Thread: USA cartoon

my freind sent me this - what do you think?

Reminds me of the play Picasso at the Lapin Agile by Steve Martin... someone is predicting what will happen in the 20th century and says "the city of Hiroshima will be completely modernized." at which Einstein snaps his to her to give her full attention.

Other than that it's one of the duller political cartoons I've seen as it tries to create parallels that aren't there. Granted it was a horrible thing, but to call it a terrorist act? Not so much, The US made sure to drop a bunch of leaflets beforehand warning the populace.

I don't think it is that funny, but I don't think it is in bad taste either.

Hiroshma was a tragedy, but one of which I don't know it could be avoided.
Still, laughing with tragedy is a human way to deal with it. ER doctors laugh with what they deal with, as do lawyers, undertakers, ...
It is simply a way of dealing with it.
The same goes for the Mohammed cartoon.

As for the bombings...
60 years later it is easy to take weeks pouring over information, and then deciding what the people of the day had only days for, with unreliable info to base their decision on.

The one good thing that flowed from the bombings of Hirsohima and Nagasaki -which were terribly inefficient, as far as nukes go- is that everyone became so scared of MAD that noone ever depolyed the real bad boys, like the megaton hydrogen bombs.

I also think that the pilots didn't know what they were going to drop.
They would've known it was out of the ordinary, but with the 'need to know' in the military, they would not have known what they were going to cause.

That gives a slanted view of it. In fairness, most political cartoons do. To frame it properly, mention which publication it was originally printed in.

The obvious omission is the beginning of the story. The cartoon, only takes the conclusion of the story for their attempt at making a point.

Regards,
Mitch

Originally Posted by SinglerM

That gives a slanted view of it. In fairness, most political cartoons do. To frame it properly, mention which publication it was originally printed in.

The obvious omission is the beginning of the story. The cartoon, only takes the conclusion of the story for their attempt at making a point.

Regards,
Mitch

Actually, "objective" is a better word to use than "slanted."

The kid in the cartoon (an innocent, whose mind is not clouded by any personal bias) presumably knows nothing about that particular bombing, which ultimately claimed over a hundred thousand lives. With the recent willingness to throw the word "terror" around quite a bit, the child is simply learning about another premeditated attack (which, frankly, was intended to destroy civilian life on a massive scale), and calling it what he assumes others around him would.

After having fire bombed many of Japan's wooden cities for quite some time, killing untold numbers of civilians, the US was frustrated that their enemy's will to fight was unbroken and as defiant as ever. In their desperation, a way to bring Japan's stubborn military brass to their knees was sought. Cold and calculated, the two famous bombs they dropped did exactly that, which brought on the unconditional surrender. Was it an effective decision that saved many Allied lives? You better believe it. When asked to recall their memories, do the Japanese describe it in those words? Absolutely not. They will describe terror in graphic detail - a word more commonly used by those who are terrorized, as opposed to those who unleash terror.

The 9/11 attackers obviously didn't underline "terror" on a whiteboard during their planning stages; they set out to do as the Enola Gay pilots did, and bring a defiant enemy to its knees in a fell swoop. The civilian lives lost on that day were a fraction of those lost to the many bombings in Japan. The point is, each attacker viewed their actions as "necessary," and neither thought of themselves as "terrorists" in the undertaking.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Other than that it's one of the duller political cartoons I've seen as it tries to create parallels that aren't there.

Nickelbag is right!

9/11 kills 3,000 civillans and from both bombs USA kills 220,000 to 400,000 civillans so see there is no parallel at all

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Granted it was a horrible thing, but to call it a terrorist act? Not so much, The US made sure to drop a bunch of leaflets beforehand warning the populace.

Again he is right cos the leaflets make it all better

lol, don't get me wrong it was an atrocity. I don't think the bombs should have been dropped, but I think the comparison isn't well founded.

Edit: I'd like to say that I find it in poor taste to start a thread asking for opinions and turn around and respond to an opinion contrary to yours sarcastically and insultingly.

Obviously it was intended to make people thing, but I think the comparisons that it is referring to are totally different, but the artist/author has achieved his goal regardless hence this discussion.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

... someone is predicting what will happen in the 20th century and says "the city of Hiroshima will be completely modernized."

now this is insulting and then some

Originally Posted by Rayzor

now this is insulting and then some

See, this is why I don't shave insult, it burns, stings, and is worse than most astringents, not a bad exfoliator though, especially the dead sea version. I much prefer to use the body shop shave cream, but proraso isn't bad. Lately I've taken to using somerset's shave oil before the cream, while I'm lathering, but I am worried that when I actually get down to straight razor shaving that it might make the handle of the razor too slippery as some people have mentioned. YMMV of course, but that's just my opinion.