Finding relevance in yesteryear's Suess cartoons
Always on Watch's post reminded me of a conversation I had in a Mike's America post, where Chatterbox mentioned about the relevance of Dr. Suess WWII era cartoons to today. Mike provided a link from which I took liberties to give a facelift to one, and have elected to post the following collection as still relevant to our situation today.
Also blogging on this:
The Chatterbox Chronicles
Labels: political cartoons, Seuss, Wars
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 2/05/2007 10:39:00 AM
16 Comments:
I will go visit LMC. I usually visit her once a day. She's very good.
These cartoons are absolutely wonderful, Wordsmith. Most of them have been snagged, of course! I'll leave you a hat tip whenever I post one. Isn't it amazing how nothing has changed over the years? Sheesh! You would think people would wise up. Perhaps if we all lived to be 500 years old most of us would be able to remember more history personally, although I doubt it, considering the fact that so many have already forgotten 9/11! :(
The thing that scares me the most about the appeasement crowd is what happens when the time comes that we absolutely have to deal with Iran? And that time is a lot closer than most think. Because clearly they aren't equipped with the ability to discern what the threats to this country truly are.
We don't have the luxury of isolationism anymore. That all ended on 9/11. And these people seem ready to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that we are at war - whether we are actively fighting or not.
You found some good ones that I hadn't seen. Thanks for the link and I got you linked as well.
I will come back and look at the Cartoons later but I thought you would be thrilled to know this: We did it!! I dont believe it!!
Republicans Nix Full Senate Debate On Surge
Wow! I'm not known for dishing up superlatives, but again, an outstanding job of reminding people that history DOES repeat itself.
I was going to say this was my favorite:
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1048/1195/1600/909507/20701cs.jpg
But they are ALL so good.
Great cartoons, Wordsmith. Amazing.
Fantastic Word!!!! I love these cartoons, I guess the old adage is still relevent; The more things change the more things remain the same.
Keep up the pressure, I think in our small way that somehow all of us out here doing what we do and writing what we write has had an effect on those normally linguini spined Republicans the guts to hold the the line on the Iraq Resolution.
Amazing cartoons - thank you for sharing them with us!
So, several of these reference giving up "the easy life" and "all of us sacrificing," and it made me wonder: What exactly are you thinking we should sacrifice and what exactly are you sacrificing? (A general question, not just to wordsmith).
On a related note, I also wonder: Many of these reference appeasers and folk are saying we can't afford isolationism (which I agree with). But if it's costing us half a trillion dollars a year just to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, I wonder how large a military budget are you calling for so that we aren't isolationists (keeping in mind the genocides and oppression happening in Darfur, Rwanda, Liberia and elsewhere): How large would you have our military be?
Two sincere questions to anyone who'd like to answer them.
What exactly are you thinking we should sacrifice and what exactly are you sacrificing? (A general question, not just to wordsmith).
Dan, I doubt anyone else is going to come by and respond, because this post is already pushed from the top and I don't know how many of my readers are repeat visitors to the same post.
The level of sacrifice is up to the individual and I don't disparage anyone who does nothing more than feel in his heart, deep appreciation and acknowledgement for the service that our military provides on behalf of all of us who do not serve. It's one reason why the chickenhawk argument is silly. It is because, no doubt, some of us are indeed chicken, that we often express gratitude to those who serve, unlike, say, William Arkin. There is nothing wrong with being a coward on the field of battle. But there is something wrong with those cowards who are ingrates in acknowledging that without the military, they would not be able to continue living in the prosperity that they do.
Everyone can contribute of themselves, whether it be writing letters, funding military charities and suppport groups, sending care packages, thanking a soldier and paying for their meal, and yes....being good cheerleaders for morale with blogposts honoring their service and sacrifice, and "spreading the word" on the good that our military is doing. The MSM likes to place emphasis on such things as abu Ghraib and the Haditha marines. Don't underestimate the significant contribution of spreading pro-military "propaganda" and the good news of what they accomplish.
Finally, since you asked, I will take it personally. I've tried to keep this relatively mum, but I am in the middle of joining the national guard. My first pick is military intelligence; but also on my list of choices is combat infantry and cavalry scout. I would love to train in all 3 of these MOS fields. And if called to deploy or volunteer, It would be an honor to serve overseas. I have arrived at this decision not because I am hard-up financial or because of education benefits, but because I want to serve in a time of what I perceive to be grave danger for our country.
I turn 39 at the end of this month, Dan. I might make a blogpost by then, explaining my feelings in full.
On a related note, I also wonder: Many of these reference appeasers and folk are saying we can't afford isolationism (which I agree with).
Do you not like these cartoons, or something? Do they irk you, or just their use in being applied in support of my rightwing politics, without Suess' permission to do so?
But if it's costing us half a trillion dollars a year just to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, I wonder how large a military budget are you calling for so that we aren't isolationists (keeping in mind the genocides and oppression happening in Darfur, Rwanda, Liberia and elsewhere): How large would you have our military be?
I believe the number one priority of federal government is providing for the national security. As I mentioned in a previous thread to you, as a percentage of GDP, our military spending is something under 4%.
Here's how I responded you to last time you posed that question:
I don't know about the next 25; but I do know we spend more than all the other nations. I also know that every time I see the bumpersticker "books not bombs", I think about all the wasteful spending; how we keep throwing money at education, as if money is the answer; how we spend just about as more on education already, than we do on national defense.
Because of the cuts to our military in the previous decade, I think we need to build our military back up. I agree with the President, that we must increase the size of our all-volunteer military for the next few years.
I don't mean we need to build more nukes; but funding the "Star Wars" program and finding solutions (both military and otherwise) to combating modern 21st century global terrorism is what I support. Our intelligence is sorely lacking. I believe the number of FBI agents with language skills in Arabic and farsi are no better than they were 5 years ago.
I don't have a specific figure in my head, Dan, on how much we should be spending.
I do not know your point though, in referencing isolationism and the problems of Rwanda and Darfur.
There is nothing wrong with being a coward on the field of battle.
That was lousy phrasing. There is no excuse to be a coward, once you are on the field of battle.
I hope it was clear that what I meant to say is that it's ok to be a coward; just be appreciative and supportive of those "rough men", brave enough to fight evil. In world filled with wolves and sheep, not everyone has what it takes to be a sheepdog.
I praise you for at least having what it takes to put your body where your mouth is, WS. I hope you remain safe but also, while in service, that you might see why some others who have been there disagree with this attempt at national security.
There are those of us who don't go, not out of cowardice at all, but because we believe this Iraq invasion is exactly the WRONG way to try to stop terrorism. That it is self-defeating.
That, additionally, this kind of war-as-solution that we're using in Iraq is preventing us from diplomacy and other means of stopping Darfur's genocide and oppression that is occurring around the world right now, today. That, if we employed the Iraq model as our way of dealing with the Saddams and Darfurs of the world, it would cost trillions and trillions of dollars (in other words, we couldn't do it if we wanted to due to costliness) and that we would still end up with a situation like we have in Iraq, where as many people are dying now (or more) than when we went in to stop Saddam.
But you know I think all of this already.
I can at least respect those, like you, who say they agree with this war and who then go and sign up. I, myself, don't have much use at all for chickenhawks. Especially, those chickenhawks in positions of power.
Be safe. Be wise.
I praise you for at least having what it takes to put your body where your mouth is, WS. I hope you remain safe but also, while in service, that you might see why some others who have been there disagree with this attempt at national security.
Good grief, Dan. Will you stop? Why don't you go over and bug someone like CJ? Ask someone like him how he feels. I guarantee you, you won't like what you hear; because he disagrees with people like you. What makes you feel like the majority of soldiers agree with your views?
There are those of us who don't go, not out of cowardice at all, but because we believe this Iraq invasion is exactly the WRONG way to try to stop terrorism. That it is self-defeating.
Interesting you bring that up. During Vietnam, do you think the majority of people were opposed to the war because of some noble, higher sense of morality? Or because they were opposed to the draft (ie, too cowardly to go to war).
That, additionally, this kind of war-as-solution that we're using in Iraq is preventing us from diplomacy and other means of stopping Darfur's genocide and oppression that is occurring around the world right now, today. That, if we employed the Iraq model as our way of dealing with the Saddams and Darfurs of the world, it would cost trillions and trillions of dollars (in other words, we couldn't do it if we wanted to due to costliness) and that we would still end up with a situation like we have in Iraq, where as many people are dying now (or more) than when we went in to stop Saddam.
Good....grief, man. That is so convoluted. Really, Dan. I am at a loss as to where to even begin with that. I'd be on here, writing an essay, just for your sole entertainment, to express how wrong I think you are. At the moment, I choose to spend my time on a few other things.
But you know I think all of this already.
Yes, I know. It's not like we haven't ever been down this path before.
I can at least respect those, like you, who say they agree with this war and who then go and sign up. I, myself, don't have much use at all for chickenhawks. Especially, those chickenhawks in positions of power.
Dan, that is an uncalled for cheapshot that has zero merit. I am so sick of the lame chickenhawk argument, which isn't an argument at all. I really do need to write a post on that, so I can cut and paste it everytime I come across the chickenhawk charge. It is designed to shut down debate, and nothing more.
I figured you were more mature and seasoned, than that, to drum up the chickenhawk notion. You're pretty thoughtful, and I just assume that only DU and Kos-types resorted to labeling those not in the military who support the war, as chickenhawks.
"During Vietnam, do you think the majority of people were opposed to the war because of some noble, higher sense of morality?"
I see no evidence to support the notion that the great majority of folk were opposed to it for any reason beyond thinking it an immoral and unwise war.
Dan,
I believe the anti-war movement of the 60's give themselves far too much credit, and exonerate themselves of much of the bloodshed that occurred in the aftermath of our nonsupport of the Paris Peace Accords, and the written agreement Nixon had made to our South Vietnamese allies.
I question the motives of many of these so-called "peace activists" and "conscientious objectors", because: Note that by the end of 1971, under Nixon, the draft was brought to an end. Major peace protests throughout 1968 through 71. The largest, most intense bombing of the war occurred in Christmas of '72 (Operation Linebacker II, I believe). Any protests? Any peace movement marches?
Not a peep. People protested the war, because they did not want to serve; and they had to justify to their conscience and to their image, why.
hehe
Ya'll don't stop. Reminds me of me and my brother.
Post a Comment
<< Home