18 thoughts on “WW II Propaganda Posters”

  1. The posters begging the citizenry to “produce!” visually underscores Hayek’s point that wartime central planning leads to peacetime social planning. Maybe we just need new posters — perhaps an insensitive stereotype of a Chinaman sitting on a stack of T-Bills?

  2. “When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler.” That could be used today, with almost no modification, by the likes of James Cameron…

  5. “When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Laden. Saudi Oil
    supports Saudi Terrorists”

    Gloriosky, if that’s the case, I guess the US should have more oil wells–in the Gulf, Alaska, wherever–so we’re not dependent on Saudi oil.

  6. Bilwick1 Says:
    August 24th, 2010 at 10:41 am

    My motto is, “When you ride alone, you can ride with your pants down around your ankles.”

    Only one of the few reasons I envy those with automatic transmissions; lol.

  9. …although you’d never know it to listen to the guy who is President now. Somehow every stupid thing Obama dioes is Bush’s fault.

    And didn’t Maxine Waters try to blame her corruption on Bush too?

  10. jack lee’s party-line-ism raises a question, however, that I’m wondering what people who actually use their brains (sorry, j.l., that lets you out) have any reaction to. The most lockstep members of The Hive, like j.l., are at most not very excerised about the Jihadists and doveish about anything like the War on Terror. Yet they always get very “Islamophobic” when it comes to the Saudis. I know one person who hates Bush, was very against the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan, yet seemed to say we should be invading Saudi Araba, although she drew back from that when I asked her if that was what she was implying. Why is that, do you think?

  11. jack lee–do you think you should be swapping spit with the State? Doesn’t seem very manly to me.

  12. Why is that, do you think?

    An excellent question. It’s fascinating that such a strange meme could survive so many generations of replications relatively intact with none of the hosts understanding it along the way.

  13. One of the variations I’ve noticed, Titus, is, “Why did we attack Afghanistan and Iraq? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?” They seem to be saying that if a terorist group attacks the US, the US should simply do a nationality check and then retaliate against the country most of the attackers came from; an odd justification for war, especially from the so-called peace crowd. But when I ask, “So, are you saying that Bush should have responded to 9/11 by attacking Saudi Arabia?” the response is something like, “Well . . . uh . . . hem . . . haw.” Strange.

  14. Maybe it’s because the Saudi’s are the world’s largest oil exporter and the farthest thing from a People’s Republic. It could be that simple: petrolphobia.

  15. When the 9/11 attacks occurred, i said this is a saudi/pakistani
    operation. Certainly the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the US
    gave funds to one of the hijackers and certainly the Pakistani ISI
    had been providing logistical support to Al Qaeda for years.

    So when the Bush Administration chose to invade afghanistan
    while giving funds to pakistan, i thought it was the height of folly.

    Afghanistan the graveyard of empire and we would run our logistics
    through the enemy terrain? I thought it sounded like paying Mussolini
    to let us run supplies for the invasion of Southern France.

    if we wanted to conduct a military operation, I thought an alliance with India and Russia and Iran would be neccessary. How that would pencil out, i’m not sure. India wanted a seat on the UN Security Council, Russia wanted technology, Iran may have been happy to get a productive relationship
    with it’s neighbors and possibly some deals on nuclear power with a wink
    at their weapons program although that may have been impossible
    over the long haul.

    When we started discussing invading Iraq because of 9/11, I thought
    if we were going to invade an Arab country because of 9/11, Saudi Arabia
    made a much more reasonable target. Small population, no military
    tradition and we already had 2 big bases in the country.
    Secure the oil fields, and make our policy about Oil and Terrorism.

    Invading Iraq because of 9/11 was the height of folly. 55,000 casualties
    and the better part of $2 Trillion wasted ( $700 Billion in direct spending,
    about a $1 Trillion in wore out equipment and men, $300 Billion in indirect
    spending)

    Now what, we have been in Afghanistan almost a decade, without being able to put Bin Laden in a cage. We are withdrawing from Iraq. Relatively, china, and Iran have increased in strength, we have an army in afghanistan with
    a damaged supply line going through the floods of Pakistan.

    Now personally I think we should have shrugged off 9/11. We are a big country, state the FBI is working to bring the perpetrator to justice
    and treat it like any other terrorism case. But if we were going to
    treat it as a act of national policy and that a nation should be held to
    account Saudi Arabia was a far better target then Iraq.

  17. Actually, on second thought, I simiss jack lee too lightly. He’s doing his best to in crease the love in this world. Aggressors and tyrants love people who shrug off acts of aggression. Buy the world a Coke, jack.

  18. http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/01/30/why-are-republicans-so-stupid-and-dishonest-on-terrorism/

    “The policy of treating terrorists as criminals originated with Ronald Reagan. It is that simple. In 1986 the issue of terrorism was hot and heavy because of the events of 1983-1985. During that period the United States was under attack worldwide. Terrorists of all stripes–radical islamists, communists, nationalists, etc.–carried out attacks in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia”

Comments are closed.