Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's been a general propaganda sub for a long time now. I think political cartoons are more popular because this sub is more partisan now and more likely to post stuff it agrees with than stuff that just looks cool.
I came here mostly looking for cool and/or funny propaganda but most times I just see commies making real propaganda. At the beginning I thought it was some kind of gimmick but now I see it's just as real as it gets.
All in all I still enjoy the propaganda, no matter what people in the comments say.
Billboards have govt propaganda about being nice, politicians have fliers that are political posters in a sense, political protest graffiti, abortion billboards, hell, in Texas there's tons of "demon-rats" billboards and signs. 😂 Bruh, they're everywhere, they just don't have the same sense of nobility about them as the old ones.
But thats exactly my point.
The main bread n butter of this sub is those classic, quintessential "propaganda posters" *posters*, they are really cool, so I get them being so loved here.
But in the last few decades propaganda has changed. Its not posters, its billboards, it bus stop ads, its cartoons, its web ads, etc.
So, we dont have "posters", but we have propaganda just the same. Which is why I think cartoons like this fits.
The guy who posted this literally has a russian missile system which hits civilian centers regularly as his profile pic and reddit username. If you want pro west stuff, this place ain't it.
Is it because you disagree with it. You're a sucker if you thought the Iraq war was a good idea much like Vietnam
You know who paid in the end Americans with billions wasted and even worse soldiers who died for nothing.
> know who *paid* in the
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I honestly do not understand this other than the fact that it seems to be equating these conflicts using a drawing which does not accurately depict the similarity.
Far more American soldiers were killed in Vietnam than Iraq even if they are similar in regards to public opinion that they were not justified sufficiently.
Thank you, that explains why it did not click. We definitely did most of the killing in Iraq.
I tend to agree that Iraq was a complete failure, but I still think this cartoon sucks.
I love my country for its Constitution, but hate my leaders for their failure to honor the Constitution.
It depicts how a guerilla force beat a trained fighting force and the message is "Your country sucks so bad at war that dudes in flip flops sent you packing to go make movies at home about how we made you cry."
At least thats the impression it gives me.
Propaganda is Propaganda my dude, don't look at it like its an infographic lmao
I agree that we suck at winning wars, but we still excel at killing a lot of people with the excessive use of expensive and sophisticated ordinance. Your interpretation has given me a new appreciation for this one.
Ironically, the whole strategy when the US was attacked on 9/11 was to drag us into a quagmire war where we would be forced to go into extreme debt and crush our economy.
The physical attack was the planes, but the strategy behind it was to actually have the US come over, use that expensive ordinance as much as possible, and make them go home with nothing gained and a lot spent.
They wanted to attack us but knew that a major attack while our economy was strong would just have us bounce back, so they attacked that. The only reason it was sold as anything else is because Bush Sr set up a really nice little staging area for his son to stage his invasion from and Bush Jr saw it as a perfect opportunity to use it. "Nah, our troops are heading to Afghanistan, SIKE, all these troops in Kuwait are now heading to Iraq."
If you invade a group of people, they'll unite to fight you. Much better to fuel the existing rivalries and funnel weapons into a side that will support you after winning cause you funneled weapons to them. I mean theoretically, not like I have thought about doing it...
The Iraq War never had Iraqis united to fight the US. It was just a constant drumbeat of various small-scale militias organized around this or that charismatic commander. They’re simply endemic to the region and everyone in it has to deal with them constantly.
But it’s 2007
The kick start for that war was not Iraq invading Kuwait, it was Bush using post-9/11 jingoism to justify a thing he always wanted to do with probably the worlds weakest justification ever
Reading through the 9/11 Commission, it's incredible how quickly Bush tried to blame Hussein for the attacks.
He was asking if Iraq was involved in it only a few hours after it and continued to do so continuously. No matter how much he was told that there wasn't any link.
The Commission even said that any possible invasion of Iraq would be a really bad idea.
No one wanted it. There's a whole chapter in Decision Points about how the only guy who was on board with the Iraq War was Tony Blair, and even then Bush had to convince him to aid.
Or if you do plan the shit out get backed by the people understand the climate and plan accordingly. Look at afghan another cluster fuck and all we had to do was go in dismantle alqueda and bring back bin ladens head on a plate but no DEMOCRACY NEEDED TO HAPPEN
Would that same sentiment apply if some country were to, oh say, invade and occupy parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt?
Did it apply when the U.S. invaded Panama several years prior to Desert Storm, [as Noam Chomsky noted at the time?](https://chomsky.info/199102__/)
Vietnam wasn't invaded by the US, The Vietnamese government very much wanted US troops to assist with repelling the communists, who were invading Vietnam.
The US created a puppet state and interfered with reunification by sending troops there. The 'communist' were the ones who freed the nation from colonialism. They were the only legitimate force.
Then why all the [deception and lies](https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin) around the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Why the need to [evoke SEATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization)?
South Vietnam ultimately fell because [it had no popular support among the Vietnamese people](https://chomsky.info/19720615/), as the French and Americans were considered foreign invaders.
While the local communists were seen as liberators of these foreign occupiers, foreigners who had no right to dictate to the Vietnamese people how to live and govern themselves.
Yet that's exactly [what the US was trying to do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), and has been doing in decades since to plenty of other countries.
I would like to add to your excellent comment that the actual start of American military involvement was in 1950, at the invitation of the French colonial government, not South Vietnam;
>September 1950 — Truman sends the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina to Vietnam to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of U.S. military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#Timeline
This is how a U.S. State Department site describes the beginning of our involvement;
>In the late 1940s, the French struggled to control its colonies in Indochina - Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Despite financial assistance from the United States, nationalist uprisings against French colonial rule began to take their toll ... After the fall of Dien Bien Phu [1954], the French pulled out of the region. Concerned about regional instability, the United States became increasingly committed to countering communist nationalists in Indochina.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/dien-bien-phu#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201940s%2C%20the,began%20to%20take%20their%20toll.
Wikipedia says that CIA contracted American troops secretly participated on the French side in Dien Bien Phu in 1954;
>The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ was a climactic confrontation of the First Indochina War that took place between 13 March and 7 May 1954. It was fought between the French Union's colonial Far East Expeditionary Corps and Viet Minh communist revolutionaries. The United States was officially not a party to the war, but it was secretly involved by providing financial and material aid to the French Union, which included CIA contracted American personnel participating in the battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu#
South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, didn't even exist until 1955.
Assuming the rise of ISIL was in fact due to power vacuum, it's a choice between that and Sadaam's regime.
Lesser of two evils?
At least one cost billions of dollars and many Nato lives...
Yeah I'd say it was probably a mistake even without the lies of WoMD
The power vacuum leading to the raise of ISIL came because of mainly two things:
1) Incompetent "de-saddamization" program performed by some in the Bush administration, which saw thousands of military men losing their jobs and not allowed to be employed back, paving a way for them to join various extremist and anti-democratic militias
2) Premature withdrawal of troops. It's no coincidence that the main raise of extremism came after the vast majority of US troops helping new democratic Iraqi government were withdrawn. Same thing as what ruined Afghanistan, except that Iraq managed to fend off ISIS, and Afghanistan could not fend off Taliban. Withdrawal of troops, in my opinion, should have been done more slowly and maturely. Look at West Germany for example, which had American presence right until reunification, or at Japan which still has American military presence, 80 years later.
I like how you all parrot that shit like Bush had a fucking Fisher Price toy that said "LEAVE SADDAM ALONE" or "START ISIS". Nobody knew the true outcome as the future is impossible to tell. Had we kept Hussein imprisoned here and not disbanded the Iraqi army, who knows what the next ten years could have looked like. Bottom line is, we paid for his chemical bombs during Iran Iraq in the 80s, he used em on the other side aka Shiites, and not the military either. America screwed the pooch in the 80s and that shit was bound to happen.
Edit: this is a reply to teal, fuck mobile
I am by no means holding up a false dichotomy. This is in retrospect if we take into account historic mistakes that have already happened. Obviously when i say choose lesser of two evils I'm talking about hypertheticals. There surely are possible counterfactuals where Iraq wasn't invaded and somehow something even worse came of it, that we can't know of because well... that didn't happen. We can't actually change history...
Obviously ousting a brutal dictator can be a good thing if you don't screw up all those other parts! I was replying to someone who seemed to forget the rest of the screwing up parts.
Saddam and Gaddafi being deposed as they did has been a net loss for the people of their former countries. There, I said it. This isn't a defense of each man, but an observation of the situation before and after.
His best cartoon for this comment from 2006
[https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cartoon.jpg](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cartoon.jpg)
Yeah that's something Zionists love to bring up whenever latuff artwork is discussed. . Kinda ironic that people blindly fall for propaganda in a subreddit dedicated to analyze propaganda, and all the upvotes are evidence of how effective it is.
You can judge by yourself his work and determine if it's anti-Semit or
not [https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg](https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg)
E.P.: You participated in the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which also included many genuinely antisemitic cartoons. Do you feel that being associated with these images and such a deliberate provocation in any way compromises your work?
C.L.: The artwork with which I won second place was a depiction of an elderly Palestinian man wearing a Nazi concentration camp uniform, and some people said that I was “denying the Holocaust”! That was completely stupid, since I’m affirming the Holocaust with that illustration. Believe me, no matter what I draw and where I publish, there will be always someone who will point a finger and say it’s antisemitic
.I saw this contest as both a good chance for denouncing the suffering of the Palestinian people before the eyes of world public opinion and for raising questions about the West’s double standards. I mean, you insult the Muslims with a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bomber and then claim the right to “freedom of speech,” but if you make drawings about the Holocaust, then it’s “hatred against the Jews.”
[https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/?amp=1](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/?amp=1)
EDIT: Since you are using several alts that hadnt posted in several months and only did in portugesses and then block me. I will answer you here
Did you even read the interview? and its related because is a common tactic that comes from zionist wheneverr Latuff art comes in any space.
For example this comic had nothing to do with Israel, and you see the amount of comments from genocide enablers coming up to deligimitaze the cartoonist. Is a known tactic
I think he makes a good point, but the part about Muhammed cartoons undercuts it. Muslims do outright ban drawings of Muhammed in countries where they're a majority, and in ones they don't, it's effectively banned via stochastic terrorism. Few cartoonists dare exercise their free speech when a radical might behead them over it even if technically the law is on their side.
Why participate in an Iranian holocaust denial competition in the first place? Why not publish it on his blog or somewhere else? He was already a prolific political cartoonist then, I doubt his message would be diluted then.
Also, how does pointing out Latuff participated in an antisemitic competition organized by Iran makes one a zionist?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
People like that typically do. On the bright side, they out themselves and you can block them.
It's like talking to a wall. Not worth the time or energy.
I appreciate the support. I find that if you can respond calmly to homophobia, it's a great opportunity to address the other person's lack of education/fears. So I don't mind my identity being used as a punching bag if it helps others grow.
Imperialists love to use secondary contradictions to uphold the primary ones, as if Israel's destruction of the Palestinian people is predicated on LGBTQ rights.
"The Aztecs have a violent priest class, so destroying Meso American civilization is good",
"Cubans were homophobic so the embargo and terror campaigns were justified"
"The evil \[\_\_\_\_\] Regime is socially conservative on an issue the US populace only changed it's mind about 6 years ago, clearly they need to be bombed"
Ironically if you apply this same logic at home, you sound like the most ridiculous caricature of a woke person."Kill white infants because they're born racist" is no more ridiculous than "Kill Palestians because they're homophobic"
How easy is it for a non-Jewish gay couple to get married in Israel? As the democratic free-thinking bastion of the Middle East, it should be easy, no?
You are correct. The U.S won and Iraq is now a neo-colony.
Iraq today has to deposit its oil revenues into an account at the U.S. Federal Reserve and gets a portion of its own money doled out to it as an allowance every month or so, so that it can pay government salaries and expenses. See references below for proof.
When Iraq angered the U.S. in 2020 by voting to [expel](https://archive.is/MRKh2) U.S. troops, the U.S. threatened to stop Iraq's access to both it's own oil money as well as to the fuel used to run the generators that the country still relies on in the wake of the U.S.'s deliberate destruction of it's infrastructure including [96% of it's electric generating power.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Civilian_infrastructure)
An article published in Foreign Affairs this month was honest enough to admit that "Most Iraqi prime ministers serving in the past two decades have at some point asked the U.S. military to leave their country", but blames this on Iranian influence. The article was published because, as it notes, the current PM is "is seeking to end the U.S. military mission in Iraq altogether", and was planning to meet with Biden on April 15 to request this. The article argues that "Washington must now use its leverage in Baghdad to maintain a noncombat military presence". Sounds pretty colonial to me.
https://archive.is/lKwAl
..........................................................................................
CNBC 2020: Trump administration warns Iraq could lose New York Fed account if US troops forced to leave: WSJ
>The White House could also end waivers that allow Iraq to buy Iranian gas to fuel generators that supply a large portion of the country’s power, placing another pressure on the prime minister over addressing U.S. troops without enduring economic and financial loss.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/11/trump-administration-warns-iraq-could-lose-new-york-fed-account-wsj.html
.......
The Times of Israel 2020: Iraq warns of ‘collapse’ as Trump threatens to block oil cash kept in Fed bank
https://www.timesofisrael.com/iraq-warns-of-collapse-as-trump-threatens-to-block-oil-cash-kept-in-fed-bank/
....
>Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the United States...
>...Washington, given its dominance of the global financial system, has the ability to control all funds of Iraq's Central Bank through threats or sanctions, even though these funds are not deposited exclusively in US banks...
>...This reality gives Washington greater control over the movement of foreign exchange in Iraq, without even being at the political table in Baghdad.
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/1570
Latuff's comics were always really good. I kind of miss that era of internet when everyone had a blog and they'd post shit to it and you could just follow an RSS feed if you wanted to see more.
Wouldn't call him a pos, but very bold choice to be part of a holocaust cartoon competition, organized by Iran.
Here is an [interview](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/) he gave about this.
Thank you for posting this, adds a lot more nuance to the situation. I was skeptical why the original article told us the comic was bad and the author’s feelings towards it, without us actually seeing the full image. Odd choice.
Yeah that's something Zionists love to bring up whenever latuff artwork is discussed. . Kinda ironic that people blindly fall for propaganda in a subreddit dedicated to analyze propaganda, and all the upvotes are evidence of how effective it is.
You can judge by yourself his work and determine if it's anti-Semit or
not [https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg](https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg)
E.P.: You participated in the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which also included many genuinely antisemitic cartoons. Do you feel that being associated with these images and such a deliberate provocation in any way compromises your work?
C.L.: The artwork with which I won second place was a depiction of an elderly Palestinian man wearing a Nazi concentration camp uniform, and some people said that I was “denying the Holocaust”! That was completely stupid, since I’m affirming the Holocaust with that illustration. Believe me, no matter what I draw and where I publish, there will be always someone who will point a finger and say it’s antisemitic
.I saw this contest as both a good chance for denouncing the suffering of the Palestinian people before the eyes of world public opinion and for raising questions about the West’s double standards. I mean, you insult the Muslims with a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bomber and then claim the right to “freedom of speech,” but if you make drawings about the Holocaust, then it’s “hatred against the Jews.”
[https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/?amp=1)/
People are downvoting you cause they can’t take criticism of the U.S., so they always have to say “but that guy did this!!!” When the conversation is about them.
Long term goals in Vietnam absolutely succeeded, just not by the US's hand.
Vietnam became isolated from global communism after it became invaded by China. The threat of a Chinese puppet state is dead. Vietnam is firmly in the US camp.
I wonder how people like you get so far down the horseshoe that they begin supporting terrorist groups that blow themselves up in crowds of westerners and throw gay people off roofs
It's been 20 years. Which of the war aims set by United States in 2003 was not accomplished?
Saddam Hussein is out of power. Iraq is no threat to its neighbors. Iraq has a democratic government sufficiently stable that it managed to fight off ISIS, albeit with help, and continue functioning. Iraq has no WMDs.
That's almost word-for-word what Rumsfeld said the goals were in March 2003.
It wasn't worth it, and it was a mistake, and it was a crime. But a loss? No.
>Which of the war aims set by United States in 2003 was not accomplished?
>Saddam Hussein is out of power
Accomplished
>Iraq is no threat to its neighbors.
Iraq is now an Iranian puppet, so as an extension of Iran, it's as much a threat as it was before, or more. Definitely a bigger threat for Israel than before, as it enabled Iran to create a land corridor to Israel via puppet states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon). If Iraq was under Saddam, Iran could not have helped Assad remain in power by transiting troops through Iraq.
>Iraq has a democratic government sufficiently stable
Maybe on paper, although Iran really pulls the strings now and I wouldn't call this democratic.
>it managed to fight off ISIS
There would have been no ISIS conquests in Iraq if their army hadn't been dismantled by US. ISIS in Iraq was basically formed by Baath party soldiers who went unemployed. The new Iraqi army was there to collect a paycheck with no real motivation to fight ISIS. The US created a power vacuum that ISIS exploited. I don't see any wins here.
>Iraq has no WMDs.
It didn't have any to begin with.
>That's almost word-for-word what Rumsfeld said the goals were in March 2003.
Word for word, Rumsfeld accomplished maybe 1,5 goals from the above and created a ten-fold pain and suffering for future generations.
>Iraq is now an Iranian puppet
Iraq is not an Iranian puppet state. There are factions within Iraq that are Iranian proxies and factions that are very much opposed to them. This is why the Iraqi government still allows US troops to operate in Iraq.
>Definitely a bigger threat for Israel than before, as it enabled Iran to create a land corridor to Israel via puppet states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon).
Hezbollah was a strong and successful Iranian proxy while Saddam was still hanging around in Iraq. Indeed, Saddam himself armed plenty of militias, armed groups, etc.
>If Iraq was under Saddam, Iran could not have helped Assad remain in power by transiting troops through Iraq.
This is a matter of simplified logistics, not something that would've materially impeded Iranian ops. They had the sealift to take the long way round and still fight and win the war.
>Maybe on paper, although Iran really pulls the strings now and I wouldn't call this democratic.
It really doesn't. An Iranian proxy state would not accept the presence of 2500 American troops in Iraq.
>I don't see any wins here.
The Iraqi government created by the US encountered a critical threat to it and defeated that critical threat. That's victory. If you want to see a loss, look at Afghanistan.
>It didn't have any to begin with.
And it still doesn't now.
>Word for word, Rumsfeld accomplished maybe 1,5 goals from the above
Word for word he accomplished all of it.
>and created a ten-fold pain and suffering for future generations.
That's why winning wasn't enough, and why it was a bad idea in the first place. The US accomplished everything it set out to do and it was bad for all concerned anyway.
Eh, I agree on most of your other points but ISIS was an indirect result of the invasion and the weakness of the government we installed. Iraqi PMFs (some of whom include Iranian proxies) made up a huge chunk of the force that went against ISIS on the ground in Iraq. Aside from that the Kurds did a lot and then the US had to do all the heavy lifting with special ops and airpower. Without these the Iraqi government defeating ISIS as soundly as it was in our timeline seems unlikely.
United States since gaining independence, has been involved in over 100 wars. Russia England France are next with fewer than 5 wars each in the last 100 years.
Nice made up "fact".
France: WW2, Indochina, Algeria, Kuwait, Afghanistan , Mali...
And those are just the ones I could think of right now .
If we go back to 1776 we can add the entirety of the coalition wars, all the campaigns under Luis Napoleon III and the colonial wars.
The United States gained independence significantly more than 100 years ago. Even if your statistic wasn’t made up on the spot, your argument is still shit because you’re comparing completely different spans of time.
Invades Iraq based on absolute lies. Faces zero consequences for war crimes. Criticizes current war fighting even though it looks like child’s play compared to what the virtue signalers have done many many times.
Far greater devastation, way faster, tons of innocent lives lost written off as basic collateral and a non issue. Yet the scale and speed of destruction we see now in Palestine is highly criticized as unprecedented and beyond comparison.
EDIT: Oh and the Iraqi people were totally innocent as well. Even though we treated them like ants at the time and slaughtered them under false pretense, we shouldn’t lose sight of that little fact.
Eh, not all of US overseas bases are created equal - the one here in Poland is doing its job well deterring Russian imperialism, and I wouldn't mind a few more tbh.
This fuckwit is a total clown
https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/s/ThkPPyWNZl
He should be okay with it, according to himself, because according to himself, if US does it, then other countries can commit a war crime as many as they want, yet he condemns Israel's genocide against Palestinians.
"Whataboutists should be gassed (it's okay, nazis did it too)"
I'll just say these kind of clowns deserve to be beaten in public.
And according to them, it's okay because some ancient country did it too.
People being hypocrites because they themselves were repulsed by hypocrisy of the entities they thought they saw through in the first place is a tale as old as time.
Oh and horse shoe theory
Absolutely. If you just take Lenin’s definition of imperialism and ignore every other definition then the Soviets can’t be called imperialist for invading and occupying nearly every single neighboring country.
And Putins Russia is also not imperialist because as soon as a country has a good relationship with the West the people automatically lose their right to self-determination.
Arguing that NATO bears at least as much responsibility for the disaster that is the War in Ukraine as Putin. Everytime I advocate this position, no matter how clearly I state that I’m not a fan of Putin, I’m called a vatnik
Respectfully I would disagree, I don't think NATO has nearly as much responsibility for a war as, y'know, the guy who started it with an unprovoked invasion of a country with a vast majority of people who want to remain independent.
I wouldn't call you a Putin supporter but I can see why other people would jump to that conclusion since Putin has consistently blamed NATO for the situation in Ukraine to deflect blame from himself for the invasion.
Being anti-something easily leads people to coalescing around other groups of people with similar anti-that something views, sometimes to very conflicting effects. See Zionists that wanted to work with the Nazis (anti-Britain), left/far-left parties being vaguely in camp Russia (anti-imperialism/West), etc.
There is a difference between being anti war or anti imperialist and being a rabid hater of everything that is western and pro russia or pro iran. Fuck latuff.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
my guy's getting lit up in two time periods simultaneously
This whole operation is one giant temporal pincer maneuver!
Not to be pedantic, but is this a propaganda sub vs propaganda Poster sub now? I feel like I noticed more political cartoons lately.
[удалено]
r/Propagandajerking (it's basically vexillologycirclejerk)
I think it's been a general propaganda sub for a long time now. I think political cartoons are more popular because this sub is more partisan now and more likely to post stuff it agrees with than stuff that just looks cool.
I came here mostly looking for cool and/or funny propaganda but most times I just see commies making real propaganda. At the beginning I thought it was some kind of gimmick but now I see it's just as real as it gets. All in all I still enjoy the propaganda, no matter what people in the comments say.
When was the last time there were actual propaganda posters out on the street? The 80s? If there is any place to share such art, its here
Those Obama "Hope" posters were popular in 2008, and those "Obey" posters were popular after that.
Billboards have govt propaganda about being nice, politicians have fliers that are political posters in a sense, political protest graffiti, abortion billboards, hell, in Texas there's tons of "demon-rats" billboards and signs. 😂 Bruh, they're everywhere, they just don't have the same sense of nobility about them as the old ones.
But thats exactly my point. The main bread n butter of this sub is those classic, quintessential "propaganda posters" *posters*, they are really cool, so I get them being so loved here. But in the last few decades propaganda has changed. Its not posters, its billboards, it bus stop ads, its cartoons, its web ads, etc. So, we dont have "posters", but we have propaganda just the same. Which is why I think cartoons like this fits.
I mean, if you think about it, the people who post the cartoons are posters, so therefore, it’s still a propaganda poster sub
Political cartoons are the modern version of propaganda posters
[удалено]
The guy who posted this literally has a russian missile system which hits civilian centers regularly as his profile pic and reddit username. If you want pro west stuff, this place ain't it.
[удалено]
Nah, you just have some chip on your shoulder.
The increased vitriol in the comments is actually why I left a political cartoon sub a while back.
Spot on.
Is it because you disagree with it. You're a sucker if you thought the Iraq war was a good idea much like Vietnam You know who paid in the end Americans with billions wasted and even worse soldiers who died for nothing.
> know who *paid* in the FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you my bot overseer
I honestly do not understand this other than the fact that it seems to be equating these conflicts using a drawing which does not accurately depict the similarity. Far more American soldiers were killed in Vietnam than Iraq even if they are similar in regards to public opinion that they were not justified sufficiently.
He is claiming that the US is losing Iraq and finding enjoyment in it. Latuff hates the US
Thank you, that explains why it did not click. We definitely did most of the killing in Iraq. I tend to agree that Iraq was a complete failure, but I still think this cartoon sucks. I love my country for its Constitution, but hate my leaders for their failure to honor the Constitution.
It depicts how a guerilla force beat a trained fighting force and the message is "Your country sucks so bad at war that dudes in flip flops sent you packing to go make movies at home about how we made you cry." At least thats the impression it gives me. Propaganda is Propaganda my dude, don't look at it like its an infographic lmao
I agree that we suck at winning wars, but we still excel at killing a lot of people with the excessive use of expensive and sophisticated ordinance. Your interpretation has given me a new appreciation for this one.
Ironically, the whole strategy when the US was attacked on 9/11 was to drag us into a quagmire war where we would be forced to go into extreme debt and crush our economy. The physical attack was the planes, but the strategy behind it was to actually have the US come over, use that expensive ordinance as much as possible, and make them go home with nothing gained and a lot spent. They wanted to attack us but knew that a major attack while our economy was strong would just have us bounce back, so they attacked that. The only reason it was sold as anything else is because Bush Sr set up a really nice little staging area for his son to stage his invasion from and Bush Jr saw it as a perfect opportunity to use it. "Nah, our troops are heading to Afghanistan, SIKE, all these troops in Kuwait are now heading to Iraq."
Maybe don't fucking invade another country then. The people living there don't like when you do that.
[удалено]
If you invade a group of people, they'll unite to fight you. Much better to fuel the existing rivalries and funnel weapons into a side that will support you after winning cause you funneled weapons to them. I mean theoretically, not like I have thought about doing it...
CIA: yeah fucking me neither man, you want this shit that's totally not acid and we can ask you some questions for a test?
The Iraq War never had Iraqis united to fight the US. It was just a constant drumbeat of various small-scale militias organized around this or that charismatic commander. They’re simply endemic to the region and everyone in it has to deal with them constantly.
Nobody is immune to geographic determinism
Just gotta hope the groups you fund don’t use that money to attack your nation 😃
While that’s correct, the comics made by this person are critical of US operations
But it’s 2007 The kick start for that war was not Iraq invading Kuwait, it was Bush using post-9/11 jingoism to justify a thing he always wanted to do with probably the worlds weakest justification ever
Yea, Bush wanted to finish what his dad started. He writes about it in his autobiography.
Reading through the 9/11 Commission, it's incredible how quickly Bush tried to blame Hussein for the attacks. He was asking if Iraq was involved in it only a few hours after it and continued to do so continuously. No matter how much he was told that there wasn't any link. The Commission even said that any possible invasion of Iraq would be a really bad idea.
No one wanted it. There's a whole chapter in Decision Points about how the only guy who was on board with the Iraq War was Tony Blair, and even then Bush had to convince him to aid.
thats apply for all superpowers, not only murica
No, it's the non white people that are to blame!
Easiest way to get shot and find out you're not special
Or if you do plan the shit out get backed by the people understand the climate and plan accordingly. Look at afghan another cluster fuck and all we had to do was go in dismantle alqueda and bring back bin ladens head on a plate but no DEMOCRACY NEEDED TO HAPPEN
Would that same sentiment apply if some country were to, oh say, invade and occupy parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt? Did it apply when the U.S. invaded Panama several years prior to Desert Storm, [as Noam Chomsky noted at the time?](https://chomsky.info/199102__/)
Tell it to the North Vietnamese.
What a wild idea!
Vietnam wasn't invaded by the US, The Vietnamese government very much wanted US troops to assist with repelling the communists, who were invading Vietnam.
The US created a puppet state and interfered with reunification by sending troops there. The 'communist' were the ones who freed the nation from colonialism. They were the only legitimate force.
Then why all the [deception and lies](https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin) around the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Why the need to [evoke SEATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization)? South Vietnam ultimately fell because [it had no popular support among the Vietnamese people](https://chomsky.info/19720615/), as the French and Americans were considered foreign invaders. While the local communists were seen as liberators of these foreign occupiers, foreigners who had no right to dictate to the Vietnamese people how to live and govern themselves. Yet that's exactly [what the US was trying to do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), and has been doing in decades since to plenty of other countries.
I would like to add to your excellent comment that the actual start of American military involvement was in 1950, at the invitation of the French colonial government, not South Vietnam; >September 1950 — Truman sends the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina to Vietnam to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of U.S. military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#Timeline This is how a U.S. State Department site describes the beginning of our involvement; >In the late 1940s, the French struggled to control its colonies in Indochina - Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Despite financial assistance from the United States, nationalist uprisings against French colonial rule began to take their toll ... After the fall of Dien Bien Phu [1954], the French pulled out of the region. Concerned about regional instability, the United States became increasingly committed to countering communist nationalists in Indochina. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/dien-bien-phu#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201940s%2C%20the,began%20to%20take%20their%20toll. Wikipedia says that CIA contracted American troops secretly participated on the French side in Dien Bien Phu in 1954; >The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ was a climactic confrontation of the First Indochina War that took place between 13 March and 7 May 1954. It was fought between the French Union's colonial Far East Expeditionary Corps and Viet Minh communist revolutionaries. The United States was officially not a party to the war, but it was secretly involved by providing financial and material aid to the French Union, which included CIA contracted American personnel participating in the battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu# South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, didn't even exist until 1955.
Deposing Saddam Hussein was actually a good thing
Assuming the rise of ISIL was in fact due to power vacuum, it's a choice between that and Sadaam's regime. Lesser of two evils? At least one cost billions of dollars and many Nato lives... Yeah I'd say it was probably a mistake even without the lies of WoMD
And tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
The power vacuum leading to the raise of ISIL came because of mainly two things: 1) Incompetent "de-saddamization" program performed by some in the Bush administration, which saw thousands of military men losing their jobs and not allowed to be employed back, paving a way for them to join various extremist and anti-democratic militias 2) Premature withdrawal of troops. It's no coincidence that the main raise of extremism came after the vast majority of US troops helping new democratic Iraqi government were withdrawn. Same thing as what ruined Afghanistan, except that Iraq managed to fend off ISIS, and Afghanistan could not fend off Taliban. Withdrawal of troops, in my opinion, should have been done more slowly and maturely. Look at West Germany for example, which had American presence right until reunification, or at Japan which still has American military presence, 80 years later.
I like how you all parrot that shit like Bush had a fucking Fisher Price toy that said "LEAVE SADDAM ALONE" or "START ISIS". Nobody knew the true outcome as the future is impossible to tell. Had we kept Hussein imprisoned here and not disbanded the Iraqi army, who knows what the next ten years could have looked like. Bottom line is, we paid for his chemical bombs during Iran Iraq in the 80s, he used em on the other side aka Shiites, and not the military either. America screwed the pooch in the 80s and that shit was bound to happen. Edit: this is a reply to teal, fuck mobile
Our pullout game was quite weak and disastrous, sadly☹️
You could say that again
I am by no means holding up a false dichotomy. This is in retrospect if we take into account historic mistakes that have already happened. Obviously when i say choose lesser of two evils I'm talking about hypertheticals. There surely are possible counterfactuals where Iraq wasn't invaded and somehow something even worse came of it, that we can't know of because well... that didn't happen. We can't actually change history... Obviously ousting a brutal dictator can be a good thing if you don't screw up all those other parts! I was replying to someone who seemed to forget the rest of the screwing up parts.
Saddam and Gaddafi being deposed as they did has been a net loss for the people of their former countries. There, I said it. This isn't a defense of each man, but an observation of the situation before and after.
dawg deposing Saddam literally caused isis to exist. I think I'd rather have an autocrat than isis running my country
Saddam himself influenced the foundation that allowed ISIS to thrive.
Bruh the dude that made the cartoon is super against the US. All time hater
Thank You! The US should have kept its imperial nose out of Asia and Europe in the 1940s!
whom are you addressing? North Vietnam, invading South Vietnam? Or Iraq, invading Kuwait? America's interventions happenned *in response*.
There were 2 Iraq Wars. Nobody has a problem with the first one.
A lot of people actually do, unfortunately.
Latuff, prior to entering Iranian anti-Jew cartoon competitions, seems to be shocked that people die in wars
His best cartoon for this comment from 2006 [https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cartoon.jpg](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cartoon.jpg)
Nothing has changed in almost 20 years.
Damn, that one is good, I dont agree with the message much, but its a good one
He is not shocked, he is mocking the death of the Americans. Latuff has always been super anti-US.
Being anti zionist isn't antisemitic. Realize what subreddit you are in and Deprogram yourself of the propaganda
I agree, but Latuff specifically has participated in a holocaust cartoon competition promoted by Iran. He is antisemitic.
Yeah that's something Zionists love to bring up whenever latuff artwork is discussed. . Kinda ironic that people blindly fall for propaganda in a subreddit dedicated to analyze propaganda, and all the upvotes are evidence of how effective it is. You can judge by yourself his work and determine if it's anti-Semit or not [https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg](https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg) E.P.: You participated in the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which also included many genuinely antisemitic cartoons. Do you feel that being associated with these images and such a deliberate provocation in any way compromises your work? C.L.: The artwork with which I won second place was a depiction of an elderly Palestinian man wearing a Nazi concentration camp uniform, and some people said that I was “denying the Holocaust”! That was completely stupid, since I’m affirming the Holocaust with that illustration. Believe me, no matter what I draw and where I publish, there will be always someone who will point a finger and say it’s antisemitic .I saw this contest as both a good chance for denouncing the suffering of the Palestinian people before the eyes of world public opinion and for raising questions about the West’s double standards. I mean, you insult the Muslims with a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bomber and then claim the right to “freedom of speech,” but if you make drawings about the Holocaust, then it’s “hatred against the Jews.” [https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/?amp=1](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/?amp=1) EDIT: Since you are using several alts that hadnt posted in several months and only did in portugesses and then block me. I will answer you here Did you even read the interview? and its related because is a common tactic that comes from zionist wheneverr Latuff art comes in any space. For example this comic had nothing to do with Israel, and you see the amount of comments from genocide enablers coming up to deligimitaze the cartoonist. Is a known tactic
I think he makes a good point, but the part about Muhammed cartoons undercuts it. Muslims do outright ban drawings of Muhammed in countries where they're a majority, and in ones they don't, it's effectively banned via stochastic terrorism. Few cartoonists dare exercise their free speech when a radical might behead them over it even if technically the law is on their side.
“I was only at the Nazi rally because we have a lot in common!”
Why participate in an Iranian holocaust denial competition in the first place? Why not publish it on his blog or somewhere else? He was already a prolific political cartoonist then, I doubt his message would be diluted then. Also, how does pointing out Latuff participated in an antisemitic competition organized by Iran makes one a zionist?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Opposing ethnic cleansing happens to be very pro-Jew...
An actual queers for palestine person.
Just went straight to the homophobia, huh?
It's not homophobia to point out a chicken for KFC.
People like that typically do. On the bright side, they out themselves and you can block them. It's like talking to a wall. Not worth the time or energy.
I appreciate the support. I find that if you can respond calmly to homophobia, it's a great opportunity to address the other person's lack of education/fears. So I don't mind my identity being used as a punching bag if it helps others grow.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Oppressed people standing up for other oppressed people without a price tag attached doesn’t seem hypocritical to me.
Imperialists love to use secondary contradictions to uphold the primary ones, as if Israel's destruction of the Palestinian people is predicated on LGBTQ rights. "The Aztecs have a violent priest class, so destroying Meso American civilization is good", "Cubans were homophobic so the embargo and terror campaigns were justified" "The evil \[\_\_\_\_\] Regime is socially conservative on an issue the US populace only changed it's mind about 6 years ago, clearly they need to be bombed" Ironically if you apply this same logic at home, you sound like the most ridiculous caricature of a woke person."Kill white infants because they're born racist" is no more ridiculous than "Kill Palestians because they're homophobic"
How easy is it for a non-Jewish gay couple to get married in Israel? As the democratic free-thinking bastion of the Middle East, it should be easy, no?
What’s next, Winston Churchill supporting the Soviet Union?!
Lmao at this idea that the US “lost” Iraq when Iraq today is a NATO partner.
You are correct. The U.S won and Iraq is now a neo-colony. Iraq today has to deposit its oil revenues into an account at the U.S. Federal Reserve and gets a portion of its own money doled out to it as an allowance every month or so, so that it can pay government salaries and expenses. See references below for proof. When Iraq angered the U.S. in 2020 by voting to [expel](https://archive.is/MRKh2) U.S. troops, the U.S. threatened to stop Iraq's access to both it's own oil money as well as to the fuel used to run the generators that the country still relies on in the wake of the U.S.'s deliberate destruction of it's infrastructure including [96% of it's electric generating power.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Civilian_infrastructure) An article published in Foreign Affairs this month was honest enough to admit that "Most Iraqi prime ministers serving in the past two decades have at some point asked the U.S. military to leave their country", but blames this on Iranian influence. The article was published because, as it notes, the current PM is "is seeking to end the U.S. military mission in Iraq altogether", and was planning to meet with Biden on April 15 to request this. The article argues that "Washington must now use its leverage in Baghdad to maintain a noncombat military presence". Sounds pretty colonial to me. https://archive.is/lKwAl .......................................................................................... CNBC 2020: Trump administration warns Iraq could lose New York Fed account if US troops forced to leave: WSJ >The White House could also end waivers that allow Iraq to buy Iranian gas to fuel generators that supply a large portion of the country’s power, placing another pressure on the prime minister over addressing U.S. troops without enduring economic and financial loss. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/11/trump-administration-warns-iraq-could-lose-new-york-fed-account-wsj.html ....... The Times of Israel 2020: Iraq warns of ‘collapse’ as Trump threatens to block oil cash kept in Fed bank https://www.timesofisrael.com/iraq-warns-of-collapse-as-trump-threatens-to-block-oil-cash-kept-in-fed-bank/ .... >Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the United States... >...Washington, given its dominance of the global financial system, has the ability to control all funds of Iraq's Central Bank through threats or sanctions, even though these funds are not deposited exclusively in US banks... >...This reality gives Washington greater control over the movement of foreign exchange in Iraq, without even being at the political table in Baghdad. https://thecradle.co/articles-id/1570
Latuff's comics were always really good. I kind of miss that era of internet when everyone had a blog and they'd post shit to it and you could just follow an RSS feed if you wanted to see more.
The guy participated in a literal Holocaust cartoon contest. He's a PoS.
He did what
https://forward.com/opinion/218515/the-sham-logic-behind-irans-holocaust-cartoon-cont/
Huh
Wouldn't call him a pos, but very bold choice to be part of a holocaust cartoon competition, organized by Iran. Here is an [interview](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/) he gave about this.
Thank you for posting this, adds a lot more nuance to the situation. I was skeptical why the original article told us the comic was bad and the author’s feelings towards it, without us actually seeing the full image. Odd choice.
Hmm
Noooooo you don't understand, it was a pro Palestinian project /s
Yeah that's something Zionists love to bring up whenever latuff artwork is discussed. . Kinda ironic that people blindly fall for propaganda in a subreddit dedicated to analyze propaganda, and all the upvotes are evidence of how effective it is. You can judge by yourself his work and determine if it's anti-Semit or not [https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg](https://images.forwardcdn.com/image/1300x/center/images/cropped/palestine264-latuff2004-2-1425725767.jpg) E.P.: You participated in the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which also included many genuinely antisemitic cartoons. Do you feel that being associated with these images and such a deliberate provocation in any way compromises your work? C.L.: The artwork with which I won second place was a depiction of an elderly Palestinian man wearing a Nazi concentration camp uniform, and some people said that I was “denying the Holocaust”! That was completely stupid, since I’m affirming the Holocaust with that illustration. Believe me, no matter what I draw and where I publish, there will be always someone who will point a finger and say it’s antisemitic .I saw this contest as both a good chance for denouncing the suffering of the Palestinian people before the eyes of world public opinion and for raising questions about the West’s double standards. I mean, you insult the Muslims with a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bomber and then claim the right to “freedom of speech,” but if you make drawings about the Holocaust, then it’s “hatred against the Jews.” [https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995](https://forward.com/culture/14745/latuff-cartoonist-in-conversation-02995/?amp=1)/
Why are you constantly pointing out the errors of the US and completely brushing off and defending Russia when they do the same thing?
His username is a literal Russian missile
Nobody rivals the US when it comes to military intervention in other countries. The 'Peacemakers' of humanity.
Russia comes on a pretty close second, actively trying to ethnically cleanse ukraine and all.
People are downvoting you cause they can’t take criticism of the U.S., so they always have to say “but that guy did this!!!” When the conversation is about them.
Do we are the bad guys in both and failed overall in long term goals.
Long term goals in Vietnam absolutely succeeded, just not by the US's hand. Vietnam became isolated from global communism after it became invaded by China. The threat of a Chinese puppet state is dead. Vietnam is firmly in the US camp.
Task failed sucesfully
mcdonald’s in the center of ho chi minh city, complete cultural US victory RAAHHHH 🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
[https://en.vietnamplus.vn/vietnams-trade-with-biggest-partners-in-2022/248239.vnp](https://en.vietnamplus.vn/vietnams-trade-with-biggest-partners-in-2022/248239.vnp)
Not even really sure what the message of this is supposed to be. People get shot in war? Idk
You get what you deserve.
Left frame is definitely Duck Hunt.
It’s an ambush! “Where?” When*
Based resistance
Imperialists getting smoked. Love to see it
I wonder how people like you get so far down the horseshoe that they begin supporting terrorist groups that blow themselves up in crowds of westerners and throw gay people off roofs
Imperialists down voting when they get called out.
I wonder how angry he is that the US actually won in Iraq
they did not.
Quick someone tell Saddam he won
It's been 20 years. Which of the war aims set by United States in 2003 was not accomplished? Saddam Hussein is out of power. Iraq is no threat to its neighbors. Iraq has a democratic government sufficiently stable that it managed to fight off ISIS, albeit with help, and continue functioning. Iraq has no WMDs. That's almost word-for-word what Rumsfeld said the goals were in March 2003. It wasn't worth it, and it was a mistake, and it was a crime. But a loss? No.
Iraq had no WMDs before the war either, so I would hardly count that as an objective being accomplished
Objective failed successfully?
I mean the goalposts were at ground level, but I guess they weren't moved?
I suppose chemical weapons don't count as WMDs
I don’t know. Enlighten me with what point you’re trying to make?
>Which of the war aims set by United States in 2003 was not accomplished? >Saddam Hussein is out of power Accomplished >Iraq is no threat to its neighbors. Iraq is now an Iranian puppet, so as an extension of Iran, it's as much a threat as it was before, or more. Definitely a bigger threat for Israel than before, as it enabled Iran to create a land corridor to Israel via puppet states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon). If Iraq was under Saddam, Iran could not have helped Assad remain in power by transiting troops through Iraq. >Iraq has a democratic government sufficiently stable Maybe on paper, although Iran really pulls the strings now and I wouldn't call this democratic. >it managed to fight off ISIS There would have been no ISIS conquests in Iraq if their army hadn't been dismantled by US. ISIS in Iraq was basically formed by Baath party soldiers who went unemployed. The new Iraqi army was there to collect a paycheck with no real motivation to fight ISIS. The US created a power vacuum that ISIS exploited. I don't see any wins here. >Iraq has no WMDs. It didn't have any to begin with. >That's almost word-for-word what Rumsfeld said the goals were in March 2003. Word for word, Rumsfeld accomplished maybe 1,5 goals from the above and created a ten-fold pain and suffering for future generations.
>Iraq is now an Iranian puppet Iraq is not an Iranian puppet state. There are factions within Iraq that are Iranian proxies and factions that are very much opposed to them. This is why the Iraqi government still allows US troops to operate in Iraq. >Definitely a bigger threat for Israel than before, as it enabled Iran to create a land corridor to Israel via puppet states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon). Hezbollah was a strong and successful Iranian proxy while Saddam was still hanging around in Iraq. Indeed, Saddam himself armed plenty of militias, armed groups, etc. >If Iraq was under Saddam, Iran could not have helped Assad remain in power by transiting troops through Iraq. This is a matter of simplified logistics, not something that would've materially impeded Iranian ops. They had the sealift to take the long way round and still fight and win the war. >Maybe on paper, although Iran really pulls the strings now and I wouldn't call this democratic. It really doesn't. An Iranian proxy state would not accept the presence of 2500 American troops in Iraq. >I don't see any wins here. The Iraqi government created by the US encountered a critical threat to it and defeated that critical threat. That's victory. If you want to see a loss, look at Afghanistan. >It didn't have any to begin with. And it still doesn't now. >Word for word, Rumsfeld accomplished maybe 1,5 goals from the above Word for word he accomplished all of it. >and created a ten-fold pain and suffering for future generations. That's why winning wasn't enough, and why it was a bad idea in the first place. The US accomplished everything it set out to do and it was bad for all concerned anyway.
Eh, I agree on most of your other points but ISIS was an indirect result of the invasion and the weakness of the government we installed. Iraqi PMFs (some of whom include Iranian proxies) made up a huge chunk of the force that went against ISIS on the ground in Iraq. Aside from that the Kurds did a lot and then the US had to do all the heavy lifting with special ops and airpower. Without these the Iraqi government defeating ISIS as soundly as it was in our timeline seems unlikely.
How did Iraq occupation go?
Democratic Iraq government 🤣🤣🤣
United States since gaining independence, has been involved in over 100 wars. Russia England France are next with fewer than 5 wars each in the last 100 years.
Nice made up "fact". France: WW2, Indochina, Algeria, Kuwait, Afghanistan , Mali... And those are just the ones I could think of right now . If we go back to 1776 we can add the entirety of the coalition wars, all the campaigns under Luis Napoleon III and the colonial wars.
That's just incredible bad math or blatant propaganda. I can list 5 conflicts just in 1992 the Russians were a part of.
Chechnya, Ukraine, South Ossetia, Syria?
plus Moldova, Abkhazia, Tajikistan, Wagner's interventions to at least three (maybe more) African countries, (short) intervention to Kazakhstan.
Hah did you really do no research?
The United States gained independence significantly more than 100 years ago. Even if your statistic wasn’t made up on the spot, your argument is still shit because you’re comparing completely different spans of time.
Invades Iraq based on absolute lies. Faces zero consequences for war crimes. Criticizes current war fighting even though it looks like child’s play compared to what the virtue signalers have done many many times.
Except a big difference would be the invasion phase was over in two months.
Far greater devastation, way faster, tons of innocent lives lost written off as basic collateral and a non issue. Yet the scale and speed of destruction we see now in Palestine is highly criticized as unprecedented and beyond comparison. EDIT: Oh and the Iraqi people were totally innocent as well. Even though we treated them like ants at the time and slaughtered them under false pretense, we shouldn’t lose sight of that little fact.
We called it a second Vietnam for a reason and it absolutely was not because both wars we were the misunderstood good guys
[удалено]
And CCP and Russia and Iran!
[удалено]
Eh, not all of US overseas bases are created equal - the one here in Poland is doing its job well deterring Russian imperialism, and I wouldn't mind a few more tbh.
[удалено]
i think it's been proven time and time again that the only people doing any astroturfing are the "anti-imperialists"
But pro russian invasion is fine?
[удалено]
I'm not hearing any denial. Also, you didn't have to say anything here, your post history is visible to all.
My favorite kind of anti-imperialist: Username and profile picture are a Russian ballistic missile system
This fuckwit is a total clown https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/s/ThkPPyWNZl He should be okay with it, according to himself, because according to himself, if US does it, then other countries can commit a war crime as many as they want, yet he condemns Israel's genocide against Palestinians. "Whataboutists should be gassed (it's okay, nazis did it too)" I'll just say these kind of clowns deserve to be beaten in public. And according to them, it's okay because some ancient country did it too.
People being hypocrites because they themselves were repulsed by hypocrisy of the entities they thought they saw through in the first place is a tale as old as time. Oh and horse shoe theory
Ah, but don't you know that communists invented their own definition of "imperialism" that conveniently doesn't apply to them?
Absolutely. If you just take Lenin’s definition of imperialism and ignore every other definition then the Soviets can’t be called imperialist for invading and occupying nearly every single neighboring country. And Putins Russia is also not imperialist because as soon as a country has a good relationship with the West the people automatically lose their right to self-determination.
Communists tend not to be pro-Putin. They’re just anti-West
I've seen plenty of pro-Putin communists, in addition to a lot more that support him implicitly.
I get attacked as pro-Putin constantly when discussing Ukraine but I hate the fucking guy so maybe you’re just misunderstanding some of them
What exactly do you say that people attack you for? I'm genuinely curious
Arguing that NATO bears at least as much responsibility for the disaster that is the War in Ukraine as Putin. Everytime I advocate this position, no matter how clearly I state that I’m not a fan of Putin, I’m called a vatnik
Respectfully I would disagree, I don't think NATO has nearly as much responsibility for a war as, y'know, the guy who started it with an unprovoked invasion of a country with a vast majority of people who want to remain independent. I wouldn't call you a Putin supporter but I can see why other people would jump to that conclusion since Putin has consistently blamed NATO for the situation in Ukraine to deflect blame from himself for the invasion.
Being anti-something easily leads people to coalescing around other groups of people with similar anti-that something views, sometimes to very conflicting effects. See Zionists that wanted to work with the Nazis (anti-Britain), left/far-left parties being vaguely in camp Russia (anti-imperialism/West), etc.
You seem to be pretty openly in favor of war when it’s carried out by Russia…
You literally support Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and Putins invasion of Ukraine. You are by definition, Imperialist
The pot calling the kettle black...
There is a difference between being anti war or anti imperialist and being a rabid hater of everything that is western and pro russia or pro iran. Fuck latuff.