A political cartoon about American propaganda and the Middle East.

[Albert0373]

2039

You can't fool us again. Or can you?

"Islamo facism is the greatest threat this country has ever faced" -Huckabee
"The Caliphate want to take over the entire world"-Romney
"Their regime (Iran) is too irresponsible. The world would be in too much danger" -Guiliani
""U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."-Hillary Clinton

We're so f*****...

Oh yeah, that reminds me...
"fool me one...shame on you. fool me twice...you can't get fooled again."
Sounds familiar? Hahah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

[netwrangler]

I was going to reply that the correct quote was, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Good thing I went to the youtube link first. That's too funny.

Course, most of the rest of your post isn't funny at all. [pause while a virtual parent-parent transaction takes place] Ain't it awful?

[MyRightEye]

:)

[TonyM]

I had a discussion about this very topic with some friends over an early breakfast following a night of debauchery in the name of a bachelor party (just setting the scene) a couple of days ago. Anyhow, many good points made and my closing comment was that if the GOP ever hopes to be in control of the Presidency anytime within the next decade they absolutely will not engage Iran in warfare.

How many Republicans will stay by dubya's side on this one? Not many I'd wager. There was also a Democratic congresswoman on Bill Maher the other night and she said that there is absolutely no way that a war with Iran will receive congressional approval, however Maher pointed out that the Democrats had already done a terrible job of standing up to this administration, obviously we can take the Congresswoman's words with a grain of salt.

[madcowdisease]

I had a discussion about this very topic with some friends over an early breakfast following a night of debauchery in the name of a bachelor party (just setting the scene) a couple of days ago. Anyhow, many good points made and my closing comment was that if the GOP ever hopes to be in control of the Presidency anytime within the next decade they absolutely will not engage Iran in warfare.

How many Republicans will stay by dubya's side on this one? Not many I'd wager. There was also a Democratic congresswoman on Bill Maher the other night and she said that there is absolutely no way that a war with Iran will receive congressional approval, however Maher pointed out that the Democrats had already done a terrible job of standing up to this administration, obviously we can take the Congresswoman's words with a grain of salt.

So are you implying, perhaps, that the Democrats are the better choice for the executive branch for the fact they might wage war? Does anyone here believe Iran is not developing a bomb with all of their threatening rhetoric?

[MyRightEye]

So are you implying, perhaps, that the Democrats are the better choice for the executive branch for the fact they might wage war? Does anyone here believe Iran is not developing a bomb with all of their threatening rhetoric?

Who CARES if they are? One bomb? Ok, maybe 6 or 7. Russia had 40,000 during the cold war, and we seemed to do ok. So let them have their freakin bomb. They know as well as anyone, that if they ever USE it, Iran will be a pool of molten earth for decades to come. WHY are we so afraid about one stupid man with one stupid bomb when we have THOUSANDS!!

Besides that, Israel will beat us to the punch. Before Iran's nuclear launch hits CNN, Iran will no longer exist.

Nuclear launch hitting CNN... hang on, I think I'm on to something here :)

[netwrangler]

So are you implying, perhaps, that the Democrats are the better choice for the executive branch for the fact they might wage war? Does anyone here believe Iran is not developing a bomb with all of their threatening rhetoric?Criticism of one Party does not necessarily mean the other Party could do better. It means the Party criticized should do better.

Who CARES if they are? One bomb? Ok, maybe 6 or 7. Russia had 40,000 during the cold war, and we seemed to do ok. So let them have their freakin bomb. They know as well as anyone, that if they ever USE it, Iran will be a pool of molten earth for decades to come. WHY are we so afraid about one stupid man with one stupid bomb when we have THOUSANDS!!

Besides that, Israel will beat us to the punch. Before Iran's nuclear launch hits CNN, Iran will no longer exist.

Nuclear launch hitting CNN... hang on, I think I'm on to something here :)Yeah, right.

Walk through the sequence of If-Thens and figure out what your life would be like after Iran becomes "a pool of molten earth." If you think it wouldn't change much, better walk through that sequence again.

IMHO, we need to use more diplomacy, but diplomacy appears to be a lost art. The Reps don't trust diplomacy — maybe because they lack the necessary skills to use it effectively. The Dems are afraid to back a diplomatic approach that strongly for fear of appearing "soft" on whatever. So the best tool we have never makes it to the job site.

"It's a fine mess you've gotten us into this time, Ollie" -- Stan Laurel

[TonyM]

I agree pretty much with the two previous posts in response to MCDs query.

Why is it that the only country to use a WMD is the one dictating who else can have one? Why was North Korea not threatened with an armed response if they did not stop their nuclear develpment? How many years have we been pushing Iran around now? And we still can't understand why their government does not like the U.S. and her allies? Are we really that stupid collectively?

I think it is useful to imagine ourselves in the shoes of those we do not understand in order ot gain some perspective on the situation.

Mr. Carlin, a man whose way with words I greatly admire put it best I think, when he said the following about this subject:


Rockets and Penises in the Persian Gulf

History Lesson - I'd like to talk a little about that 'war' we had in the
Persian Gulf. Remember that? The big war in the Persian Gulf? Lemme tell you
what was goin' on.

Naturally, you can forget all that entertaining fiction about having to
defend the model democracy those lucky Kuwaitis get to live under. And for
the moment you can also put aside the very real, periodic need Americans
have for testing their new weapons on human flesh. And also, just for the
fun of it, let's ignore George Bush Sr.'s obligation to protect the oil
interests of his family and friends. There was another, much more important,
consideration at work. Here's what really happened.

Dropping a Load for Uncle Sam.

The simple fact is that America was long overdue to drop high explosives on
helpless civilians; people who have no argument with us whatsoever. After
all, it had been awhile, and the hunger gnaws. Remember that's our
specialty: picking on countries that have marginally effective air forces.

Yugoslavia is another, more recent example.

Surfing Unnecessary

But all that aside, let me tell you what I liked about that Gulf War: it was
the first war that appeared on every television channel, including cable.

And even though the TV show consisted largely of Pentagon war criminals
displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense,
because we like war. We're a warlike people. We can't stand not to be
phuking with someone. We couldn't wait for the Cold War to end so we could
climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy
war.

And one reason we enjoy it is that we're good at it. You know why we're good
at it? Because we get alot of practice. This country is only 200 years old,
and already we've had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty
years, So we're good at it!

And it's just as well we are, because we're not very good at anything else.
Can't build a decent car anymore. Can't make a TV set, a cell phone, or a
VCR. Got no steel industry left. No textiles. Can't educate our young
people. Can't get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the $hit
outta your country, all right. We can bomb the $hit outta your country!

If You're Brown, You're Goin Down

Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't
we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing
brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in
your country? Tell 'em to watch the phuk out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!

Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In
fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's
it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to
cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world.

Bu11$hit! That's our job. That's our phukin' job.

But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people.
And not because they're cutting in our action; we do it because they're
brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren't really white, are
they? Naaah! They're sort of down near the swarthy end of the white
spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I'm still waiting for the day we bomb
the English. People who really deserve it.

A Disobediant American

Now you folks might've noticed, I don't feel about that Gulf War the way we
were instructed to feel about it by the United States government. My mind
doesn't work that way. You see, I've got this real moron thing I do, it's
called 'Thinking'. And I guess I'm not a very good American, because I like
to form my own opinions; I don't just roll over when I'm told. Most
Americans roll over on command. Not me, There are certain rules I observe.

Believe You Me

My first rule: Never believe what anyone in authority says. None of them.
Government, Police, clergy, the corporate criminals. None of them. And
neither do I believe anything I'm told by the media, who, in the case of the
Gulf War, functioned as little more than unpaid employees of the Defense
Department, and who, most of the time, operate as unofficial public
relations agency for the government and industry.

I don't believe in any of them. And I have to tell you, folks, I don't
really believe very much in my country either. I don't get all choked up
about yellow ribbons and American flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave
them to the symbol-minded.

Show us your Dick

I also look at war itself a little differently from most. I see it largely
as an exercise in dick-waving. That's really all it is: alot of men standing
around in a field waving their dicks at one another. Men, insecure about the
size of their penises, choose to kill one another.

That's also what all that moron athlete ******** is all about, and what that
macho, male posturing and strutting around in bars and locker rooms
represents. It's called 'dick fear.' Men are terrified that their dicks are
inadequate, and so they have to 'compete' in order to feel better about
themselves. And since war is the ultimate competition, essentially men are
killing one another in order to improve their genital self-esteem.

You needn't be a historian or a political scientist to see the Bigger Dick
Foreign Policy Theory at work. It goes like this: 'What? They have bigger
dicks? Bomb them!' And of course, the bombs, the rockets, and the bullets
are all shaped like penises. Phallic weapons. There's an unconscious need to
project the national penis into the affairs of others. It's called 'phuking
with people'

Show us your Bush

So as far as I'm concerned, that whole thing in the Persian Gulf was nothing
more than one big dick-waving cockfight.

In this particular case, Saddam Hussein questioned the size of George Bush's
dick. And George Bush had been called a wimp for so long, he apparently felt
the need to act out his manhood fantasies by sending America's white
children to kill other people's brown children.

Clearly the worst kind of wimp.

Even his name, 'Bush', as slang, is related to the genitals without being
the genitals.

A bush is sort of a passive, secondary sex characteristic. It's even used as
a slang term for women: 'Hey, pal, how's the bush in this area?'

I can't help thinking, if this president's name had been George
Boner...well, he might have felt a little better about himself, and he
wouldn't have had to kill all those children. Too bad he couldn't locate his
manhood.

Premature Extraction

Actually, when you think about it, this country has had a manhood problem
for some time. You can tell the language we use; language always gives us
away. What did we do wrong in Vietnam? We 'pulled out'! Not a very manly
thing to do. No. When you're phuking people, you're supposed to stay with it
and phuk them good; phuk them to death; hang in there and keep phuking them until they're all phuking dead.

But in Vietnam what happened was by accident we left a few women and
children alive, and we haven't felt good about ourselves since.

That's why in the Persian Gulf, George Bush had to say, 'This will not be
another Vietnam.' He actually said, 'this time we're going all the way.'

Imagine. An American president using the sexual slang of a thirteen-year-old
to describe his foreign policy.

And, of course, when it got right down to it, he didn't 'go all the way.'
Faced with going into Baghdad he punked out. No balls. Just Bush.

Instead, he applied sanctions, so he'd be sure that an extra half a million
brown children would die. And so his oil buddies could continue to fill
their pockets.

If you want to know what happened in the Persian Gulf, just remember the
first names of the two men who ran that war: Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.

Dick and Colon.

Someone got phuked in the ass.

And those brown people better make sure they keep their pants on, because
Dick and Colin have come back for an encore.

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran-against-egypt.htm