Conquer Club

I actually wanted to post this a couple of weeks earlier, when these cartoons were re-run in the paper I read, The Guardian (British left-liberal rag, would probably make certain people here vomit blood.) I couldn't find an appropriate pretext - so I thought, bugger it, I'll just start a topic on it.

I have seen quite a few defences of Bush and his invasion of Iraq in this forum. Many of them are based on the some of the following ideas: that the Bush administration, and most people, couldn't possibly have forseen the disaster Iraq has become; that the Bush administration genuinely believed the arguments put forward for the invasion (WMDs, regime change, terror connection etc); and that also, most people couldn't have seen through the WMD arguments because there simply weren't any credible counter-arguments or reason to disbelieve Bush, and so on.

I believe none of these arguments stand up, and although I don't want go over them yet again (I'm lying, I do), I think the following cartoons (although they prove little in themselves) are a good, to-the-point, illustration of how many of the shortcomings* of the Iraq invasion had long been foreseen. All of the cartoons were first run in late 2002, long before the invasion started.

If you haven't already seen them - enjoy.





Notice the massive underestimate of casualties in the following:





* "Shortcoming" seems such a feebly inappropriate word, but I can't think of a better word at this moment in time.

are these your own thoughts, or are they the thoughts of your cult leader daniel o'donnell?

gethine wrote:are these your own thoughts, or are they the thoughts of your cult leader daniel o'donnell?

I don't really like Daniel O'Donnell - I pretend I do so that I can finagle my way into the affections of ladies of a certain age. And, hey, there's nothing wrong with that.

would that 'certain age' be 60+?
that is wrong, wrong, wrong!

i believe that D O'D is big in iraq (similar to the germany/hasslehof pairing), maybe we should invade.
oh shit, we already did.

Stopper wrote:

gethine wrote:are these your own thoughts, or are they the thoughts of your cult leader daniel o'donnell?

I don't really like Daniel O'Donnell - I pretend I do so that I can finagle my way into the affections of ladies of a certain age. And, hey, there's nothing wrong with that.

please define this 'age' you speak of, cos in certain age groups, thats just wrong

i gotta say thanks for the toons, stopper, and you should be the president of the fucking forums, you are the best

I didn't find them terribly funny.

and I'm as liberal as they come.

Admittedly I'm not a leftie but those comics simply were not funny. There's no real attempt at a justifiable argument, just a poor attempt at satire.

reverend kyle wrote:I didn't find them terribly funny.

and I'm as liberal as they come.

I didn't put them up because they were funny. For people who have followed the events of Iraq since at least the run-up to the 2003 invasion, they're quite interesting for what they say, and when they said it.

chewyman wrote:Admittedly I'm not a leftie but those comics simply were not funny. There's no real attempt at a justifiable argument, just a poor attempt at satire.

For something to be good satire, it isn't necessary that it makes a justifiable argument. But if by "justifiable argument" you're referring to the implication in the first cartoon that there wasn't a decent casus belli, and the predictions the following cartoons make, well, I think time has more or less proven what the cartoonist said.

Nephilim wrote:i gotta say thanks for the toons, stopper, and you should be the president of the fucking forums, you are the best

Ha - I doubt I'd be much more competent than GWB, if such a position existed.

im very interested in economics and politics, in fact next year im off to study economics at university in the uk (i dont know whether its a reputable uni, durham, but they wanted good grades so i thought id go for them) anyways i was just wondering if someone could explain clearly and concisely exactly what phrases such as ''left liberal'' and the like mean. also right wing and left wing? help!

Lol, amazing how right they were...

They ok'ish funny, nothing spectacular, but ironically so true.

alex_white101 wrote:im very interested in economics and politics, in fact next year im off to study economics at university in the uk (i dont know whether its a reputable uni, durham, but they wanted good grades so i thought id go for them) anyways i was just wondering if someone could explain clearly and concisely exactly what phrases such as ''left liberal'' and the like mean. also right wing and left wing? help!

Glad to hear that you're interested in what makes society tick. The terms 'left' and 'right' refer to the old French parliament. People who are 'right wing' traditionally believe in free markets and liberalism. People on the 'left wing' are typically associated with socialist ideologies, strong unions etc. Margarette Thatcher (who I assume you know of since you're British but in case you don't was the first female PM of the UK) coined the terms 'wet' and 'dry', referring to herself as a 'dry'. She loosely labeled idealists as wet behind the ears, hence the term 'wet'. Thus the term 'dry' referred to realists, who are the opposite of idealists. Liberalism is a separate ideology. It stresses an individual's rights, which cannot be infringed upon by society, the state or other individuals. You can do a wikipedia search for more information. Any other questions?

For something to be good satire, it isn't necessary that it makes a justifiable argument. But if by "justifiable argument" you're referring to the implication in the first cartoon that there wasn't a decent casus belli, and the predictions the following cartoons make, well, I think time has more or less proven what the cartoonist said.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

But seriously, what exactly is the cartoonist saying in your opinion? How has this been proven to date?

Stopper wrote:I don't really like Daniel O'Donnell - I pretend I do so that I can finagle my way into the affections of ladies of a certain age.

I would imagine it would take much more than Daniel O'Donnell......

alex_white101 wrote:im very interested in economics and politics, in fact next year im off to study economics at university in the uk (i dont know whether its a reputable uni, durham, but they wanted good grades so i thought id go for them) anyways i was just wondering if someone could explain clearly and concisely exactly what phrases such as ''left liberal'' and the like mean. also right wing and left wing? help!

Well done on getting to Durham. Its a very prestigious Uni, probably the best after Oxford and Cambridge... A little posh, but still

As for left and right wing, the best place to look is probably Wikipedia:

LEFT - RIGHT POLITICS

Basically, left wing, or Liberal, is in support of a more progressive society with government regulation for the good of the people and right wing, or conservative, is more traditionalist, maintaining the 'old' ways and upholding what they see as the fundamental aspects of society without too much government interference.

That said, there are many and varied versions of each side and the whole system is pretty flawed in relation to modern politics anyway, but still... Reading the articles is probably the best thing to do.

thanks, ive got an offer but gotta get the grades yet! its gonna be hard but hopefully not too bad.

thanks for the help with the politics, id never have thought it but it seems the place to get political advice is a website dedicated to a boardgame revolving around world domination...........

lol np but I guarantee you that there are much better forums for political debate than this one. CC is overridden with anarchists, socialists and evangelicals, there are very few people who actually (despite what they will say) have a middle of the road opinion.

chewyman wrote:lol np but I guarantee you that there are much better forums for political debate than this one. CC is overridden with anarchists, socialists and evangelicals, there are very few people who actually (despite what they will say) have a middle of the road opinion.

my opinions come from the fence on which i sit on directly in the middle of the road.

chewyman wrote:lol np but I guarantee you that there are much better forums for political debate than this one. CC is overridden with anarchists, socialists and evangelicals, there are very few people who actually (despite what they will say) have a middle of the road opinion.

I disagree really... CC is a great forum in my opinion, precisely because people have a lot of drastically different viewpoints yet it is still a pretty close community.

Do you frequent any other forums?

alex_white101 wrote:i dont know whether its a reputable uni, durham, but they wanted good grades so i thought id go for them

They accepted me, so it must be prestigious.

Which college made you the offer, by the way? I went to Grey, myself, as it happens.

BTW, if you're studying economics and are interested in politics, I'd start to read a reputable paper publication on a regular basis. Reading the Economist or the New Statesman, for example, would probably give you a better grounding in economics and politics - and this would be better than searching for somewhere on the internet. I'm no expert - I read physics, not economics - but paper publications are more likely to give you a (relatively) balanced view of politics, than most websites, which will expose you disproportionately to viewpoints that really needn't be bothered with for the length of time it takes to read them.

chewyman wrote:lol np but I guarantee you that there are much better forums for political debate than this one. CC is overridden with anarchists, socialists and evangelicals, there are very few people who actually (despite what they will say) have a middle of the road opinion.

There certainly are other places (blogs, newspaper websites) to go for political debate, but you really need to search hard - unless your heart is really in it, they can be very wearing - genuine extremists of the sort I have not yet seen on CC gravitate to these. (For one thing, Israel/Palestine has hardly been brought up here). CC is quite moderate in the actual opinions put forward by people (as long as you bear in mind it's dominated by Americans) regardless of their stated alignments.

Iz Man wrote:

Stopper wrote:I don't really like Daniel O'Donnell - I pretend I do so that I can finagle my way into the affections of ladies of a certain age.

I would imagine it would take much more than Daniel O'Donnell......

Oh my God, I just discovered this. Did you respond to me, AGAIN?!

gethine wrote:my opinions come from the fence on which i sit on directly in the middle of the road.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/indexhttp://www.politicalcompass.org/index
Take this test and prove it

I disagree really... CC is a great forum in my opinion, precisely because people have a lot of drastically different viewpoints yet it is still a pretty close community.

Do you frequent any other forums?

I do, but not anymore political forums. I've found in my experience that almost all online game forums are left of centre. I'd recommend a forum specifically devoted to politics though if you're really interested. You might like to try http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/ if you're interested.

CC is quite moderate in the actual opinions put forward by people (as long as you bear in mind it's dominated by Americans) regardless of their stated alignments.

*cough*there are communists on this forum*cough*
Nobody with such an outdated left wing ideology can be considered 'quite moderate'.

BTW, if you're studying economics and are interested in politics, I'd start to read a reputable paper publication on a regular basis. Reading the Economist or the New Statesman, for example, would probably give you a better grounding in economics and politics - and this would be better than searching for somewhere on the internet. I'm no expert - I read physics, not economics - but paper publications are more likely to give you a (relatively) balanced view of politics, than most websites, which will expose you disproportionately to viewpoints that really needn't be bothered with for the length of time it takes to read them.

I subscribe to The Economist, it's a great read. I'll admit that it's got a strong neo-liberal bias, but it's pretty must exactly where I stand so it's not a problem for me