HOME | DD
Latuff2 β Titanic
Published: 2004-09-30 23:42:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 9109; Favourites: 59; Downloads: 401
Redirect to original
Description
"This is all too easily reminiscent of the Titanic heading towards those looming icebergs. Despite warnings of danger, the captain of that doomed vessel chose to stay the course. He stayed the course and the rest is history. If we permit George Bush to stay the course, I fear that this nation, too, will be history."Read article here: [link]
Related content
Comments: 64
Now there's the Lusitania in the White House now.
π: 0 β©: 0
Now, all I can think is that a 3rd term of Bush is better than a 2nd term of Carter.
π: 0 β©: 0
First of all, I don't even know why you people are fighting over this. But, pick something else to make fun of Bush with, using something as serious as the Titanic disaster is just plain rude. Over 1000 innocent people died on that wreck, and using the tragedy as some political cartoon is a disgrace to those who died and those who carried on the memory of those innocents, even children who had no chance at ever living their lives. I can respect your opinion but there's a point where it goes too far... This is that point. Thank you.
π: 0 β©: 0
So true.The new world order will start WWIII.
π: 0 β©: 0
Any one who thinks Gorge Bush planed 9/11 should have their brain lacquered! > >
π: 0 β©: 0
GOD DAMN IT!! CAN'T WAIT FOR ELECTION DAY!!!!! 11 MORE DAYS!!! VOTE OUT THE DAMN MONKEY!!!! This is good though. ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
ARG! Again with the 9/11 crap! As much as I hate GWB, I hate misunderstandings more. And this is one huge misunderstanding. How the fuck was anyone supposed to know?? Why don't you blame your trash collecter? He was every inch responcible for not stopping it! Two planes, flying normally, with clearence. NOBODY KNEW UNTILL THE FIRST PLANE SANK. OVER.
... Pardon the swearing.
π: 0 β©: 0
I dont beleive that you made a good impression of your point on this piece. This says to me that you think the Bush Administration is responsible for the 9/11 tragedy. This is a little too radical for my taste.
I dont mean to insult or attack you, but I just dont' think you should have used this analogy. It's just not right though. Titanic was an accident. The world Trade center was an attack. The two just dont fit together very well.
π: 0 β©: 1
ue probally getting that from the smoke stacks well they're not the twin towers idiot, again as nifler said. "ARG! Again with the 9/11 crap! As much as I hate GWB, I hate misunderstandings more. And this is one huge misunderstanding. How the fuck was anyone supposed to know?? Why don't you blame your trash collecter? He was every inch responcible for not stopping it! Two planes, flying normally, with clearence. NOBODY KNEW UNTILL THE FIRST PLANE SANK. OVER". getting that from the buildings as smoke stacks well they're not the twin towers. like nifler said.
π: 0 β©: 1
Woah there.
Not trying to be rude or anything but did you see the "911" printed in nice big letters on the side of the ship? If you didn't, its just right under George's right leg.
Now you, and whoever Nifler is, can tell me those aren't the Twin Towers.
As for who's held responsible, I believe that Al Qaida is. Not saying anyone else is. I was saying that I thought the artist's intent was to say that Bush was, in fact, responsible. Thats not my view at all.
Don't get mad at me for my opinions. I'm not mad at you for yours.
π: 0 β©: 1
srry i didnt notice that
π: 0 β©: 1
No worries dude, just here to inform and have a good healthy debate.
π: 0 β©: 1
Bad form using the Titanic to illustrate your point, same with using the two Towers. Do you really have no respect for the dead? Not to mention the Titanic was a BRITISH ocean liner, hence RMS Titanic.
If Bush was truly so unpopular, he would've never been re-elected. He has one bloody year left in office and then it's someone new, so shut up with the griping and elect your choice. Besides, isn't Congress more powerful than the President? I seem to remember something along that line back when Nixon was President; he screwed and Congress gained more power. Sure Bush can veto a decision, but Congress can veto his veto. He really doesn't have that much power.
π: 0 β©: 0
yea its been 4 years and the world was supposed to be history cuz of the whole 6-6-06 thing but that numbr thing is all legend and no fact ( according to national geographic) anyways i HATE BUSH and his big ears..why cant he here the ppl sing singing a song of angree men it is the music of a ppl who will no be sla.....record schreaches.. ok i just went into les miserables rite there but why cant he here the ppl of america say "let our sodiers out of iraq" bush should have listen to his father and left the iraqi ppl alone they didnt do anything then came 9/11 and for the first 7 minutes he was like "Duh.....i dunno wat to do, i no the story has the answer, i must finish the little ducky it has the answer
π: 0 β©: 0
hey hey, mate, calm down. sure, they barely have any relation to eachother whatsoever ,but art is all about feelings. emotions, and in this case, opinions. and the Titanic wasn't designed badly. it was the fact that Steel back then was flawed. it had defective parts, due to the way it was made. it had "break points", where the metal was more likely to split in the event of an impact of any sort. that was what caused the sinking of the Titanic, not bad design.
as for America, it's a power going downwards. i doubt it'll remain on top for much longer. and, @ johnqamerican, who said "We've got plans to rebuild Iraq in our image, make them an ally -- they're practically becoming the 51st state already.", right here you've practically pointed out clearly that the US is simply a Colinizing country, just like many European countries. all you do is attack, wipe out the government of the target, take it over and make it part of your country so that you can use it's resources for yourself. and you avoid harming the civilians so that you have someone to work for you and bring in the cash for you later, without having to bother about sending workforces over there to do it.
and, on a side note: you talk about how Saddam's rule was terrible, and of course, that's true. but, it's a known fact: Iraq has always been [even in ancient times] a place that couldn't be controlled without a very ruthless leader. and you say that Saddam's actions were bad. take a look at what the Israelis have done in their short life span, then come and talk about Iraq's behaviour. Israel: hug up close to the US and UK, use that close friendship to swarm in on Palestine, take it over, kick them out and taunt them and kill them and arrest their politicians afterwards, and leave them with the worst part of Palestine, while you hog what is rightfully theirs. oh, and to top it all off, anytime Palestine [or any arab country for that matter] asks for their rights, big old Bush vetoes it! pride of the "Land of the free and home of the brave" you are!
and you call yourselves "Global police". hah! that'll be the day....when the US actually starts enforcing freedom and people's rights for all...
π: 0 β©: 0
this takes the piss. How dare you use the Titanic. She had nothing to do with America nor the fucking WTC accident and the war. Titanic had her own problems with the bastards who designed her badly which lead to her death. She doesn't need nor deserve this from an asshole like you. You should just take the piss out of the American things that you are talking about here and not the British Liner. This is extremely disrepectful towards Titanic. I hope you rot for what you've done.
π: 0 β©: 1
its symbolism, the titan was a disaster and so is the bush administration, duh
π: 0 β©: 1
well maybe you could explain that in ur writing below the picture
π: 0 β©: 0
THAT IS JUST GREAT. I GET SO MAD AT THE ANAVERSARY BECAUSE ALL THEY DO IS SHOW PEOPLE FALLING TO THEIR DEATHS AND I GOTTA SAY, AS A FUTURE MORTICAN I FIND THAT SORT OF THING APPALING
π: 0 β©: 0
i wish he was on the titanic and still was
π: 0 β©: 0
"In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible β whatever that means."
βGeorge W. Bush, on his time frame for shoring up Social Security, Washington D.C., March 16, 2005
π: 0 β©: 0
pretty kool but the trade center shouldn't be in it
π: 0 β©: 0
Damn straight!
You rock!
That is the greatest comparison ever.
Of course I sympathize for those who were
on the Titanic, but I also should sympathize
our nation if Bush is left as president... lol.
Gret job! Well done!
π: 0 β©: 0
It wasn't called "Agent Orange" until after the war was over. It was just called "Orange," and contrary to what most people think Orange was not deployed all over our troops and drenched them. It was a defoliant (plant killing chemical) that was sprayed very lightly, and common practice was not not let any troops in until Orange had had a chance to break down. It was not intended to kill human beings, only deprive guerillas of a place to hide in and fire on us from.
Hitler was too smart to use chemical weapons on us in World War II. He knew that if he used them we would retaliate and that we had far greater capacity to develop these weapons. So he was hands-off.
World War I was indeed a different matter. The US was by far the least guilty of any of the powers on the Western front if I recall correctly; we were only in the war a very short time and didn't much deploy the infamous weapons that scarred and blistered and blinded and choked troops en masse.
In truth the United States has focused on making many of its weapons *less* destructive than they could be. Our rifle ammunition is designed more to wound than to tumble as Soviet ammo does, which often means a bullet bouncing around inside your ribcage and tearing you up. We drop bombs with specific weights so that we don't cause more damage than we need to; we've gotten so good at this that the only damage in the surrounding area during one of our cruise missile surgical strikes is blown-out windows and car alarms, plus a good deal of glass in the streets.
Our "shock and awe" campaign was illustrative. We didn't do it to show how MUCH firepower we had. We showed the Iraqi leadership that we could actually choreograph our strikes to be accurate and timed however we wanted them, and hit them specifically without hitting so many civilians that we would spark a popular resistance. The "shock and awe" was supposed to be their leadership seeing how precise we were, not how much brute force we could lay down. A lot of the mainstream media misunderstood that and were left wondering where the bright fireworks show was.
It would be easy to drop a nuke and be pretty damn sure Saddam was done in. But it would also be very, very stupid. We're precise because it's the political reality of modern war. And only the US has shown the ability to pull this off with unprecedented success rates. This was by far the cleanest invasion in history for the size and scope of the operation. So you're kinda wrong there sabiss.
Ancient invasions weren't equally or less bloody. Look into the absolute erasure of Carthage by the Romans. An entire civilization was destroyed. If the US was even remotely as committed to toal war, we'd destroy every building in Baghdad down to the foundation, ship the rubble out into the oceans and rivers and dump them into the water, and salt the soil so nothing grows there for a long long time. That's what ancient war was like sometimes.
But we're not like that. We've got plans to rebuild Iraq in our image, make them an ally -- they're practically becoming the 51st state already.
I've read "The Art of War" and a whole bunch of other books on warfare, from your basic encyclopedic looks at how elements of a modern army work to the philosophical ramblings of Clauswitz (who is way overrated by the way). Kant's "perpetual peace," you'll notice, had foundations of democracies spreading everywhere as policy. Why? Because liberal democracies don't seem to attack each other. They never even skirmish.
Note that we're trying to build liberal democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the thing with Agent orange is that it isn't breaking down... That compound appears to be extremely stable, and if it obviously isn't defoliating anything, it has been "lessivated" into phreatic water in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese using that water end up having nasty illnesses, and every year, a large number of children there are born deformed or simply dead, because of Agent Orange...
Actually, Hitler used chemical weapons... Only, he didn't have the necessary logistics to use those against American soil, although there were plans of using U-boats to poison American rivers. But V2 rockets were quite often loaded with giftgas (HCN, I think)
During WW2, chemical and biological weapons were much less used than WW1, by every side... The US didn't use those, simply because they didn't have any at their disposal... Only a few, otherwise, they used phosphorous bombs in cities like Dresde... People who have lived through the war in Belgium, Germany and Asia often say that when Allied planes came, they tried to make out their insignia, if they were British, they'd just stay there, but if they were American, they went to hide, because British planes used precise strafing runs (most of the time), whereas American planes used carpet bombings more often...
When it comes to modern warfare, I don't think cruise missiles are a good example... In those countries, shelters are very rare, furthermore, people don't have time to run to shelter (unlike an air strike, cruise missiles are discreet, for obvious reasons...) and people simply stay in their homes... Maybe you've been in the army, then you know that a blast, even if doesn't do a thing to a concrete wall, will kill a man easily, either through the shockwave or by causing resonnance trauma. Furthermore, as you said, those things shatter glass... Try shooting at a steak with a paintball tracer loaded with shattered glass, I can tell you, the result isn't pretty... So the point of impact of those weapons is precise, and it may use cone shaped warheads to reduce collateral damage, the fact is, there's still collateral damage...
I never doubted the US would run over Iraq very quickly and somewhat cleanly, the Iraqis hardly put up any resistance during the actual invasion, but then, it's back to the "size and scope"... I don't consider the "invasion" of Iraq a difficult military task for a modern army. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria was in my opinion much more of a success, and so was Alexander's conquests.
As for Carthage and the Romans, it's as I said: the mentality of warriors back then was different, it's "total war" as you rightly said it... Total war has obviously no value in modern times (although some fanatics and radicals might think otherwise -cf. Ben Laden-)
I'm only saying that, before, "collateral" damage was caused because you wanted it, now, it's caused because the weapons are more devastating... Suppose modern armies (with a modern fighting mentality: sparing civilians) were still fighting with spear and swords, I don't think there would be any collateral damage... See what I mean?
Kant does say that democracies should flourish, however, he also states that waging war, even for democracy, isn't the right thing... He also says the same of assassination and executions. (at the time, he was referring to the executionn of Louis XVI during the French Revolution, in which he was interested, but thought wouldn't be healthy at first, because of the violence, and he was right, especially with the "Terreur" times.) Furthermore, the US invading Iraq for democracy against the will of the UN, a democratic institution, was very counterproductive, and aroused suspicion... The "war for freedom" lost it's credibility, whereas the "war for oil" gained it.
Plus, each democracy is unique, you know that, and if democracy is to appears in a country, it can not be because it was placed there by another power, because visions will ultimately differ...
Democracies aren't perfect... Obviously, they are, true, less inclined to kill each other, yet, when we look at Germany, it was democratic when it became Nazi territory, Hitler used democracy to become what he became, there is therefore a flaw in democracy... I'm afraid this flaw is being used again in the US...
Actually, come to think of it, I don't think democracy is better than other types of regimes... It's more like Plato said: each regime has a honest and a corrupt counterpart... But according to the culture in which you are, this or that regime will be less likely to turn "corrupt"...
(It's nice to talk to debate like this, but I feel we're monopolizing this post, should we continue through notes?)
Sabiss
π: 0 β©: 0
Jesus, I fucking love your politics and sense of humour!! You rock!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Our nation isn't doomed completely, but if Bush 'stays the course,' as he says, the United States will lose its status of 'world power.' We won't be considered a rogue nation, but we won't be No. 1.. or even in the top 5 powers.
π: 0 β©: 0
"From the director of Sept. 11 and Iraq Invasion"?
I wanna get Bush out of office as much as the next guy, but to say Sept. 11 was caused by the same entity that orchestrated that Iraqi Invasion is wrong.
If I'm missing something, comment.
π: 0 β©: 1
9/11 is created and funded by American intelligence. The reason : to create a 'Pearl Harbor'-like disaster that would make the people willing to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason for this is partly explained in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives' where he explicitly speaks of the need for such a disaster, and he explicitly speaks of the region of Afghanistan as a key area for economical expansion. This book was written several years before 9/11. It's all about oil, heroin, weapons and control.... and lots of money for very few people.
Some facts:
- Osama is funded and trained by the CIA.
- Osama's family is involved with the Carlyle group, which made huge profits after 9/11, just like the Bush's. They also share several other economical interests with the Bush family.
- Most of those officially involved in 9/11 were Saudis. Many Saudis were able to leave US soil right after 9/11, while every other plane had to stay on the ground.
- There is no link between Saddam Hussain and Al Quada
- There were no WMD in Iraq
- The plane that supposebly hit the Pentagon, did not hit the Pentagon and probably got dumped in the ocean. What really hit the pentagon was a military rocket or a jet fighter. The reason was that this could make the crash much more controllable. They could aim it much more easily at a section of the Pentagon that was deserted at that time, so it did not give the US government any significant damage. [link] provides you some basic info, that's merely the tip of the Iceberg.
- The Mossad was in New York, filming the 2 planes crashing into the WTC towers.
- FBI agents were asked not to interfere with Al Quaeda by any means in the months before the attack.
This is only what's lying on the top of my head. There is much more evidence to prove my statements. Please do your own research on this matter and do not just assume I'm wrong, because it's controversial. There is a similar stack of evidence to prove federal involvement in the Oklahoma city bombing, by the way.
Don't blame Islamic extremists for 9/11. That's exactly what 'they' want you to do, to justify their war campaigns. Who, except some concpiracy nut, would believe the US government would kill 3000 of it's own citizens anyway, right?!?!
---------------------------------------- --------------------
But just suppose that the US government wasn't directly behind it, don't you think US policy (especially concerning Israel) would be directly responsible?!
π: 0 β©: 0
One of the positive aspects of the American system is that a single president cannot destroy the country.
π: 0 β©: 3
Well, we are about to find out if that is actually true or not, are we not?
π: 0 β©: 0
If the president is controlled by others, worry about them.
π: 0 β©: 0
But those who're using the president as a puppet can and are doing this, together with the rest of the world. The American system is just as (or even more) flawed as every 'democratic' system.
π: 0 β©: 0
first off, this is a bad way to show your point because the Titanic did not sink because of it's course, it sunk because the hull was made of iron not lead, and with iron not being malleable and brittle when hammered thinly, it left a huge gash, if lead, it would have molded itself around the iceberg and only cracked just a tad...and filled only one compartment and not nine!
Secondly, I believe you may want to get your facts right before taking sides of the war...the death toll of American Soldiers hasn't even hit the hundred mark, that's just a fraction of the soldiers killed in World War two or Vietnam...and have you even TALKED to a soldier just coming back from over seas? They say they've never been prouder fighting for this cause! Why pull soldiers out when they're their by their own free will???
Get the facts, then make the decision...
π: 0 β©: 3
I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were dealing with a moron here 
π: 0 β©: 0
1 or 100,000,000 should any one have to die for a pointless cause?
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey lad, the Titanic wasn't made out of iron, it was steel, an alloy. Secondly, lead has a tendency to be a poison (ever heard of saturnism?), thirdly, lead is far more expensive and heavier than iron or steel, making this ship would have required more volume and therefore quantity... Speaking of which, a ship that size made out of lead wouldn't need an iceberg to break down, it'll do so by itself, because of the tensions.
And why take out those soldiers? Simple, cause they're fighting for nothing! This has nothing to do with the cause, a soldier doesn't choose to fight, he's told to fight! Or told not to fight, their "own free will" has no value whatsoever in this... Hey, after all, why shouldn't I go to some country to kill people by my own free will, for some cause I like?
π: 0 β©: 2
Because you liberals don't have the balls to fight for honor!
π: 0 β©: 2
There is no honor to get in the Iraqi war. You don't have to be a liberal to see that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Where's the honor in an unjust war? Stop with the "If you're not with us, you're against us" mindset, it's offensive.
...and the death toll is over 1000, I don't know when the last time you watched FOX news was or when they mentioned casualties but, clearly, it's been too long.
I happen to think that this piece is very good and the massage, even better. The point of that quote wasn't what the titanic was made of, it was that everyone believed, when the titanic set out, that it was unsinkable, and alas, it was not. This administration and it's supporters have such an ethnocentric view of the world that it mirrors the titanic's story and since "history repeats itself" I wouldn't be surprised if we meet the same, tragic end.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay. Let's talk body count, shall we?
1000 dead.
More Americans than that died in the first hour of the D-Day landing.
On average, Saddam killed 10,000 people a year during his two-and-a-half decade rule -- add it up, a **quarter of a million people**. I'm only referring to those who were "disappeared" -- that means, taken from their homes, driven out into the desert, and executed. Of course, that number's going up, because we keep finding new mass graves to dig up -- one recent find in north Iraq had ~3,000 bodies in it.
In November 2003, investigators discussed reports of over 260 mass graves containing -- on "the lower end of the estimates" -- the bodies of over 300,000 people.
"Highlights" in Saddam's rule:
* Over 100,000 Kurds killed between March and September 1988. How did he do it? Chemical rocket attacks on civilian populations. Shoot-to-kill orders for every living thing within certain zones -- these zones being Kurdish towns. Round up the survivors, machine gun them down, and bury them in shallow graves.
* 30,000 Kurds and Shiites killed in 1991 during the uprising -- for being too sympathetic to Iran.
* The Marsh Arab genocide
* Rounding up hundreds of Kurd leaders and executing them in 1994
Or is there a statute of limitations on crimes against humanity?
Some people are calling this an unjust war. As far as Saddam is concerned, the greatest injustice was leaving him in power.
π: 0 β©: 2
How about Turkey's treatment of the Kurds? No one ever mentions Turkey, just because they're Europe's and America's allies.
How do other countries treat rebels? Do you think the Bush administration would not be aggressive towards people rebelling against the US government?!
π: 0 β©: 0
First off, I don't think anyONE American should have had to die for this cause.
Nobody said Sadaam was a good guy, of course he commited terrible acts BUT I believe that rushing in and taking him out of power with no plan for peace was a horrible idea. Atleast when Sadaam was in power, there was some form of Government. When we took away that, there was chaos and the rebels controlled everything (and everyone). They killed many of there own people as well (for not wanting to kill Americans). Also, a while ago, in africa there were huge genocides that we just ignored. If we're going to be the "world police"(which I think is insane, anyway) we can't be selective about which countries we go into to take out a bad leader (in very simple terms).
The fact is, this is old news. (1991, when Bush sr. was in office!?)
If Bush wanted to take out Sadaam (because of the record of violence towards his own people) why didn't he do it right when he came into office, then when September 11th happened, he could have focused on the people actually responsible for that. Many people died 9/11 on American soil, you'd think it would be more of a priority to stop those terrorists. Sadaam's out of power, great for the Iraqi people eventually but the ones who actually have the potential to hurt US are still at large. Not to mention all the newfound enemies all over the world who disagree with this war, which is pretty scary.
Besides that, I thought the whole point to go into THIS war was WMD's...
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>