Apparently the Washington Post thinks that injured troops are a joke.

[Donkey1499]

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Why? Do you like mixing that stuff with politics? I certainly don't.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually even I am offended by that. And I'm not surprised that Muslims are offended by either. That is actually a pic of the Prophet Muhammed, and he has a bomb for a turban. That suggests that Muhammed and Islam is a terroist religion, and it's not. It's tasteless humor is all. If you want to attack Bin Laden or any other Arab, fine, But don't bring in a religous icon like Muhammed.

Mohammed invented the damn religion, who better to blame for all the people murdered in the name of the god he created?

Glad you're offended by it. I don't recall, did the use of the basket case to mis-define the term "battle hardened" offend you?

 

[Deegan]

Yet if a crippled soldier was somehow used in a pro-war cartoon, you would be praising the cartoonist for recognizing the selfless sacrifice of our soldiers. You're only offended because you didn't agree with the anti-war message, not because of the crippled soldier.



Of course, then the joke wouldn't make any ******* sense.



Agreed; if you don't like what they print, don't read it.

How in the world would a injured soldier depicted in a cartoon be pro-war?

That is just ridiculous, of course we praise our soldiers, it is what you are supposed to do as an American. What you don't do is use them to advance the same cause that had them spit on when they arrive home, this is really simple stuff, and this spin is lame.

As for the, if you don't like it, don't read it B>S, that does not fly here in this country, thankfully we are not liberal Europe, not yet anyway. We can boycott this rag, and I am sure there will be hell to pay when subscriptions start to decline, that is what I wait for, that is what makes me smile.

 

[Donkey1499]

Mohammed invented the damn religion, who better to blame for all the people murdered in the name of the god he created?

Glad you're offended by it. I don't recall, did the use of the basket case to mis-define the term "battle hardened" offend you?

Hmm. Another one with a warped view of religion. But I'll ignore it being as I don't feel like debating it right now.

 

[Gibberish]

Mohammed invented the damn religion, who better to blame for all the people murdered in the name of the god he created?

Just because a man started a religion doesn't mean he has control of followers after his death.

Shall we list how many people kill and murder in the name of Jesus?

Would you be ok to have a comic of Jesus in the middle of a battle field chopping peoples heads off?

 

[Gibberish]

Fair enough. I don't read the WP anyways. And I admit that the soldier used in a pro-war comic would be fine, as long as it wasn't too political.

It seems it really comes down to that people are only offended if something is in opposition of their belief.

If Rumsfield was replaced by George Bush and the solider was shaking the presidents hand saying "thank you" the same group opposing would have no problem and the group in favor of would oppose.

 

[Donkey1499]

How in the world would a injured soldier depicted in a cartoon be pro-war?

That is just ridiculous, of course we praise our soldiers, it is what you are supposed to do as an American. What you don't do is use them to advance the same cause that had them spit on when they arrive home, this is really simple stuff, and this spin is lame.

As for the, if you don't like it, don't read it B>S, that does not fly here in this country, thankfully we are not liberal Europe, not yet anyway. We can boycott this rag, and I am sure there will be hell to pay when subscriptions start to decline, that is what I wait for, that is what makes me smile.

I have to call you out on one thing here, unless you are able to prove me wrong. But the last time soldiers were spit on in this country was in Vietnam. And those who spit on them are now leading the Democrat Party, and it's so ironic that they claim to support the troops. But today, there is no spitting, just slandering of the troops by the left. They call the troops criminals without really saying the word criminal. They say that Bush invaded Iraq illegally. Well, who is it that actually carried out the illegal invasion? The troops! So now we know where the left really stands.

Another thing that bothers me is that the Democrats always screech, "Bring home the National Guard! They don't need to be there. They need to be here and protect the country." Yet, those same democrats werethe ones who called Bush a coward for not going to fight in Vietnam. Well, Bush was in the Air National Guard, and the National Guard, I thought, wasn't supposed to go overseas. Hmmmm.......

 

[Donkey1499]

It seems it really comes down to that people are only offended if something is in opposition of their belief.

If Rumsfield was replaced by George Bush and the solider was shaking the presidents hand saying "thank you" the same group opposing would have no problem and the group in favor of would oppose.

Precisely.....

 

[Deegan]

It seems it really comes down to that people are only offended if something is in opposition of their belief.

If Rumsfield was replaced by George Bush and the solider was shaking the presidents hand saying "thank you" the same group opposing would have no problem and the group in favor of would oppose.

No, everyone should question why a cartoonist believes he has the right to assume what our Secretary of Defense thinks of soldiers injuries. Everyone should be alarmed that these presumptions make the entire country look bad, not just the Bush administration. Some here don't care though, as long as some of the sh!t hits Bush's boots, they don't mind sacrificing our image at all, and that is a sad state of affairs.:roll:

 

[scottyz]

Did they or anyone else say "shut up and stop printing that stuff!"? No, we're just expressing our feelings that it is wrong. I say let them print all the anti-military and anti-Iraqi Freedom stuff all they want. It just lets Americans know that the Washington Post is the Al-Jazeera of American papers. Let Americans know how the left really thinks about the troops.

Really? A quick glance at the first page of this thread...

Send Tom Toles overseas ....the mother f**ker!

I don't think you even understand the point of the comic strip. It's not about anti-military or anti-iraq freedom, it's about the perception that the admin. does not percieve or care that they are running the military ragged. That the military is being run ragged is a view that is even supported by the Pentagons own reports. Are they now anti-military too?

What about Trudeau's comic strip? It features a character who loses limbs in Iraq too.

 

[Gibberish]

I have to call you out on one thing here, unless you are able to prove me wrong. But the last time soldiers were spit on in this country was in Vietnam. And those who spit on them are now leading the Democrat Party, and it's so ironic that they claim to support the troops. But today, there is no spitting, just slandering of the troops by the left. They call the troops criminals without really saying the word criminal. They say that Bush invaded Iraq illegally. Well, who is it that actually carried out the illegal invasion? The troops! So now we know where the left really stands.

Maybe this is just my lack of knowledge since I was never in the militray but the troops don't have a choice to go to war do they? I mean they can't be like, "ya know I don't think this is a good idea so I am just going to stay home, good luck in Iraq".

So aren't they forced to go since that is their job. I then would get the response, "well they shouldn't have enlisted". I would wonder how many troops in Iraq enlisted post 9/11 and of those how many changed their mind on it being a good idea when they got to Iraq.

I stand by my stance that i can support the troops and not support the leadership that put them in war. I praise the troops for doing the job they swore they would do when they enlisted even though they may be forced to do a job they do not agree with.

 

[Gibberish]

No, everyone should question why a cartoonist believes he has the right to assume what our Secretary of Defense thinks of soldiers injuries. Everyone should be alarmed that these presumptions make the entire country look bad, not just the Bush administration. Some here don't care though, as long as some of the sh!t hits Bush's boots, they don't mind sacrificing our image at all, and that is a sad state of affairs.:roll:

Why would you want a false image? If that is how someone feels they should be able to express it. That is what makes this country great.

I wouldn't want this country to turn into the situation of dad slaps mom across the face a the dinner table and then looks at the kids and says "Everything is ok, daddy loves mommy".

 

[Donkey1499]

Really? A quick glance at the first page of this thread...


I don't think you even understand the point of the comic strip. It's not about anti-military or anti-iraq freedom, it's about the perception that the admin. does not percieve or care that they are running the military ragged. That the military is being run ragged is a view that is even supported by the Pentagons own reports. Are they now anti-military too?

What about Trudeau's comic strip? It features a character who loses limbs in Iraq too.

Sending Tom Toles overseas wouldn't shut him up, cuz he could just keep on talking over there.

And I don't care if they make fun of Rummy. Let em'. I just don't like the fact that a crippled soldier is being used for an anti-Iraqi Freedom cartoon.

 

[scottyz]

It seems it really comes down to that people are only offended if something is in opposition of their belief.

If Rumsfield was replaced by George Bush and the solider was shaking the presidents hand saying "thank you" the same group opposing would have no problem and the group in favor of would oppose.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I would not be offended by that. I'm not really offended by any of these cartoons and I sure hope none of these people discover South Park or the Boondocks... imagine the outrage.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Just because a man started a religion doesn't mean he has control of followers after his death.

Shall we list how many people kill and murder in the name of Jesus?

Would you be ok to have a comic of Jesus in the middle of a battle field chopping peoples heads off?

Just because a man invented a religion doesn't mean he's exempt from criticism.

Oh NO! NOT JESUS! You can't use JESUS! in a cartoon!

Then again, why not? I don't care, go ahead.

 

[Donkey1499]

Maybe this is just my lack of knowledge since I was never in the militray but the troops don't have a choice to go to war do they? I mean they can't be like, "ya know I don't think this is a good idea so I am just going to stay home, good luck in Iraq".

So aren't they forced to go since that is their job. I then would get the response, "well they shouldn't have enlisted". I would wonder how many troops in Iraq enlisted post 9/11 and of those how many changed their mind on it being a good idea when they got to Iraq.

I stand by my stance that i can support the troops and not support the leadership that put them in war. I praise the troops for doing the job they swore they would do when they enlisted even though they may be forced to do a job they do not agree with.

They can always just walk away, but then they would be deserting, get court marshalled, get dishonorably discharged and never be able to get a job in the US.
The female troops can always just get pregnant and be sent home.
Still, the troops knew that someday they'd be going off to war, because that is a job of a military, TO FIGHT BATTLES AND WARS!!!!!!! Yes, soldiers are going to die, as well as civilians (I can't name one war where civilians weren't killed). But to call Bush a criminal is just like calling the troops criminals as well. Also, they'd be calling the House and Senate pols criminals because they all gave Bush permission to go to Iraq in the first place.

And why are the deaths of the troops blamed on Bush? Is he the one pulling the trigger? No, the terrorist bastards are. They're the ones putting our brave men and women into body bags. If you're gonna blame Bush for the deaths of soldiers in Iraq because he sent them there, then you can blame FDR (who just happens to be a democrat) for the deaths of American soldiers during WW2, because FDR sent em' there.

And another thing, it's amazing that around 80-90% of the military voted for Bush in 2004. OMG, what does that tell ya about the troops' feelings towards Bush?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No, everyone should question why a cartoonist believes he has the right to assume what our Secretary of Defense thinks of soldiers injuries. Everyone should be alarmed that these presumptions make the entire country look bad, not just the Bush administration. Some here don't care though, as long as some of the sh!t hits Bush's boots, they don't mind sacrificing our image at all, and that is a sad state of affairs.:roll:

That's why it's "propaganda". Why some here object to the use of the word in it's totally proper context is a mystery. I think it has something to do with their application of the word to things they dislike, or maybe it's their basic ignorance, but whatever.

The principal purpose of editorials and editorial cartoons in particular is to propagandize a viewpoint.

The cartoonist in this cartoon is saying "Rumsfeld is a callous ass, so you should be upset with the Bush Administration". What the picture was saying to many though, is that the cartoonist, and the paper printing his cartoon, has no compassion, no sensitivity to the sacrifices made by Americans for their country.

Oh, and in one respect the cartoon did what all cartoonists hope. It got a whole lot of people talking about that topic.

 

[Deegan]

Why would you want a false image? If that is how someone feels they should be able to express it. That is what makes this country great.

I wouldn't want this country to turn into the situation of dad slaps mom across the face a the dinner table and then looks at the kids and says "Everything is ok, daddy loves mommy".

Rumsfeld never said soldiers who are severely injured, are "battle hardened", he said nothing like this, this was some hack in an office at the W.Post. What he said is our boys over there are not tired, they are not spent, they are battle hardened, and stronger for the experience. This is the truth the soldiers report to him, and he passed that along. Some idiot at a newspaper decided he knew better, and he went to the extreme to try and push his presumptions on us all, using a soldier with out arms and legs to do it. It is not very hard to understand, this stuff is said and done everyday, and sometimes it just crosses some of our lines, and we react. He knows he is a target, and that the press will lie about him, twist his words, and make him look evil, rotten, and unfeeling, they hate war, and they hate our military leaders. He just does not think that our boys should be brought in to the smear job, they can smear him all day long without doing this, sometimes they just get lazy, as this creep did!:roll:

 

[Kandahar]

How in the world would a injured soldier depicted in a cartoon be pro-war?

I don't know, it was just an example. A cartoon depicting the injured soldier as sacrificing everything for freedom, etc? Would that be offensive?

That is just ridiculous, of course we praise our soldiers, it is what you are supposed to do as an American. What you don't do is use them to advance the same cause that had them spit on when they arrive home, this is really simple stuff, and this spin is lame.

This proves once again that you guys don't give a rat's ass about an injured soldier being depicted. You simply don't like the political opinion the cartoonist is trying to convey.

As for the, if you don't like it, don't read it B>S, that does not fly here in this country, thankfully we are not liberal Europe, not yet anyway. We can boycott this rag, and I am sure there will be hell to pay when subscriptions start to decline, that is what I wait for, that is what makes me smile.

Go ahead and boycott it, I'm sure there will be a "Buy Washington Post" campaign in response. I highly doubt this is going to have the slightest impact on WP sales.

 

[Engimo]

And another thing, it's amazing that around 80-90% of the military voted for Bush in 2004. OMG, what does that tell ya about the troops' feelings towards Bush?

This seems to be untrue.

Look at the exit polls.

The breakdown was 57% vs 41% Bush/Kerry respectively for people who have served in the military. I can't find statistics anywhere for people who are currently in the military, but if you can show statistics proving your claim that would be greatly appreciate.

 

[Deegan]

I don't know, it was just an example. A cartoon depicting the injured soldier as sacrificing everything for freedom, etc? Would that be offensive?



This proves once again that you guys don't give a rat's ass about an injured soldier being depicted. You simply don't like the political opinion the cartoonist is trying to convey.



Go ahead and boycott it, I'm sure there will be a "Buy Washington Post" campaign in response. I highly doubt this is going to have the slightest impact on WP sales.

Play games all you like, this was about smearing Rumsfeld, I could care less if they do that in a cartoon, they do it everday, even the Secretary knows this. This is about using the image of a soldier without limbs to do so, it's crude, it's insensitive, and it's cheap, not at all creative, an finally, it's lazy. It's a great way to get their agenda out there, now the world thinks our secretary does not feel for the soldiers that serve this country. They now think we are weakening, that we are spent over there, this is not the case. I care about the soldiers who may see this, especially the ones lying in a bed, that may now feel we don't care. This is like screwing another woman before the ink is dry on your divorce papers, or before the sheets are even cold.

 

[Gibberish]

...the troops knew that someday they'd be going off to war, because that is a job of a military, TO FIGHT BATTLES AND WARS!!!!!!! Yes, soldiers are going to die, as well as civilians (I can't name one war where civilians weren't killed). But to call Bush a criminal is just like calling the troops criminals as well. Also, they'd be calling the House and Senate pols criminals because they all gave Bush permission to go to Iraq in the first place.

The deaths could not be helped. War is death. We would have ended up in Iraq sooner or later just we will end up in Iran sooner or later. The poor planning and fatheaded look the admin had on the war planning is what is killing the troops. Our ego got the best of us and the troops are paying for it.

If you're gonna blame Bush for the deaths of soldiers in Iraq because he sent them there, then you can blame FDR (who just happens to be a democrat) for the deaths of American soldiers during WW2, because FDR sent em' there.

Really? FDR sent the soldier to WW2 just like Bush did? Here I thought we sat in the background of the war untill we were bombed in Pearl harbor.

There was no war and no terrorist attacks in IRAQ till we got there.

And another thing, it's amazing that around 80-90% of the military voted for Bush in 2004. OMG, what does that tell ya about the troops' feelings towards Bush?

My first thought would be they needed to believe that the years in Iraq and all the deaths were not meaningless and that Bush needs to finish what was started to prove that.

How much of the militray voted for Bush in the previous election?

 

[Donkey1499]

This seems to be untrue.

Look at the exit polls.

The breakdown was 57% vs 41% Bush/Kerry respectively for people who have served in the military. I can't find statistics anywhere for people who are currently in the military, but if you can show statistics proving your claim that would be greatly appreciate.

That stat was everyone who HAS EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY. Not exactly the number of IRAQ troops serving now. That stat you provided was in past tense, not present tense or future tense. I was strictly talking about the troops serving now (or actually the ones serving in '04). I believe I heard on Fox News that the polls were 80-90%. Although I admit that I've heard so many polls that I do get em' confused. But that is understandable.

 

[scottyz]

Oh, and in one respect the cartoon did what all cartoonists hope. It got a whole lot of people talking about that topic.

He got a lot of publicity for himself and his work which wouldn't have been possible without so many people complaining. I bet many people wouldn't have even been aware of it.

If only people manifested the same kind of energy towards helping wounded soldiers that they do towards complaining about comic strip depictions of them.

 

[Engimo]

That stat was everyone who HAS EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY. Not exactly the number of IRAQ troops serving now. That stat you provided was in past tense, not present tense or future tense. I was strictly talking about the troops serving now (or actually the ones serving in '04). I believe I heard on Fox News that the polls were 80-90%. Although I admit that I've heard so many polls that I do get em' confused. But that is understandable.

Yes, I realize that. That's why I pointed out that it was about people that had served in the military and not the current military, and then proceeded to ask you for a source for those statistics. Unless you can provide one besides "oh, I heard it on FOX... maybe.", you might not want to throw out statistics.