write something substantial Ill even post it (email is on my profile)
I want justification for lauding one war while at the same time denigrating another.
Donkey,
we have given you plenty of reasons why one war is better than another. Obviously you haven't realized this because you are stupid, conservative and lacking the skills to discern your own bias.
Great response troll watcher. The good news is that more and more people are waking up and realizing 911 was an inside job.
