Satire Cartoon and Discussion

[mawilson 2,133]

[MHandMB 0]

nice.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[doodlebug 3]

What does this have to do with the article?

[RAKASA 0]

What does this have to do with the article?

not a dang thing.... just ole mawilson stirring up chit!

[allousa 1]

Hmmm....you must be part of the small minority of the 20 something percent that still supports the idiot that is "ruining" our country.

Don't even come to the MENA forums unless you are ready to debate how the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East for the last 50 years has contributed to the destablization of the Middle East. Obviously when you post ####### like that, you are generously ignorant of the blind support we had for Bin Laden during the Afghanistan War with Russia, the support of Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 70's, the support of the Saudi Family while they starve their own people and keep them in poverty, the blind support of Israel in their brutalization of the Palestinians and the destruction of Lebanon in the 80's and again for the last couple of years. Care for me to go on?

The killing of innocents through terror attacks IS wrong...but...continuing the violence does nothing but make it worse.

It is EXACTLY the kind of ####### that you are posting that perpuates the hatred on both sides. You are NO different than those you are suggesting to be eradicated.

PATHETIC!!!!

[caybee 21]

I read the graphic as irony, whether intended as such or not.

Huh...I read mawilson's cartoon as being critical of US foreign policy (in a sarcastic way)...

Yup, me too.

[Jenn! 918]

Huh...I read mawilson's cartoon as being critical of US foreign policy (in a sarcastic way)...

Yes, I agree. And I'm not one to defend mawilson... Though I am surprised...

It is funny how the reaction can depend on the poster. I wonder if the sarcasm would have been more obvious had I posted it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes, I agree. And I'm not one to defend mawilson... Though I am surprised...

It is funny how the reaction can depend on the poster. I wonder if the sarcasm would have been more obvious had I posted it.

Indeed.

[allousa 1]

I've seen this graphic before in forums that are very anti-Muslim and beligerent Arab bashing. That is why I didn't see any irony in this at all.

How would people feel if the word "Muslim" was replaced by "Jew" or "Christians"?

I don't know mawilson's intent as I do not know this person. Like I said, this isn't the first time I have seen this graphic.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

If the pic had been posted in a thread about civilian casualties in the Iraq war, for instance, the context *might* have been clearer. Posted so abruptly in this thread, with no connection to the topic other than the word "Muslim," it did not come across as a "sarcastic" comment to many of us. Also, mawilson has posted plenty of comments about the Iraq war being "necessary" for Western domination of its resources, and has also made comments supporting a similar action in Iran. Perhaps he was "joking" then, too.

Anyway, context and the right timing cannot be over-emphasized, at least if you want to be successful posting graphics !

(Notice that the maker of this pic could not even spell "civilian" properly ? LOL FTW)

[mawilson 2,133]

If the pic had been posted in a thread about civilian casualties in the Iraq war, for instance, the context *might* have been clearer. Posted so abruptly in this thread, with no connection to the topic other than the word "Muslim," it did not come across as a "sarcastic" comment to many of us. Also, mawilson has posted plenty of comments about the Iraq war being "necessary" for Western domination of its resources, and has also made comments supporting a similar action in Iran. Perhaps he was "joking" then, too.

WoM,

I wasn't really joking. You know as well as I do that the real reason for Bush's

invasion of Iraq was to establish a permanent military presence in the region and

secure our continued access to natural resources. The only two obstacles left

to a geographically contiguous U.S. sphere of influence (from Poland to Pakistan)

are Iran and Syria. Syria is a nothing country (militarily) that leans on Iran for

strength, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iran is going to be dealt with

next. You're not really buying the WMD story or the "spreading democracy" story,

are you?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

WoM,

I wasn't really joking. You know as well as I do that the real reason for Bush's

invasion of Iraq was to establish a permanent military presence in the region and

secure our continued access to natural resources. The only two obstacles left

to a geographically contiguous U.S. sphere of influence (from Poland to Pakistan)

are Iran and Syria. Syria is a nothing country (militarily) that leans on Iran for

strength, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iran is going to be dealt with

next. You're not really buying the WMD story or the "spreading democracy" story,

are you?

No no NO to every single one of these hypotheses. ####### are you doing, trying to spin me as "agreeing" with your absurd premise that this war was for oil ? That is absolutely not the case -- I categorically do not support that theory. Oil may have been dangled as a carrot/side benefit, but it was certainly not the main impetus for this war.

Fact: the U.S. (and Britain, too) were being much better served by buying Iraqi oil -- BUYING it the old-fashioned way -- and at a much cheaper cost to the American public and to America's interests than launching this disasterous war.

Quite frankly, the gang who pushed for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are a cabal of dual-loyalty traitors -- people like Douglas Feith, David Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Dov Zakheim, L. Lewis Libby, David Wurmser, and many more -- who clamored to "take out Saddam" to serve the interests of a foreign nation, NOT the U.S. they were supposedly working for. This foreign nation is the same one which demands to be the sole regional superpower in the Middle East, the same nation whose ultimate hegemony to invade and terrorize and annex land from its neighbors *might* have been constrained by Iraq and *might* still be constrained by Iran, and the same nation which just *happens* to be situated at the end of the old Haifa pipeline (shut down since 1948) which this nation fervently hopes will soon re-open, sending cheap oil flowing into its control to middle-man out to Mediterranean tankers, where it can take a generous cut for itself, and collect lots of free money in the process.

The core members of this group -- Perle, Wolfowitz and Wurmser -- published their blueprint of the master plan back in 1996, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Removing Saddam Hussein was only the first step, which would then follow with eliminating the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Only the realm they were working for wasn't the United States. They were advising the same foreign nation mentioned above.

All of the "gang" either had or soon obtained positions working in or advising the Bush administration. Their neocon think-tank "Project for a New American Century" cut and pasted the very same plan they had created for the foreign nation, and sent it off in a letter to George W. Bush on September 20, 2001, urging a war on Iraq "even if evidence did not link Iraq to the attack." Essentially, they clamored for the U.S. to act a proxy in order to advance the program they had developed for that foreign nation. And the Dumbass-in-Chief went for it, in total disregard for the counsel of much more circumspect advisors, seasoned military experts, experienced oilmen, even his own father. All who happened to be LOYAL AMERICANS, who put the interests of OUR country first.

I do not wish to derail this thread any further off-topic, but your post required a response. Back to topic, or start a new thread.

[mawilson 2,133]

Quite frankly, the gang who pushed for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are a cabal of dual-loyalty traitors -- people like Douglas Feith, David Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Dov Zakheim, L. Lewis Libby, David Wurmser, and many more -- who clamored to "take out Saddam" to serve the interests of a foreign nation, NOT the U.S. they were supposedly working for. This foreign nation is the same one which demands to be the sole regional superpower in the Middle East, the same nation whose ultimate hegemony to invade and terrorize and annex land from its neighbors *might* have been constrained by Iraq and *might* still be constrained by Iran, and the same nation which just *happens* to be situated at the end of the old Haifa pipeline (shut down since 1948) which this nation fervently hopes will soon re-open, sending cheap oil flowing into its control to middle-man out to Mediterranean tankers, where it can take a generous cut for itself, and collect lots of free money in the process.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

Iraq posed no real threat to Israel ever since the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Iraqi

nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. During the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraqi Scud missiles

rained down on Tel-Aviv, Israel didn't retaliate only because US military leaders pleaded

with them to turn the other cheek. Israeli retaliation would have fractured the ever so

fragile "US-Arab coalition."

So no, don't give me your usual "it's Israel's fault that the sky is blue" rhetoric.

And no, the war was not "for oil" -- it's part of a bigger and much more ambitious plan.

[mawilson 2,133]

The core members of this group -- Perle, Wolfowitz and Wurmser -- published their blueprint of the master plan back in 1996, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Removing Saddam Hussein was only the first step, which would then follow with eliminating the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Only the realm they were working for wasn't the United States. They were advising the same foreign nation mentioned above.

All of the "gang" either had or soon obtained positions working in or advising the Bush administration. Their neocon think-tank "Project for a New American Century" cut and pasted the very same plan they had created for the foreign nation, and sent it off in a letter to George W. Bush on September 20, 2001, urging a war on Iraq "even if evidence did not link Iraq to the attack." Essentially, they clamored for the U.S. to act a proxy in order to advance the program they had developed for that foreign nation. And the Dumbass-in-Chief went for it, in total disregard for the counsel of much more circumspect advisors, seasoned military experts, experienced oilmen, even his own father. All who happened to be LOYAL AMERICANS, who put the interests of OUR country first.

The Middle East was always a key battleground in the hostility between the United States and

the Soviet Union. If you think the Cold War is over, think again. Look at Russia’s geopolitical

ambitions in the region and you will understand the importance of a permanent US military

presence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.