HOME | DD
BullMoose1912 β The World's So-Called Liberators
by-nc
Published: 2012-04-11 02:54:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 3218; Favourites: 65; Downloads: 38
Redirect to original
Description
Doesn't seem like the people we supposedly "liberated" in the Middle East have welcomed us like the government expected. We're not winning, so maybe we should liberate the people from ourselves.Based on a WWII-era Public Domain American propaganda poster.
Feel free to reblog without permission or attribution.
Related content
Comments: 42
π: 0 β©: 0
This is really good!Β Definitely encourages people to stop and think.
War only leads to more war, and the world elites love it, because they keep profiting off of it. Yuck.
π: 0 β©: 0
ββββββββeveryββββββββthingββββββββββisβββfine.
ββββloveβββββββββββββββββyourβββββββgovernment.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think you should have chosen a picture of a different artillery, these are Bofors-Anti-Airs, you don't really attack someone with them, they are for defense against bombers. Still like it
π: 0 β©: 0
right on!
You've got oil? Then here we come! (c)
American soldier in Iraq "Yup, I've killed your parents, kiddies, but you'll now live in democracy!" (c)
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, my God, THANK YOU. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make to people I know in real life.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Doesn't seem like the people we supposedly "liberated" in the Middle East have welcomed us like the government expected."
Nope. Not in Iraq, and not in Afghanistan.
π: 0 β©: 0
It was government meddling in the Middle East that provoked the terrorists to attack us; and yet our solution was to declare war and blow the place up. Itβs like striking a wasps nest, getting stung, and then fighting back by striking the nest some more. Ah, the glory of foreign interventionism!
π: 0 β©: 0
I can understand why American wanted to go fight a war in Afghanistan. What I don't understand is why they thought they could win.
NO Foreign power has EVER won a war in Afghanistan in Modern history. The British couldn't do it at the height of their empire, The Soviets couldn't do it either, Why do you Americans think you can win, It doesn't make sense
π: 0 β©: 3
Dp you live under a rock or are you merely brain-damaged? The US went to Afghanistan with very few troops and they DECIMATED the Afghanistan military. By all accounts and purposes, the US had won the war. Its like your saying that the Nazis didn't beat the French just because there were French resistance fighters...The Soviets and the US gave up trying to hold afghanistan because there was no point. No resources or any reason to stick around. It is disturbing that dangerously stupid people like you exist...
π: 0 β©: 1
And now you are stuck there. Takeing it is easy, I never said it wasn't, holding it is hard. Just ask Britan or Russia.
π: 0 β©: 0
Mongols were successful in conquering afghanistan by a technique known today as scorched earth
that is why population of afghanistan is by percentage the lowest among muslim population
π: 0 β©: 1
I said in Modern History, The Mongols took over a long time ago.
π: 0 β©: 0
Neither could Alexander The Great, who conquered pretty much every square inch of the world he knew about. Afghanistan was too hard for him to conquer.
π: 0 β©: 0
Democracy and freedom seems to have sprung up everywhere but where people have been liberated. The liberated areas have become hotzones of terrorism, tyranny and greed
π: 0 β©: 0
Liberation should of been left to the Soviets.
π: 0 β©: 0
I like this. It reminds me that Norway have troops down there because we like being nice to USA.
π: 0 β©: 1
really? the country of black metal allied with the american theocracy? it's weird, I mean, Norway is a center-left welfare state and is quite irreligious, USA is extremely religious and is hard neoliberal, so, all the contrary of Norway in a way.
Note, Belgium has troops in Afghanistan, wich is as weird.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah. Norway have since the end of the second world war ben very allied whit USA. And that is strange indeed. But Norway is a smal country and USA is a strong one, so it might lie there. And blackmetal as you say is big in Norway. But only in blackmetalers. I like heavy metal and most Norwegians listens to pop-music from USA. Well, why Norway,denmark and Sweden have soldiers down in middle east i dont know. But they say its to ''secure peace'' Probably it's more of that Ola Nordman likes to be friendly for uncle sam.
π: 0 β©: 0
Of course they don't value it. No one ever values what is given to them for free as much as if they had earned (fought for it themselves).
The whole liberation argument is just PC translation, for you people better get your shit together, control your leaders, and stop messin with us, or else we will appoint new leadership for you, in line (more) with our values.
Unfortunately, the art and purpose of warfare has been lost; in the old days the winner used to take all the desirable land/resources, and then assimilate/re-educate the remaining passive submissive populace and dispose of/exile the refugees/sympathisers. The whole point of successful war is conflict resolution by eliminating those who conflict with you, and not to leave loose ends (capable opposing sentiment, power vacums, and resources on the table to start the whole conflict over again in the future).
π: 0 β©: 2
XD its funny how naive and clueless you are. Iraq didn't mess with us, bro. And 'in line with our values?' One of the United States' biggest friends is Saudi Arabia, where freedom is barely allowed. The Truth is, nations go to war for stupid and pointless reasons, and then they leave the 'patriots' to whip up some half-assed justification and explanation XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, resorting to personal insults shows your lack of ability to reason.
That said, there were a number of reasons for going to war with Iraq, which you are free to have your own opinion about the wisdom of acting on, but nontheless such reasons include:
(1) A propensity to use Weapons of mass destruction (corroboarated by more than one source at the time) against USA and/or its allies,
(2) retribution for failed assassination attempt on Bush Sr.,...,
(3) display of military might (respected/feared by arabian culture),
(4) purposeful injection of instability to the region,
(5) etc...
What does Saudia Arabia being a "friend" have to do with anything about being more in line with our values? We haven't had to attack them and replace their leadership, so while they may do reprehensible things to their own people, as long as they don't step out of line with us, or our allies, or our interests, we can call them "friends" until they need a little correction. Ofcourse if that time ever came, it would be a worthy goal to ensure the new leadership of SA was more in line with US values/interests at a minimum.
Most of time nations go to war is because it is over, resources and dominance. There is nothing silly or pointless about those things. In fact, you will find that those concepts lie at the heart of most conflict/agression/violence in nature whether it is humans, monkeys, lions, wolves, dogs, etc... all just trying to establish who is top of the pack and who gets the resources they want first.
That said, violent war is only necessary to achieve objectives when diplomacy has failed. In fact, America's greatest weapon is its "westernization" or carrying ideas of PC, freedom of speech, assemply, right to redress government, equality, etc... which helps assimilate other nations so that everyone opperates on the same page, has similar goals, thereby making non-violent diplomacy more effective for resolving conflicts. However, middle eastern nations have a tendency to resist westernization and legitimate diplomacy, and thse nations prefer to use force to resolve conflicts, so that is the only language that gets through to them sometimes.
π: 0 β©: 0
In other words, the "art and purpose of warfare" is precisely what I said in this picture.
π: 0 β©: 0
We own half the world/Oh say can you see/And the name for our profits/Is "democracy"/
So like it or not/You will have to be "free"...
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys,
We're the cops of the world.
-- from "Cops of the World," by Phil Ochs
π: 0 β©: 1
Team America: World Police
π: 0 β©: 0
*Starts thinking of PokΓ©mon Black & White*
π: 0 β©: 1
Never played Pokemon Black and White. Is it true that the white Pokemon can't jump?
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course it can, when you throw th PokΓ© Ball. In it, Team Plasma is trying t liberate all PokΓ©mon from their partners, whether they like it or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
I lost count of the teams after Team Magma and Team Aqua. So when does Ash become a Pokemon master anyway?
π: 0 β©: 1
Team Galactic and Team Plasma have been the most recent. Ash, however, still on the journey. He's cathing more PkMn, but that's it.
π: 0 β©: 1
He'll never become a Pokemon master as far as I know.
π: 0 β©: 1
He will, he's just... "different"
π: 0 β©: 1
You think so? It's been about a decade and he's still at it. And there's all of these "recently discovered" pokemon that seem to be "discovered" en masse every few years.
π: 0 β©: 1
He's an athlete
π: 0 β©: 1
He's a ten-year-old kid whose parents abandoned him so he could engage in state-sponsored gambling and cockfighting. The Pokemon world is pretty messed-up.
π: 0 β©: 0