Clever Anti-War Posters
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
Yep clever twist on "what goes around comes around".
Conceptually, the posters are neat but they sorta paint with a broad brush. IMO
it takes a lot of different brushes to paint a really good picture
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Let me ask -
Anti War Under Any Circumstances ?
Anti War Under a republican president ?
Anti War For Energy ?
Anti War For Water ?
Anti war what ?
Conceptually, the posters are neat but they sorta paint with a broad brush. IMO
F....it isn't that complicated. Just anti-war (essentially, fundamentally opposed to war)....period. No hidden agenda....at least not from my perspective. Then again, I guess I'd be called a liberal.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
I guess I'd be considered a hawk instead of a dove and I'm okay with that. Post all the anti-whatever propaganda you want but when you put demoralizing stuff like that on a street lamp or phone pole the only people its going to make happy are hippies. If I was walking down the street anywhere and saw something like that I'd tear it down and toss it in the nearest trash can.
Similarly, while driving down University Ave in West Des Moines, I noticed a bunch of anti war-types in front of the Military Entrance Processing Center holding signs and generally making a nuisance of themselves. I held my anger for about two seconds before laying on the horn and extending my middle finger. 20 years ago I went through that same building before leaving for the MCRD in San Diego just before the operations in Panama to get Noriega and I can't help but wonder where the protesters were for that episode.
When I was in Saud in 1991 CNN was censored so we couldn't see the assholes chanting "NO ***** FOR OIL!" When I got back I saw a couple videos of the protests and couldn't help but thinking that nothing would be sweeter than throwing a cannister of tear gas into their ranks.
The vast majority of our servicemen and women are honorable, just and compassionate. To make a blanket statement that they are all going to face some kind of retribution for enlisting in a voluntary service to their country can only wound their morale. The anti-war crowd did a fine job of demonizing Bush and that should be enough.
So, no. I have no use for this clever campaign of subversion.
Similarly, while driving down University Ave in West Des Moines, I noticed a bunch of anti war-types in front of the Military Entrance Processing Center holding signs and generally making a nuisance of themselves. I held my anger for about two seconds before laying on the horn and extending my middle finger. 20 years ago I went through that same building before leaving for the MCRD in San Diego just before the operations in Panama to get Noriega and I can't help but wonder where the protesters were for that episode.
When I was in Saud in 1991 CNN was censored so we couldn't see the assholes chanting "NO ***** FOR OIL!" When I got back I saw a couple videos of the protests and couldn't help but thinking that nothing would be sweeter than throwing a cannister of tear gas into their ranks.
The vast majority of our servicemen and women are honorable, just and compassionate. To make a blanket statement that they are all going to face some kind of retribution for enlisting in a voluntary service to their country can only wound their morale. The anti-war crowd did a fine job of demonizing Bush and that should be enough.
So, no. I have no use for this clever campaign of subversion.
Jane Burgess
Verified Performer
I say Fuck The Troops! If you are against the war, you should be criticising the people that are responsible for it, no matter who they are. Why is it Ok to blast Bush, but the soliders are off limits and they aren't to be held accountable for thier actions?
On the other hand, if you don't think so you should be just like Johnny and tell these people that you think they are full of **** and are just a bunch of whiny bitches.
I'm sick of this Politcally Correct "oh, let's not step on anyone's toes!" ****. Stand up for what you believe in because you think it's right, not because you want to be popular.
On the other hand, if you don't think so you should be just like Johnny and tell these people that you think they are full of **** and are just a bunch of whiny bitches.
I'm sick of this Politcally Correct "oh, let's not step on anyone's toes!" ****. Stand up for what you believe in because you think it's right, not because you want to be popular.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Poon, you are truly an enigma. I've been looking through a few of the threads I've gotten repped for in the past and just when I thought I had a grasp on your mentality you go and do something like this.... AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF! No seriously. On most of your posts I can't imagine a more diametrically opposed view from my own and here you come running in to defend my right to sound like a jerk. Now I'm really confused. I need to grab a ****.
Facetious
Moderated
F....it isn't that complicated. Just anti-war (essentially, fundamentally opposed to war)....period. No hidden agenda....at least not from my perspective. Then again, I guess I'd be called a liberal.
It isn't that simple. Isn't there typically a condition for war ? How about going to war in response to repeated acts of aggression, is that off limits ?
If you're the President of a nation and your citizens are repeatedly gunned down by uniformed combatants from a neighboring country, is it imperative that you appease said combatants ?
Are you opposed to any and all deadly defenses ?
If nation "A", your friendly neighboring ally, is being attacked by aggressor nation "B", would you, nation "C" stand by in neutrality ?
If we can use history as any indication, all cowardice acts are met with further aggression.
Let me just say that I am vehemently pro self preservation by any and all means necessary. Is that radical ? :hatsoff:
I guess it's the degree to which you're prepared to be pre-emptive to achieve that self preservation......
- defending your own country against invasion - not radical
- carpet bombing a country in case they may one day be a threat - radical
One of the questions in the UK is the threat posed by Iraq prior to the second Gulf war and whether this presented sufficient cause for the war from the persepctive of self preservation (as opposed to getting rid of an awful dictator).
The troops are the same as people. There's a lotta assholes, a lotta people that believe in whatever brand of bullshit they're slinging to the masses. But never shoot the messenger without judging them, first.
Wal mart? Bad. Any given employee? Overworked, underpaid and buying INTO the madness. A few employees? Have no choice and they're making a paycheck at a corporate giant.
Troops? Some are there to make college money. Some are there to serve the 'states. Some dont give a fuck and were offered jail time or military service. Some joined up, found that the reality of 99 dumbfucks to 1 intelligent guy still holds true. Eh.
The effectiveness of pacifism is directly dependent on how many people buy into it. In practice, however, it will never be effective because, like it or not, might makes right. This is the nature of man. To champion pacifism is to declare your own naivete or willful ignorance of the world around you.
While pacifism is a product of empathy, the one concept that could realize something akin to world peace, the selfish have always outnumbered the selfless, which, unless changed, will always bring us back to point one.
On the other hand, pacifism diverges from empathy when you refuse to fight on the behalf of another, such as women in Afghanistan and elsewhere who have acid thrown in their faces for the crime of learning to read and write. You can't just stand back and say, "You're on your own." Such is the way of cowards. And Switzerland.:1orglaugh
Human rights trump culture, as well, and should not be dependent on where you live.
If you are not willing to fight evil, you are complicit in it.
Of course, not every conflict meets these criteria...
While pacifism is a product of empathy, the one concept that could realize something akin to world peace, the selfish have always outnumbered the selfless, which, unless changed, will always bring us back to point one.
On the other hand, pacifism diverges from empathy when you refuse to fight on the behalf of another, such as women in Afghanistan and elsewhere who have acid thrown in their faces for the crime of learning to read and write. You can't just stand back and say, "You're on your own." Such is the way of cowards. And Switzerland.:1orglaugh
Human rights trump culture, as well, and should not be dependent on where you live.
If you are not willing to fight evil, you are complicit in it.
Of course, not every conflict meets these criteria...
yes, that would be the radical solution to judge people and situations on an individual basis, but that makes it difficult to subscribe to an idealogy which must generalize out of neccesity to make a point.
From that same perspective I would also have to critisize myself because I am also responsible for the war because I paid the taxes that went to the office of the guy that declared the war, the military stratigists that planned it, the solidiers that carried it out and the production of the weapons that were used in it.
Furthermore I would also blame the political system that took my tax dollars, and then beyond that the capitalist system that made me not only pay taxes to support the government that took the taxes to support the people that waged the war, but that required me to have to work at a job and use a monitary system in the first place.
So I don't really say, "fuck the troops"...
I say: FUCK EVERYTHING!
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Yes, it is. No war. Idealistic? Of course. Complicated? Hardly.
