Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Dubyaman takes to the Skies

By pamri in MLP
Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 02:22:29 PM EST
Tags: Humour (all tags)
Humour

The Times of India has a nice cartoon series on GW Bush (Dubya) titled Dubyaman. It's a delightful parody on the US especially Bush's reactions & the ongoing military strategy. But, somewhere down the line, you can find a grain of truth about the US attitude towards the rest of the world.

It is available from the front page. Or try the links: series1, series2, series 3, series 4, series 5


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Times of India
o front page
o series1
o series2
o series 3
o series 4
o series 5
o Also by pamri


Display: Sort:
Dubyaman takes to the Skies | 69 comments (67 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Has anyone else noticed... (4.25 / 24) (#1)
by rusty on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 12:44:54 AM EST

...that the US, and Dubya in particular, haven't actually done anything to anyone yet? All the mindless satire about us supposedly bombing everyone makes me begin to think that if the US is going to get raked across the coals for it anyway, well hell, maybe we ought to just go ahead and actually do some of it.

____
Not the real rusty
Yeah (4.20 / 10) (#2)
by dzimmerm on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 01:02:57 AM EST

It would seem the powers that be's actions are a lot more cautious than their words. I approve of such caution as it will allow those that know what they are doing time to do it properly.

dzimmerm

[ Parent ]
Me too (4.36 / 11) (#4)
by rusty on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 02:00:10 AM EST

But it annoys me that many in the rest of the world appear to be seeing a totally different front page than I am. You know, the one that says "US BOMBS EVERYONE" and "BUSH RETALIATES WITH MASSIVE AIRSTRIKES". As much as they all seem to want it to be happening, it just isn't. And some, like this wacky cartoonist, merely shrug, and write their satire anyway. Satire of things that aren't happening is just foolish.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Sadly... (4.00 / 2) (#46)
by Zukov on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 08:38:33 PM EST

You are seeing another example of Anti-Americanism.

Like racism, sexism, anti-semitcism, ageism, it has nothing to do with reality or truth. AA is practiced by the ignorant, by professional whiners.

While it would only take 5 minutes thought to realize that America has an extremely diverse population, due to the huge and constant influx of immigrants, and that an American can be of any race, original nationality, or religion, the AA crowd likes to stereotype and demonize Americans in the same way that other "unpopular groups" have historically been persecuted.

ȶ H (^

Yes, I have just bumbled upon Gnome Character Map. Please ! me.
[ Parent ]

Family Matters (3.36 / 11) (#3)
by Blarney on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 01:54:29 AM EST

I've been going around telling everyone my conspiracy theories that Bush won't actually kill Osama, even if he could, because the two of them are old buddies and hung out with his Dad a lot back in the day. Not that I'm entirely serious about that, but I do think people ought to think about why things have been so quiet.

If any other country was attacked like we were, there would be retaliation against whoever they thought did it already. If Taipei was attacked, there would be suicidal all-out airstrikes on the Chinese mainland. If Tel Aviv was attacked, there would be a lot of nuclear wasteland where the Middle East used to be. If London was so attacked, Northern Ireland would be levelled. Despite all these stupid cartoons that this Suraiya can draw, if this happened to Delhi, India would be using those nuclear weapons that the US sanctioned them for.

When I saw Afghanistan being bombed on CNN that night, I thought maybe the big World War had already happened. Hadn't really considered the possibility that the US might never retaliate for what happened that morning. Maybe the US never will fight back. I wonder how these men armed without even guns took over our planes? This reminds me of the time I heard about, just a couple blocks from where I live, a woman was stabbed 10+ times by her boyfriend and died within sight of 30 witnesses. A couple baseball bats were thrown at the monster from a distance, but none was actually swung into his head. They called the law, didn't want to cause trouble. That's our whole country once combined. Mr. Microcosm, meet Mr. Macrocosm.

And the foreigners call us Imperialists. They call us Capitalists, despite the fact that only a minority of our people have a positive net worth. They call us Zionists and Crusaders, accuse us of controlling their land and overwriting their culture. We are so horrible! But in the end, they can go on whatever bullshit-religion fueled rampage they want and we do....

NOTHING.

The United States is the most peaceful country in the whole entire world. This cartoon is SO full of shit.

[ Parent ]

Nothing? (4.00 / 5) (#5)
by rusty on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 02:03:44 AM EST

First, I think your theory about the Bushes being in bed with Osama is silly. I've seen that elsewhere too, and it makes no sense. But you know that. :-)

I'm glad we haven't retaliated yet. That means we're trying not to screw this one up, like we have virtually every other terrorist attack on Americans. It also means we're trying to do right instead of just what feels good. Being the good guy sucks, most of the time, but dammit, we have to be the good guy. And that means we can't just lash out at whoever, because the good guy can't do that.

If this means we ultimately lose, than so be it. If that's the way the world really is, I'm taking my ball and going home.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Do whats right? (3.00 / 2) (#26)
by smallstepforman on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 07:42:58 PM EST

<quote> It also means we're trying to do right instead of just what feels good <endquote> Does this mean that US foreign policy will stop being run as a business and do the right thing for a change?

[ Parent ]
The good guy .... (3.25 / 4) (#38)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 06:47:35 AM EST

You ought to learn something from the disaster.

The first thing should be that goodness is not an absolute term.

The second thing is that the US is not the good guy, the White Knight or the caped crusader. The US has done harm to many countries for no good reason other than it is good for the US. Drop all the freedom bullshit (that is also propaganda) and begin to talk about interests. Then we will be talking a realistic language regarding the US (and any country for that matter) foreign policy. In several ocassions the US interests have coincided with what is the right thing and then the US acted, thankfuly, accordingly. In many others that has not been the case.

The US needs countries like Saudi Arabia that for all functional matters have a goverment and a society that is just a bit less backwards than the Taliban and that harbours perhaps more terrorists than Afghanistan (did you check the nationalities of the hijackers?).

Why the US does not isolate Saudi Arabia? Repeat slow after me: for you to have fuel for your car.

Should the many women in Saudi Arabia that are no more than domestic servants of their men thank the "good guy" of the international arena for one more valiant contribution to the defense of freedom and democracy?

The point I am trying to make is that the US does many good and many bad things around the world. To qualify the US as the "good guy" is OK for a fairy tale, the real world is grayer than that.













------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Indian peaceniks (1.83 / 6) (#7)
by sigwinch on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 03:28:36 AM EST

...if this happened to Delhi, India would be using those nuclear weapons that the US sanctioned them for.
I was mildly surprised to see those comics from an Indian publisher. They live within truck-driving distance of loony, nuclear-powered Islam extremists, and they're making fun of the US for opposing that? <boggle>

They're probably just ordinary dumb-as-a-sack-of-rocks pacifists, though. The US has them too, they've just been keeping their mouths shut lately on account of people would shut their mouths for them, likely using arbor presses and industrial staples. Oh, well, when the Paks send them a cobalt bomb or two they'll come simpering for Western biotech to put their chromosomes back together and we can gloat from our Fortress of Cautious Militancy.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

RE: Indian Peaceniks (2.00 / 3) (#12)
by data64 on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 11:49:24 AM EST

You seem to forget the fact that these islamic fundamentalists have all the arms and ammunition today because the US gave it to them.
The opinion in India is that US has "helped" enough.

This also demonstrates the typical arrogance of most americans that the rest of the world could not find their feet if it wasn't for the US. And then they wonder why are americans hated so much.

<Rant mode off />

[ Parent ]
Arms (4.60 / 5) (#15)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 01:23:08 PM EST

Hmmm...seems to me that I see troublemakers in the Middle East holding AK's and throwing Scud's. I'll grant that the Iranians have some Tomcats, and that we encouraged Iraq some during their war with Iran, but I believe those tanks that rolled into Kuwait were T-72's.

Yes, we gave the Afghans a bunch of Stingers so they could knock down Soviet helicopters, but that's because the Russians didn't have such a missle in Afghanistan for the Afghans to steal and use against them. Other than those, I don't think they needed or got much from us in the way of armaments.

While we're on this, where did this idea begin that we are the arms dealer to the world, indiscriminately selling weapoms to everybody? The French move a lot of missles and aircraft (remember the Exocet than sank that British ship off Argentina, and the Iraqi Mirages? Merci, mes amis!), Brazil has a brisk trade in armored cars, and the Soviets and Chinese have pumped more AK-47's into the world than Colt Arms ever dreamed of making M-16's (never mind those Iranian Kilo subs and Silkworm anti-ship missles and Indian Mig's, and the of course the ever-popular RPG-7). Sweden sells a shitload of Bofors equipment, South Africa sells armored cars and helicopters, Israel sells Uzi's...and somehow, it's all coming from us. Go figure.

[ Parent ]

Arms dealers (none / 0) (#64)
by Wah on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 06:30:59 PM EST

While we're on this, where did this idea begin that we are the arms dealer to the world, indiscriminately selling weapoms to everybody?

There were roughly $800 billion (U.S.) worth of weapons sold in the world in 2000. When that is broken down into new contracts and actual monies paid, the U.S. sold half of them.
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]

Interesting figures (none / 0) (#66)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Oct 03, 2001 at 12:14:54 AM EST

which deserve closer reading.

$800 billion in military expenditures, not sales by the US or anybody else. Think salaries, spam (the tasty kind), and uniforms, worldwide. I'm surprised the figure's not larger, but then soldiers don't typically make very much money.

Of the actual arms sales, well, I'm a little confused on those numbers. It looks like they've calculated somewhere between 35 and 55 gigabucks, but I can't be reading this right, because it looks to me like they want to count a dollar when the contract is signed or payment made, and count it again on delivery. Since this is obviously wrong, I don't know quite what to say. I'm a lousy bookkeeer.

Regardless of accounting practices, it appears that we do indeed sell a bunch of weapons, and to such notorious sponsors of terrorism as the United Arab Emirates (mostly F-16's, IIRC), South Korea, and (I had to laugh) India herself. Egypt is prominent on the list as well, but then, the Egyptians haven't invaded anybody lately (yes, I know they've attacked Israel in the past).

What might be interesting is to subtract the big-ticket items. Terrorists don't generally use destroyers, or helicopters, or submarines, or anything else that requires a 30-man crew and a million dollars of annual maintenance. They run mostly to small arms and explosives, and I hate to repeat myself, but we don't make the AK-47 or Semtex.

Here's an interesting test. Go back through the news pictures of the past 30 years or so. Look for pictures of armies invading other countries for purposes of conquest. Now look at their equipment. How much is American?

That we sell to countries who abuse their own people I cannot deny (I wish I could), but that we sell to aggresive expansionists I question (if at all possible, I'd like to leave Israel out of this -- that discussion gets bogged down very quickly. They're out of Lebanon now, at any rate.)

[ Parent ]

Pakistan/Afghanistan arms (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by sigwinch on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 10:27:11 PM EST

You seem to forget the fact that these islamic fundamentalists have all the arms and ammunition today because the US gave it to them. The opinion in India is that US has "helped" enough.
They would rather have had Afghanistan and Pakistan (and possibly India too) become Soviet states? Or looking back even farther, would they have rather come under Japanese dominion? (Which would arguably have been far worse than Soviet rule, since the Stalinists mostly killed efficiently and pragmatically, whereas the Japs took considerable pleasure in pillaging.)

Sure, the US has done obnoxious things, but if the US were really unmitigated villains India would have thrown them off the subcontinent 20 years ago. India has long had the capability to deliver a significant preemptive nuclear strike against the US, and the continued American presence is conclusive proof that India finds the US presence to be an overall benefit.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

Bush / Bin Laden connection (4.25 / 4) (#8)
by rehan on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 05:22:55 AM EST

Talking of conspiracies, there are a few connections between George W Bush and Salem Bin Laden, (Osama Bin Laden's eldest brother).

Search for "Salem" on all these pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

It's a small world isn't it? :)


Stay Frosty and Alert


[ Parent ]
I'd say... (3.00 / 1) (#23)
by Refrag on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 06:01:03 PM EST

Those links say that Salem was both Osama's half-brother and father.
Under a mandate signed in 1976, Bath represented the financial interests of the Saudi Arabian sheikh Salem Bin Laden in the United States. Father of Ussama Bin Laden, Salem died in 1988. Thanks to his connections with Saudi business circles Bath obtained a $ 1.4 million loan from Mahfouz in 1990.
(Salem bin Laden's half-brother, Osama bin Laden, has in recent years gained world-wide notoriety as a funder of fundamentalist terrorism, though he has reportedly broken with his family in Saudi Arabia).
That makes me doubt their validity a little bit, but I would imagine there is still some truth to them.

Refrag

Kuro5hin: ...and culture, from the trenches
[ Parent ]

you're wrong (4.00 / 3) (#13)
by anonymous cowerd on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 01:10:45 PM EST

Pay attention, for Christ's sake. The name of this game is chess, not Cops-n-Robbers.

The focus of this war is "Saudi" Arabia, not Afghanistan. Hardly Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been utterly explicit about his plans and motives; I don't know why no one takes him at his word, it's the same mistake we made when we outside Germany foolishly ignored Mein Kampf for the decade from 1924 to 1933. Afghanistan, under the tyrannical control of a pack of interloping foreign Wahhabi thugs who aren't even Afghans themselves (i.e. it won't be their home towns getting bombed flat, nor their relatives starving in the ruins) is a pawn to be sacrificed in toto. This is in order to inflame the Pakistanis, so the fundamentalists can seize power there. For the historical model of how that's to be done, look at Iran in 1979. By "power" I mean their arsenal of nuclear bombs. Let the Islamic fundamentalists get that far and you can work out the obvious closing game.

The reason the U.S. military haven't rained bombs indiscriminately all over every city full of civilians in Afghanistan, as you seem to desire, is because a.) as much as the GWB Administration would like to keep warhawk voters such as yourself happy with that hi-tech armed violence you'd find so emotionally satisfying, even more than that this bunch of oil magnates really don't want to lose this war and b.) by some incredible miracle of truly undeserved good fortune the control of our retaliatory policy has remained in the hands of that handful of guys in the U.S. government who understand what's going on, that is the Colin Powell camp, rather than the Rumsfield camp which is just itching to start a big old War with Tanks and Bombers, the only kind of war those halfwits understand.

The United States is the most peaceful country in the whole entire world.

What a preposterous assertion. No matter so many foreigners think American voters are living in a dream world. Obviously you are too young to remember Vietnam. And you haven't bothered to read any twentiieth-century history. But I'm not too young. Without bothering to strain my memory, or pull a book or two off my bookshelf, or even click on a web site for reference, I clearly recall U.S.-engineered bloodbaths in Vietnam, and Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Laos, and Nicaragua.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

The one thing that really disturbs me about America is that people don't like to read. - Keith Richards
[ Parent ]

Point of view (2.00 / 3) (#28)
by wiredog on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 08:15:06 PM EST

Without bothering to strain my memory, or pull a book or two off my bookshelf, or even click on a web site for reference, I clearly recall USSR -engineered bloodbaths in Vietnam, and Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Laos, and Nicaragua.

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]
Chile and Guatemala (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 06:55:05 AM EST

You sir or madam are wrong there.

Both goverments in those countries were democraticaly and legaly elected in these places, and specialy in Guatemala, Communism did not have anything to do with the matter.




------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Correction (3.25 / 4) (#25)
by smallstepforman on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 07:40:45 PM EST

<quote> The United States is the most peaceful country in the whole entire world <endquote> Maybe you'd want to repeat that to the Albanian refugee column bombed by a US jet. Or the hairdressers and technicians killed in the US bombing of a TV station in Belgrade. Or Chinese journalists in an embassy in Belgrade. Or my grandfather who lives in a refugee camp since his house has been demolished. Or the 500,000 Iraqi children who died during the last 10 years (the 80's generation of children in Iraq managed quite well under Sadams brutal hand). The children of Hiroshima/Nagasaki dont think US is the most peaceful country in the world. Nor do the Native Americans. I can go on and on, but you get my point.

[ Parent ]
Alzheimer's disease. (3.50 / 2) (#36)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 05:46:06 AM EST

Your medium term memory seems sadly damaged. Before you forget your name and how to write, may I remind you the following:

-Israel was attacked by Iraq during the Gulf War. It must be only me, but I don't recall the nuclear mushrooms.

-London and other towns have been attacked by the IRA, also the political elite has been attacked in Brighton in the Thatcher years and even a member of the Royal Family was killed. Hmmmm. Northern Ireland is still standing (barely, but still there mind you, they don;t need external help to kill each other there).

I am sure the Indian goverment is as responsible as the British and the Siareli goverment back then.

You have got a point about Taiwan, that would be more uncertain, but still it is mindless speculation.

As for your experience with that poor person that was killed: you are calling for rule of the mob. If you want to get rid off all the tenants of a civilized society you have to join a terrorist group, anyway you are calling for people to act like terrorists.


------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Past actions (4.14 / 7) (#6)
by Greyjack on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 02:26:31 AM EST

Of course, I'm sure that our prior actions in such situations have absolutely nothing to do with such attitudes and expectations.

If we continue to demonstrate appropriate amounts of restraint (as we seem to be this time--we haven't rushed out to blow anything up in knee-jerk fashion, and appear instead to be biding our time until we're ready and certain of our target), expectations will change.

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
cf. Gulf War (3.85 / 7) (#9)
by Best Ace on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 08:30:57 AM EST

Don't forget that there was a full five and a half months between Iraq invading Kuwait and the start of Desert Storm. During this 'phoney war', sanctions were imposed by the UN, snctions were imposed by the US, there were talks between the US secretary of State and the Iraqi foreign minister, and there were resolutions passed by the UN.

What are the chances that this time, any of these diplomatic niceties will be tried out?

[ Parent ]

Idle Conspiracy Theory (1.00 / 4) (#34)
by inpHilltr8r on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 05:22:15 AM EST

Maybe they have, and they're not telling you?

[ Parent ]
You got it the other way around ... (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 05:27:27 AM EST

Perhaps because a lot of people demanded a measured response is that the US goverment did not over-react. Bush's cabinet seems divided between the stupid people that wanted to bomb any place they deemed to harbour terrorists and between the people that had a better grasp of the implications of any US actions. Who are we to say that the measured people won the battle precisely because worldwide calls for proportionate response?

What about if it is in the best log term interests of Western democracies not to fire a single shot?

To be bully just because everybidy says you are a bully is childish and counterproductive, so good points to GB and his team for showing restrain.




------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Eh? (1.40 / 5) (#41)
by pallex on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 11:38:10 AM EST

"that the US, and Dubya in particular, haven't actually done anything to anyone yet"

Then why did people attack your buildings?

[ Parent ]
why did the nazis kill the Jews? (none / 0) (#68)
by sonovel on Wed Oct 03, 2001 at 01:29:40 PM EST

I guess they must have done something, right?

Every evil isn't a direct response to another evil.

---

Are you saying this attack was a just response to U.S. foreign policy?

Maybe you didn't notice, but the attack was primarily against civilians. Maybe you also haven't read that a large fraction (most?) of the dead aren't even citizens of the U.S.

What country are you from? Did any of your countrymen die in the attack? Did they deserve it?

Any excuse to bash the U.S. is ok to some people, I guess.

----
One the cartoon:

Dubya has shown a great deal of restrain. The Dubyaman cartoon would much more apply to Clinton.

AFIAK, before the attack, the only place bombed during Dubya'a tenure was Iraq. He didn't start that policy, though of course he bears responsibility for continuing it.

Personally, I have to say I didn't find Dubyaman funny, but so what? Propaganda/Satire/Art or whatever, it is still speech and I support free speech even when I disagree with the content. I think it fails by being based on fantasy rather than Dubya's real flaws and mistakes, but this is pretty mild in comparison to some things.



[ Parent ]
Propaganda, not satire (4.18 / 11) (#10)
by duxup on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 10:04:58 AM EST

This seems more like propaganda than satire. The current administration has been much more cautious than most expected. It's been 19 days (as of this post) since the attack and 10 days since Bush made his statements to congress and all we've seen is a cautious administration. I'm no big fan of Bush myself, but this would seem to be more based on the writers personal ideology rather than any overwhelming facts.

Ain't seen nothing (3.33 / 3) (#11)
by Betcour on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 11:38:03 AM EST

You should see how the French "Gignols" (the local "Spiting image") show George Jr. More stupid than a brick and with a passion for electrical chair and big red nuke buttons. He is always going around with a cynical businessman who gives him orders...

Satire versus Stupidity (4.05 / 18) (#14)
by WombatControl on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 01:21:50 PM EST

The European (and apparently now the Indian) press seems to love ad hominem attacks on President Bush. While they do their best to paint him as a redneck with a killing fetish, that image bears no real relation to the facts. If anything, President Bush has shown himself in the past few days to be (gasp!) articulate, connected with the people, and genuine. So much so that even people like Andrew Sullivan have noticed that he's doing a good job.

This notion of US unilateralism is getting very tired. Yes, we rejected Kyoto. It's also looking like Australia, Japan, and Italy will too. No European country outside Romania has bothered to ratify it, so this absolute support for Kyoto by Europe is a joke? International criminal court? How about creating one that doesn't violate the principles of American jurisprudence, such as entrapment.

While Europe critizes our President for being a boor, they insist on giving nuclear weapons technology to nations like Iraq and Iran. (anyone remember Osiraq? Thank you France for giving Saddam the basis for his nuclear program.) While decrying our human rights, they trade with countries like Sudan and Cuba, where there are government-sponsored executions without trial by jury, the right of appeal, or even lawyers. Yet these barbarisms apparently don't raise the ire of the European Community.

Quite frankly, the attitude of these European intellectuals towards the United States has no more rational basis than playground name-calling. It's motivated by jelousy of the US economy, a false sense of moral superiority, and just plain bad taste.



America? (4.66 / 3) (#24)
by p0ppe on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 06:47:58 PM EST

Yes, other are concidering to abandon the Kyoto protocol, but only because the whole protocol is dependant on the US.

So France supported Saddam. What about Bin Laden himself? Didn't the US support him with hundreds of millions of dollars, when he fought the communists. And what about all the S.American dictators that the US has backed? Does the name Pinochet ring a bell. There are many more.

It is also interesting that the US supports international war trials as long as the accused isn't American (for example Milosvic). "DeLay and other conservatives wanted to link the release of U.N. funds to an amendment exempting American soldiers from the jurisdiction of an international war crimes court and barring U.S. military aid to countries that had ratified the treaty creating the international court."

The US is also ready to entrap russian hackers


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
[ Parent ]
Kyoto dependent on U.S. / use "made" OBL (none / 0) (#67)
by sonovel on Wed Oct 03, 2001 at 01:13:24 PM EST

Yeah that's it. That is why no European country aside from Rumania has approved it.

Europe should get a spine. If Kyoto is so great, they should approve the thing. If it sucks (and it does IMO), they should reject it. This little game they are playing only fools fools. They get the benefits of not approving it without the downside of getting blamed for its failure.

---

The U.S. didn't provide most of the support for OBL. That is a myth. Most of the support was from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Still, there is no doubt that the U.S. has supported "bad" people and governments. So has every other world power. It is hypocritical to blame the U.S. for "jerk 1" while you supported "jerk 2".




[ Parent ]
Jealous of US economy? (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by urgan on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 07:11:03 PM EST

Why on earth... ? LOL

[ Parent ]
Haha (none / 0) (#69)
by PhillipW on Wed Oct 03, 2001 at 06:30:02 PM EST

Jealousy! HAHA. That's funny!

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Partisanship (4.00 / 12) (#17)
by Sheepdot on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 03:02:10 PM EST

I have never been able to come up with a good definition of partisan, but I think your submission has finally helped me get it.

Define partisan:

circa 1998 - "What is with all these Clinton jokes? Don't you have something better to do with your educated lives than poke fun of Clinton in your comics? Those don't represent his opinion at all!"

circa 2001 - "Oh gee, this Dubya cartoon is so hilarious, let me post on Kuro5hin!"

Basically, I know you're position on any given subject the second you use the term "Dubya" to refer to Bush. And now everyone else here does too.


This is satire (3.18 / 11) (#18)
by Weyland Yutani on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 03:19:35 PM EST

This is a satire.
This is a satire.
This is a satire.

C'mon guys. THIS IS A SATIRE

It's not supposed to be a realistic picture of George W. Bush. It's supposed to be a picture of George W. Bush that is EXAGGERATED FOR COMIC EFFECT. It's not supposed to be real.

Also, I'm not sure if you Americans are aware of it, but American satire is considered extraordinarily tame by international standards. Elsewhere it's pretty common to see editorial cartoons showing politicians in a highly scatalogical or shocking context.

This George Bush cartoon appeared in the Guardian newspaper.

I don't know where this Richard Nixon picture appeared.

Sorry guys, but the rest of the world just isn't as reverent as you.
--------------------
Spinning my wheels on the launchpad, spitting I dunno and itch

Heh (3.25 / 4) (#19)
by regeya on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 03:24:13 PM EST

Sorry guys, but the rest of the world just isn't as reverent as you.

This counts as the first time I've heard U.S. citizens accused of having better taste. And for it to be considered a bad thing indeed.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

I love America except for two things... (4.00 / 5) (#20)
by Weyland Yutani on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 03:34:37 PM EST

1. The quality of the satire.
2. The quality of the cheese.

In both cases, America needs to realise that the more of a stink it makes, the better it is.

:-P
--------------------
Spinning my wheels on the launchpad, spitting I dunno and itch

[ Parent ]

There are exceptions... (4.00 / 2) (#21)
by Aldreis on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 05:05:58 PM EST

You should check the front page of The Onion... :-)

[ Parent ]
No, it is not satire. (4.00 / 3) (#40)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 09:49:09 AM EST

Satire makes fun of factual things.

The US is not full of KKK or people scraching a living form trash cans.

The rest was plainly not funny, a lie or the regurgitation of propaganda "candy-eyed" by means of a cartoon.

You show you can recognize satire (that one of Bush is brilliant, good cartoon satire needs very little or no words at all). That one is miles above the very low quality thing that was posted in the original article.

I concour with you about US cartoon political satire though. It is pretty lame, but I guess that is what happens when you have the Simpsons, all the rest is rendered pointless and unimaginative.


------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Satire == Exaggeration (3.00 / 1) (#48)
by phliar on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 01:15:17 AM EST

Satire makes fun of factual things.

The US is not full of KKK or people scraching a living form trash cans.

First, satire - almost by definition - exaggerates those aspects of the thing the satirist wants to express his/her opinion on. It's a caricature, not a portrait.

Second, the US has a pretty sizable homeless population, as well as a significant ultra-right-wing militant faction.

Third, I'm impressed that the leading mainstream paper expects its readers to be familiar with and interested in US politics. This would be something like The Washington Post carrying front-page politial cartoons about China's policy towards Denmark.

Read the attitude behind it rather than pay too much attention to details. I'm reminded of the brilliant "TV Nation" by Michael Moore.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

To make a caricature you need a real model (none / 0) (#53)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 04:03:05 AM EST

<i> First, satire - almost by definition - exaggerates those aspects of the thing the satirist wants to express his/her opinion on. It's a caricature, not a portrait.</i>

Which means you base it on facts. You exagerate what is already there, you don't put from your prejudices or imagination.

<i>Second, the US has a pretty sizable homeless population, as well as a significan ultra-right-wing militant faction.</i>

Sizable? Significant?

How many homeless people you have in the US? What percentage of the population do they represent? They are poor, not miserable. Miserable is one of those Afghan children that is so weak that even the effort to go and fetch some food is too much to ask. In the US the homeless have a society that tries to do things for them (when was the last time a homeless person died of starvation on the streets?).

How significant is the ultra right wing component in the US?

If they were that many they would hold power and more representation in goverment. As it stands there are just one of many weird anomalities in an otherwise mature, conservative (tending towards the centre) country.

If you mix those two "satirezable" bits with an outright lie (the US been supported by only 3 countries. That is propaganda). Then the satirical effect is less than satisfactory, if at all existent.

For all those 0 happy people that seem to love these cartonists, that is just my very humble opinion and we would learn more if you put your points forward and not if you give 0 with such detached happiness.



------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
heh, yeah, that's nice (3.00 / 1) (#44)
by Ender Ryan on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 04:40:22 PM EST

Hmmm... interesting that we have satire implying that Bush is behaving in a manner and doing things that he is in fact NOT DOING!

How can you claim that is satire? If it pictured him doing very over-exaggerated things he had done, then that would be different, but with this piece that is not the case.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

Look at the George W. Bush pic I posted (none / 0) (#55)
by Weyland Yutani on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 04:36:37 AM EST

George W. Bush does not really stick a gas pump into a vein in his arm like a junkie doing heroin.

So by your logic, that is not satire?

Part of living in the modern world is that occasionally you will see satires of politicians and politics that you agree with. Either live with it, or burn your modem and TV.

If you disagree with it, it's still satire. If you don't think it's funny, it's still satire.

MUHAHAHAHAHA! People have different opinions to you, and there's nothing you can do about it!

From the dictionary, since we've wandered off in pedant-land yet again.

satire
noun
a way of criticizing people or ideas in a humorous way to show that they have faults or are wrong, or a piece of writing or play which uses this style
--------------------
Spinning my wheels on the launchpad, spitting I dunno and itch

[ Parent ]

stupid! (none / 0) (#57)
by Ender Ryan on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 09:00:00 AM EST

This particular piece of satire was implying that George W. Bush behaves in a manner in which he does not. It was implying that he was too quick to action, which he has not been, there has been no action taken thus far.

Look, I understand what satire is, it can depict people doing things they don't really do, such as pumping gasoline into his veins (that's pretty funny, I like that), but that implies that his oil interests cloud his judgement, which they very well might.

This piece of satire implied things that simply are not true, which is... stupid, ignorant, etc.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0) (#59)
by BurntHombre on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 10:54:45 AM EST

Listen, son, have you seen any of the "Ex-Presidents" cartoon shorts on Saturday Night Live over the last several years? Something tells me you're not very familiar with American satire. Just because your examples are either scatalogical or shocking doesn't necessarily make them better *or* funny. I'm not saying they're politically offensive...they're just not very funny.

[ Parent ]
Propaganda (4.44 / 9) (#22)
by Refrag on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 05:51:10 PM EST

This "parody" is nothing but propaganda. The one on the frontpage right now paints the US as it's in a depression with its people all under the control of narcotics. The first one says we are all racists with its "open season on beards" bit. It also makes it seem as if George W. Bush is picking fights to start a war, at no time is the fact that this is retaliation for previous acts of jihad mentioned. This third is simply a lie. It states that the USA only has support from three countries, not mentioning the UN or NATO at all. It also suggests that bin Laden has the support of 50 countries. The fifth falsely attributes a bit of text to Nostradamus.

Refrag

Kuro5hin: ...and culture, from the trenches

It is indeed regrettable that those who cannot (3.80 / 10) (#27)
by hjones on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 07:52:27 PM EST

even govern their own country without having bloodshed at every election feel free to take potshots at those who can. Those who can, do. Those who can't, carp from the sidelines.
"Nietzsche is dead, but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we -- we small-minded weaklings, we still have to vanquish his shadow too." - The Antinietzsche
You're right (2.33 / 6) (#31)
by Spendocrat on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 01:38:13 AM EST

Having faults within your own country means you shouldn't say boo to anyone else in the world.

The irony here is almost overwhelming.

[ Parent ]

usually, it is the other way around.. (2.00 / 2) (#45)
by eightball on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 07:05:21 PM EST

That is the US getting more 'boo' for the same stuff other countries do.

disclaimer: the US is not perfect, etc..

[ Parent ]
Get me some terrorist ass (3.85 / 7) (#30)
by Otter on Sun Sep 30, 2001 at 10:36:46 PM EST

I agree with the view that this is parodying the author's fantasies rather than anything that has actually happened. But more importantly, it's not funny.

The only thing that made me laugh was the line "Now I'm going to do my Getassburg number -- I'm going to get me some terrorist ass!" If you're an Indian cartoonist trying to write dialog for an American character, you need to brush up on the finer points of American usage -- in this case, the distinction between "kick some ass" and "get some ass."

Getassburg is Gettysburg (none / 0) (#50)
by Wing Envy on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 03:31:08 AM EST




You don't get to steal all the deficiency. I want some to.
-mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Satire.... not. (1.57 / 7) (#32)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 05:17:23 AM EST

From Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn

2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly


I saw very few GB v2.0 follies ridiculed in the cartoons. I saw very few vices of USian society as a whole that were exposed or descredited (anybody knows that the KKK is not the US, and even though there are a lot of people in poverty, they are not in misery, as one of the cartoons implies. The claim that only 3 countries support the US is an outright lie trying to create your own reality in spite of what is really happning).

Although the insularity of the US was nicely put with Bush having no idea were Afghanistan is (which is funny because it has truth behind it: after all Bush had no idea who the President of Pakistan is), in general all seems a bad attempt of the cartonist to put forward his own preconceptions and frustrations, not a genuine attempt to make satire.
------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
To an editor: (3.00 / 1) (#42)
by Elendale on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 12:21:39 PM EST

I hid the comment, could some nice editor please kill it?

-Elendale
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
Are you talking about my article? (none / 0) (#51)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 03:46:48 AM EST

I read it several times, unless I am missing something it does not deserve four zeroes ....



------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Sorryyyyyyy! (none / 0) (#54)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 04:08:40 AM EST

I saw what the problem is.

I humbly apologize...

(I have to say that K5 is behaving weirdly recently, it goes up and down wildly ...).


------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
Satire.... not. (3.57 / 7) (#33)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 05:18:36 AM EST

From Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: satire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn

2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly


I saw very few GB v2.0 follies ridiculed in the cartoons. I saw very few vices of USian society as a whole that were exposed or descredited (anybody knows that the KKK is not the US, and even though there are a lot of people in poverty, they are not in misery, as one of the cartoons implies. The claim that only 3 countries support the US is an outright lie trying to create your own reality in spite of what is really happning).

Although the insularity of the US was nicely put with Bush having no idea were Afghanistan is (which is funny because it has truth behind it: after all Bush had no idea who the President of Pakistan is), in general all seems a bad attempt of the cartonist to put forward his own preconceptions and frustrations, not a genuine attempt to make satire.

+1. It is interesting to be aware about all points of view, specialy using cartoons.


------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
utterly stupid (2.25 / 4) (#43)
by Ender Ryan on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 04:29:59 PM EST

This is seriously stupid political garbage.

Bush has repeatedly said in his speaches that we as citizens of this country should not judge people by race and religion and has requested that we not judge arabs and muslims by the actions of these few terrorists.

Second, the Bush administration is getting constantly for reacting too quickly in condluding that bin Laden is involved. First of all, the terrorists ARE in fact linked the the terrorist organization that bin Laden is involved with. Second, does it even matter? Bin Laden is, more or less, the leader of this organization and has already admitted involvement with a number of terrorist activities that have cost the lives of hundreds.

Third, the U.S. has not taken ANY real action yet, yet it people continue to claim that the U.S. has reacted too quickly.

Please, there is plenty the U.S. has done wrong and plenty to complain about, but this shit, and all the utterly ridiculous articles on K5 recently, are absolutely ridiculous and have no grounding in reality.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


Proof? (none / 0) (#56)
by p0ppe on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 06:39:59 AM EST

"First of all, the terrorists ARE in fact linked the the terrorist organization that bin Laden is involved with"

It is indeed nice to know that the US has evidence that links the terrorists to Bin Laden. The only worrying bit is that the US doesn't want to share the evidence with the world. Wonder why?


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
[ Parent ]
Care to revise your statement? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by BurntHombre on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 10:45:12 AM EST

NATO: U.S. evidence 'compelling'

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/02/inv.nato.if/index.html

Ah, but I suppose you're upset that the US hasn't published all its evidence in USA Today for your perusal.

[ Parent ]

Isn't Robertson American? (none / 0) (#62)
by p0ppe on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 05:02:32 PM EST

Isn't Robertson American?

I'm not going to believe it before I see it. The US clearly needs a scapegoat and Bin Laden is the most obvious person.


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
[ Parent ]
No, he's Scottish. (none / 0) (#63)
by BurntHombre on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 05:39:21 PM EST

Otherwise, it would be CRAP.

[ Parent ]
why i submittd the story? (4.25 / 4) (#47)
by pamri on Mon Oct 01, 2001 at 11:54:40 PM EST

First of all, I have to admit to my idiocy, that my presumption, that everyone could relate to the subtle political references in the cartoon & also everyone could get the humour. Since, I had proclaimed, there is a "grain of truth", I may as well defend myself, why I did it. Some important points: 1.The cartoon is not a reflection of what is happening, rather the writer's reflection of what "may" happen, which probably, here is based upon US behaviour to such incidents in the past. (eg:-bombing of a factory in Sudan, after the US embasssy bombings in '99, which turned out to be a pharmeautical Co. Indeed, the US never acknowledged it made a mistake. ) 2.Note, the artist does not seems to be against US military action, but the way in which the US proceeds. For eg, while the US mediation in the Gulf wars was welcome & right, but the way, in which it carpet bombed Iraq, leaving Saddam Hussein more cautious & more venegeful, but leaving Iraq's population in a sorry state. Do note that, while the US has restrained itself very well, the signals emanating after Sep11 from G.Bush were not so. That's what this cartoon is pointing at, I beleive. 3.It also makes fun of Indian & Pakistani leadership for giving outright support (not the moral or logistical one, but use the of air bases, military facilities, etc.,), while thier people are in abject poverty. And the main reason, they (India & Pak) are doing, is to score brownie points over each other. What the author meant by support by 50 countries, is that Osama is more popular than the US ( among a certain section) in some countries, due to hatred towards the US. Doesn't the punch line "Uncle Osama wants you" show that Osama, even with a few resources, but through massive propaganda has influenced a lot of people. 4.Again, this cartoon show how the US jumped to conclusion that Osama did it, without any evidence (in the first 2 weeks, atleast). 5.This one parodies, that while GW.Bush was talking about how free America is, the situation was turning to be, quite the opposite.(attocks on racial minorities, dow jones crashing, the govt., deciding to increase snooping - carnivore,etc) The drug use probably refers to the fact, that while, the US accuses Afghanistan of growing opium, most of the users are here. 6.About the Nostradamus Episode. I am surprised to see some comments, that Nostradamus never said anything like this. Oh my! Can't you see the humour, guys. Nostradamus never "said" anything about the WTC as well. It was "interpreted", after the WTC attacks happened. (He writes in an already forgotten language & that too like a sort of ballad, & most of the so called "predictions" are interpreted right after it happens.) Hence, we have nostradamus predicting that "Dubya" is having 2 egss, burnt toast & black coffe for breakfast the morning, like everyday. And Dubya wondering how he can predict it. And finally, do note, certain things may be exaggerated for the sake of humour & do take everything appearing in the media with a pinch of salt.

Indeed a good idea (4.50 / 2) (#49)
by wiesmann on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 03:27:03 AM EST

Personnally I think posting this story was a good idea. While this thing was not exeptionnaly funny, it is very intersting to see what perception of the whole affair people around the world have.

People telling that it is not funny or not true completly miss the point. This is not about the truth, but about perceptions. There are a myriad of truths around the world, and few places except maybe UK share the US/CNN view of the story.

This is important because perception is what shapes actions. If the action of the US is considered pointless, it will not be supported seriously.

It would be a good idea to have a gallery with cartoons from around the world to have a perception of what people think. This is not only an intellectual exercice. Indeed most countries have offered their support to the US, but then again they did not have much of a choice (first because of PR, and then the you are with us, or against us line. This can, of course change.

Here are some cartoons from a swiss guy, Chapatte and one from Mix & Remix. Here a link to a satiric French TV show....

[ Parent ]

I thought it was funny (3.33 / 3) (#52)
by Wing Envy on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 03:50:47 AM EST

I think people just may be too sensitive right now. Until Jay Leno or David Letterman or the the general public start cracking jokes about the president again, the only thing cracking here is eggshells. And for anyone to think someone's world views are influenced by comics of any kind leads me to believe they haven't read enough "Mad" or "Cracked".

I think if someone were to post a comic in the same fashion regarding bin Laden, more people would be laughing here. "Look at you, you're an idiot" just never seems to get as many laughs as "Look at me, I'm an idiot" kind of humor right now.


You don't get to steal all the deficiency. I want some to.
-mrgoat

Look at me? (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by Gully Foyle on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 11:34:48 AM EST

Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I didn't understand your closing comment. How would a comic about Bin Laden be any more 'look at me' than one about Bush?

If you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong - kableh
[ Parent ]

It was merely in regard to (none / 0) (#61)
by Wing Envy on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 03:24:46 PM EST

a person making fun of themselves, their own government, their own beliefs, as opposed to making fun of another's government, beliefs, crisis, etc. If the comic had been written by an American I think more people would be laughing instead of taking it as a personal assault by an outsider.


You don't get to steal all the deficiency. I want some to.
-mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Dubyaman takes to the Skies | 69 comments (67 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!