Clever Anti-War Posters

[skechers]

Since your question on vietnam went unanswered I will give you one.We accomplished getting over 50,000 americans killed and who knows how many vietnamease,probably over a million.Then we left defeated,as it should have been since we had no buisness being there.

Some people knew better even at the time.

Muhammad Ali and the Vietnam War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUk5LRvzjmw

Weird, we both mentioned Ali in different contexts. Hahaha.

 

[CunningStunts]

Anti-war = pacifism

I don't see how there are any left according to Darwinism... shouldn't they all be dead, killed by the pro-war people?

Or maybe it's a new thing, a very trendy, hip new thing?

 

[Friday on my mind]

Anti-war = pacifism

Not always,think Ali was a softy pacifist?

What a lot of the right wing "tough" guys miss is not everyone who is against imperialistic wars is unwilling to fight under any and all circumstances.We just think their are times when it makes no sense and conflict is counter productive or even fighting for the wrong thing.

Hitler,Tojo and lots of others before them have been pro-war ,how'd that work for them?
Lets see,both bombed back to the stone age and it took decades with help from the people that put them that way to recover.

 

[bustybbwlover]

anti-war doesn't necessarily equal pacifism, i'm for war that makes sense, like say in afghanistan or darfur. i'm all for stopping terrorists or genocides but not so much for destroying non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Jagger69]

Both of my uncles were in Vietnam, my cousins did the first and second gulf wars, so you will easily understand why I side with pro war people.

I think that, in Georges inimitable fashion, he illustrates how differently people may define what the "other side" concerning this issue stands for. Georges says he sides "with pro war people". So, as someone who is anti-war, I should think that Georges actually LOVES war, right? I mean, by his own admission he is PRO WAR (literally, in favor of war!). So, hell, let's start a fucking war just for laughs, huh? War is fun and exciting and adventurous and it gives us an opportunity to go kick someone's ass who so thoroughly deserves it, right? War rocks!!!

That's not what he means though (I think, at least! :1orglaugh). He means he supports war as an alternative to being subjugated or, taking it a bit further, when interests for which he feels he has a vital stake in are being jeopardized, war is a perfectly reasonable and logical response.

Anti-war people like me do not disagree with that as long as certain conditions are in place. For me (and please understand that I don't pretend to speak for others who may be like-minded or, alternatively, unconditionally pacifist under any circumstances), the only conditions where war is a possible considered course of action are as follows:

1) When there is an immediate, clear and present threat to the safety and security of my country.

2) When that threat is plainly identified and the responsible parties presenting the threat are clearly defined.

3) When there is absolutely no diplomatic, economic or alternative preemptive approach that would negate the need for a military response to avert said threat.

It's that simple in my book. So....Georges and any other "pro war" people.....do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then what other justification for military force would be in place for you to be willing to commit your nation's troops to the obvious dangers of war?

Likewise, other anti-war advocates....are there absolutely NO circumstances under which you would consider a military response to be appropriate? If there are, how would they differ from the simple conditions I outlined?

I'd like to know if all of the "anti-war" and "pro-war" people are really in totally separate mindsets or if, after all is said and done, we are really just bogging ourselves down in semantics. My suspicion is the latter....at least as far as the majority of us are concerned.

Now, as to what would actually constitute components of the justifiable conditions for war that I submitted....that's where I would imagine the real debate would be waged.

Am I wrong here? If so, set me straight, everyone.

 

[DukeLaCrosse]

^

Nice writ ! Have a brew with Styro, Bob, Doug & I.


:glugglug: :beer:

take off you hoser

 

[Member2019]

Obviously, you don't realize one of the three, major things ...

Anti-war = pacifism
I don't see how there are any left according to Darwinism... shouldn't they all be dead, killed by the pro-war people?
Or maybe it's a new thing, a very trendy, hip new thing?

Obviously you don't realize one of the three, major things the US was really founded on (and not the popular assumptions) ...

- Civilians will always dictate policy to the military, and never the other way around, ever

The US is still the only, major nation in the world of at least a few hundred years old where the military has always been submissive to civilian and elected leaders.

By that very nature, the US has the most active set of protesters, activists and outspoken civilians who can freely do so in total defiance of its own policies. This includes legally allowing rallies be organized and paid for by non-American entities, which regularly happens.

I always laugh when people complain about the Republican party organizing some of the most recent protests. Several, non-US based socialist parties were directly responsible for organizing several protests during the W. administration, especially early on after 9/11 and then Iraq.

We actually don't have any laws forbidding such, although the Freedom of Information Act was finally amended to allow only American citizens to make requests. For years the overwhelming majority of information requests were made by foreign nationals not even living in the US.

As far as this "campaign," I don't find it very original at all. There's been a lot of "reuse" of things from Vietnam and earlier. E.g., during the Clinton administration, a lot of conservatives dug up the "Who would Jesus bomb?" bumper stickers -- first seen during Vietnam -- for the countless number of cruise missile deployments and air strikes made against countless nations over those 8 years.

I find it very ironic that the same Europeans who are complaining about US troops in Iraq are the same ones that were complaining during the Clinton administration about the US "bombing from afar" without "putting boots on the ground, in harms way." I don't even bother revisiting the Suez Incident with those folk.

 

[Facetious]

^It's important for you to realize, that I am not criticizing your uncles for being soldiers, and serving in the military. But... What exactly did we accomplish in Vietnam?

We cannot police the world.

It's also important for Janet Napolitano to realize that returning veterans that happen to disagree with the radical policies employed by the president should not be seen in such a negative light that she threaten to place them on domestic terror watch lists.

 

[baneblade]

Watch those "leftist" "right-wing" "hippie" "liberal" "conservative" tags, folks. labels are the devil. They shut books.

i agree. i hate all the knee-jerk partisan rah rah bullshit.
everyone trying to categorize you and propagandize for their side
everybody parroting their party line

it is crap. whatever happened to being reasonable? whatever happened to making your own choice on issues

 

[assholebythedoor]

I think the war is just out of hand. And there shouldnt be a war. Sending more troops wont solve anything. Everything that is over there is. The same as it would be if it were over here. As in, espionage, which was the reason we lost vietnam war. I think that it was our side, and it shouldn't be hard to tell exactly who it was. I don't support the war, I think war is wrong. Standing up for your country is right, and if you have to go over seas and fight in a war. It should be your choice. Or things will just end up going wrong.

 

[baneblade]

I think the war is just out of hand. And there shouldnt be a war. Sending more troops wont solve anything. Everything that is over there is. The same as it would be if it were over here. As in, espionage, which was the reason we lost vietnam war. I think that it was our side, and it shouldn't be hard to tell exactly who it was. I don't support the war, I think war is wrong. Standing up for your country is right, and if you have to go over seas and fight in a war. It should be your choice. Or things will just end up going wrong.

uh... what? seriously man, your post makes very little sense. is english your first language?

 

[assholebythedoor]

What else, do you think I could say?

 

[assholebythedoor]

I joined an went directy over seas to the front line and faught while my bergade left me. All the ones I came in with left. Because it is the same as it is over here. They don't care. When they see were outnumbered, they leave. I'm not talking about, anything but thats how people lose their lives. Car bombs, and explovies are different, but I'm talking about hand to hand combat.

 

[baneblade]

What else, do you think I could say?

this also doesn't make much sense. what is with the unnecessary comma?
no offense, but did you graduate high school?

 

[assholebythedoor]

and you know something else. when it comes to espionage the lines got SWitched in the begginger so, when they act out in trying to figure it out. they have to do it all manually. and that would take a while I guess.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I didn't get a chance to graduate but at the Recuiting phacility I passed the test.

 

[assholebythedoor]

the first time I tryed to take the test, I failed by pretty much a lot. and then, a year later, I talked to an recruit at the country fair and I signed up. Then a week later, they woke me up.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I actually, don't have any regrets.

 

[assholebythedoor]

I have regrets for our country. Because our country is entirely not functing properly. As a nation we are behind. Its not any particular peoples faught if they can not keep up. Only if they get in the way. We don't need an explaination why. What we need is a reason. I'm not clear on that. But I do know we need something in a form of retribution. To contribue to our losses. Because, if I didn't say that right, Which I think those are the words I should have said. It's layed out to where you have to have been there. Or you will just be stating others.

 

[curiousWAN]

What are we doing now? Who's running this show? It's basically a hapless seige, on many a different ground, without the necessary resourses- or recourses for that matter. We're running short on stamina, on support and on ideas.

say, you are ruling by nihilists. who doesn't care about troops or "the spirit of america" or democracy or whatever. they don't give a flying fuck about how many usa soldiers died there, how much ammo have been used etc. (that's all the weapon industry wants, right?)

you invaded iraq, divided it into three or more weak ass parts and the only real authority there is you. do you think, the oil there is not under your control by now by secret pacts or whatever?

that's crystal clear to me. and you are illusioned and stunned by the idea of democracy. that's the fact. the most extreme thing you can do to change the things, walking in the streets with a banner in your hand. now, i'm not suggesting anything else here but is this enough? really, is this the perfect regime?