Steve Benson for August 23, 2009

What am I missing here? Did I miss a news story?

Veterans of Foreign Wars - “V” means Victory. Killing the Bastards that attack us until they give up and start acting like human beings. War wins Peace. Obma - “V” means the American military is a bunch of killing bastards. We need to send a basket of flowers and apologize to any dictators we may have offended. We didn’t mean to point out that they brutalize their people. Peace not War. Kum Ba Yah.

bewoolner

well said – after that, it’s speculation, which won’t slow this crowd down any lol

I think the cartoon is saying that Veterans are the best people to understand peaceful overtures.

you folks have entirely too much time on your hands to wallowe in the sordid depths of your individual minds, it’s just a cartoon.

Not at my vfw hall .. will u see this sorry wish u it was truth

Around here, nothing’s “just a cartoon”. ;-)

Ok, see, grammar IS important: (where’s English Teacher when you need him/her? Please, come back! I’m sorry I ever doubted you!)

“Not at my vfw hall .. will u see this sorry wish u it was truth”

Is it: “Not at my VFW Hall. Will you see this sorry <….>. You wish it was truth. Or: “Not at my VFW Hall will you see this sorry wish. You <…> it was truth. Or: Not at my VFW Hall will you see this. Sorry, you wish it was the truth.”

At any rate, we have other veterans on this forum, I’m sure they can weigh in.

KarlOSMArkSimOS, have you ever been personally attacked by Iraqis or Afghanis ? As far as I know, neither of these nations have ever attacked the United States (presumably the «us» to which you refer in your posting) - although it may indeed be the case that they did become a bit violent when their own countries were invaded by yours….

Henri

Hmmm, didn’t the V with the back of the hand showing mean “Victory” (you can see your own fingers and thumb)?

Didn’t turning the hand around showing a V with the fingers and thumb exposed to the audience mean “Peace (the signal flasher sees the back of their own hand)?

I seem to remember that distinction being made back in the 60s when the “Peace” signal was so common.

On what do you base that opinion KarlOSMArkSimOS?

Let’s hear it.

KarlO, Here’s a real flag waiver for ya - “for those who have fought for it, Peace shall have a special flavor the protected shall never know.” - Convince me you’ve done anything.

cjr53 - Winston Churchill originally used the back of the hand in his “V for Victory” signal, until one of his people quietly informed him that that is the British equivalent of “the bird.” Thus, he was telling the British people to..um…well… For the next six months, he kept consciously turning it around, but there are some photos of him giving the two-fingered salute to the British people.

I think some folks here have it all backwards. Obama has ordered the military to bring home their fallen in public ceremonies to honor them. Bush, as you may or may not recall, brought them home in secret, prohibiting the press, hoping nobody would notice them. Bush (and Cheney) wanted to pretend everything was nice and tidy and wars have no consequences. They didn’t even include the costs in the budget. Hey look! No cost, no casualties, don’t we have a nifty war?

MHenriDay

“have you ever been personally attacked by Iraqis or Afghanis ? As far as I know, neither of these nations have ever attacked the United States”

Perfectly reasonable question. Did you ask that of Clinton when he bombed Serbian civilians? We should have nothing to do with Darfa? Germany never attacked the US in either war.

There are different mind sets in being a leader and in being a follower. In general the most successful tend to lead.

Germany never attacked the US in either war.

WWi - The torpedoing of the Lusitania was not on America per se, but there were 128 Americans aboard who perished. The Black Tom armory explosion was (and still is) suspected to be German sabotage. Both of these were contributing factors to the US entry into WWI (aside from Wilson’s own reasons for wanting to enter).

WWII - The Germans declared war on the US following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

cdward….no, the biggest factor in the US entering WWI was the Zimmerman telegram.

Furthermore, it was the conservative Republicans who did not want the US to intervene against Hitler, not the Dems.

GNWachs…there’s a slight diffrence. Clinton never said, nor did he even hint that Bosnia-Herzegovina was a threat to the the US.

Such was NOT the case with GW Bush’s invasion of Iraq…anb by the way, the intervention in the Balkans was NOT a full scale invasion,, either.

KarlOSMArkSimOS How about a response? Come on, how you gonna save ‘Murca from our enemies if you can’t face down one, little question?

Simon

Absolutely correct. The Republicans were the isolationists just before WWII. During Bush II the Dems became the isolationists. With Obama in, we increase our presence in Afghanistan.

Personally I think the Republicans in late 1930s were indeed isolationists - they preferred Hitler over Stalin- but the Dems did it for political reasons as we are seeing now that they are in power.

I thought Clinton was wrong then. Also he bombed an aspirin factory- why?

cdward

“WWi - The torpedoing of the Lusitania was not on America per se, but there were 128 Americans aboard who perished.”

So in your view it would have been appropriate for the US to go to war and attack Libya after Lockerbie?

Given

America’s racists past (and present) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racismin_theUnited_States) and The blood poor and middle class people have spilled for the rich, regardless of nationality… there is far more potential for a meeting of minds between Obama and members of the VFW, given they are both being used by super rich ideologues to vilify the newest boogie men – people from the middle east – a usefully vague category.

How ironic Saudi Arabia is not amongst the nations we seek to mold into unregulated capitalism – even though the vast majority of 911 highjackers were Arabians and their laws are incredibly women hating). Must be all the oil they have and how in debt we are to them.

This shell of an empire wont’ last long. At its core the u.s. is consumed with fear, never really aware of how our past hubris has made us the bully boy in the family of nations. Spoiled and greedy, casting our policy and chemical filth all over the world.

Every dawn brings another chance to make amends.

“Now maybe you can apologize to Clinton for trying to stop WWIII.. ”

I didn’t realize that Lewinsky got that mad?

harleyquinn said

To Obama it means apologize and rename. Kind of a slap in the face to those who did put their buts on the front line.

You mean Republican chicken hawks like Draft-Dodger Danny and Deserter George W?

(And before you say something about Cliunton and the draft - Clinton voluntarily gave up his exemption.)

SBW “PS I dropped out of public school in the 10th grade.”

I would never have guessed.

“So in your view it would have been appropriate for the US to go to war and attack Libya after Lockerbie?”

GNW: Aside from leaving out part of the rationale for declaring war against Germany (sabotage inside the USA by German agents), Simon is correct about the Zimmerman telegram being the biggest factor. Having said that, much of the country was against entering that war, and to be honest, if Germany hadn’t insisted it had the right to torpedo our ships, I don’t think we would have. Given the political mess that created WWI, a truly tangled web, it probably would have made more sense for us to stay out.

So no, I don’t think it would have been appropriate to attack Libya after that terrorist attack. Of course, I’m generally against attacking others at all.

cdward

This is getting really weird. I said the entrance of the US into WWI was the impetus for Germany’s defeat. There then followed this series of non sequiturs.

All kinds of discussion re why WWI started etc. Zimmerman, Versailes, etc. Many theories out there but all I said our entrance helped the “allies”.

Hey GNW, get snide with the Seniorbullwinkle if you will but I think you’ve been had or there’s been some serious progress made while others are waiting for Saint Regean’s replacement.

GN Wachs, since when does the word isolatonist mean someone opposed to a war?

It means someone who wants his nation to act unilaterally, the way the conservatives did all through the Bush II years.

You cheered when Bush tore up the ABM treaty, and gleefully bashed the French for not going along with the war in Iraq,

THAT’S how an isolationist behaves, 10-4?

Henri – ‘US’ would be mankind, human beings, the individual. In America the individual reigns supreme through the Constitution. We do not worship or respect Governments or States. Politicians work for “US”, we are not their servants. We are offended by Tyrants, Dictators, and Authoritarians. At times we become so offended by the brutality that we rise up and strike them down. Not because of hate or love of war, but because we care for and love our fellow man. Hopefully you would fight to stop a tyrant from standing on my neck as I would for you.

Humphries – I’ve felt the ground shake at Ben Hua, partied in Saigon, seen the Ho chi Minh Clock in Nakhom Phanom, seen families living in foxholes with the guards in Phnom Penh, seen the sunny beaches of Hue, seen fishing nets in the bay at Da Nang, seen Rolling Thunder and monsoons over Ubon, Udorn, and Korat, seen buffs lumbering off the beaches of Utapoa. Mostly I’ve seen friendly beautiful people everywhere I went, maybe we met, I always had a big smile. They are beautiful places. I also felt sad for the 3 million murdered when we abandoned them.

I’ve seen a man on all fours in the middle of the road being beaten by police in Sicily because he caused an accident; seen mandatory roadblocks in England where police check your papers and inspect your car, then fine you 40 pounds each because your windshield wash was not full or a tire had low pressure. They can pretty much enter your house at anytime for the good of society. Oh how I miss the authority and security of the Motherland (or Fatherland).

@Simon Jester Do you just make up your own definitions?

Wiki

“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

No…do you just cherry pick the answer that dovetails with your point of view?

http://www.answers.com/topic/isolationism

Indeed, an isolationist can be stridently nationalistic, endorse military preparations, sanction certain forms of imperialism, and engage in outright war, particularly in Latin America or the Pacific. At no time did most isolationists seek literally to “isolate” the United States from either the world’s culture or its commerce.

@Simon

I opened your source-answers see above- and these were the first 2 sentences. Cherry picking is ignoring the obvious and going for the obscure.

The definition from your source is exactly what I wrote. What do you want?

“A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. as a historic attitude in the United States can best be defined as opposition to intervention in war outside the western hemisphere, particularly in Europe; to involvement in permanent military alliances; and to participation in organizations of collective security. Above all, isolationists seek to preserve the United States’s freedom of action.”