Meet the world

by Volker Weber


More >


No, not 'by Volker Weber', but 'by Icaro Doria' ;-)

Armin Grewe, 2005-07-15

Thanks!. I could not find the source. "by" means only who posted on as you are very well aware of. :-)

Volker Weber, 2005-07-15

absolutely brilliant flags and statements, thanks for sharing !

alexei matthus, 2005-07-16

Sad to say, I think the blue is severely underestimated.


Richard Schwartz, 2005-07-16

That's the most enlightening statement I have ever seen!

Chris Whisonant, 2005-07-16

Maybe I should make an updated version:

Red: Number (in millions) of Germans who died in World War II
White: Number (in millions) of Germans freed from Nazi tyranny by the USA
Blue: Color of the oceans that Americans crossed pre-emptively to free Germans from the tyranny of Hiltler (who had not attacked America). Saddam, at the very least, tried assassinating a US President and that's why Bill Clinton wanted to go after Saddam. Hitler never attacked the US directly but we liberated his country.

Census Numbers

Before continually bashing America from your side of the ocean, consider that Europe would probably still be wearing swastikas if it were not for our pre-emptive attacks in Europe (Japan was a different story...)

Chris Whisonant, 2005-07-16

Chris, yes America did rid the world of Hitler, but to think that this was done just to make the world a better place is plain wrong.
The world and its political system did never work that way, be it today or in the past.
As for us stil wearing swastikas: Might be wearing them, might be fighting them, or we might have gotten rid of Hitler and his ilk all on our selves. Who knows.
Even the comunist system has failed after some time.
Who is next? Time will tell.

Martin Forisch, 2005-07-16

@Chris: in what way is this bashing? Did you click the link and notice that the artist who made this graphic also did one for his own country and several others, and that the over-riding theme in his work is not so much criticism as it is irony?

The American flag graphic simply makes two indisputably true observations: (a) America is strongly divided about Iraq, and (b) that the number of Americans who are ignorant of world geography is significant. Personally, I find it not ironic, but embarassing that far too many of the people of the world's only superpower couldn't identify Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably even Germany or Brazil (the artist's home) on a map. The number of Americans who are ignorant of American geography is embarassingly high (and it's even worse in the young generation that is fighting this war than it is in the generation that is sending them to fight... but that's a digression from my point)! I think it's worth noting that if our people were more interested in understanding the world's history and geography, our foreign policy might be different. Perhaps it would more favor your point of view. Perhaps it might more favor mine. Perhaps it might more favor Volker's, or the artist's. I honestly don't know, but either way I think it would be preferable for more Americans to know more about the world we live in.

Richard Schwartz, 2005-07-16

And very likely without the French Chris, you'd probably still be paying taxes to the Queen.

Carl Tyler, 2005-07-17

@Carl - Touche! =)

It just goes to show that world history is dynamic. Heck, we may not have had some of the problems with Taliban had we not assisted Afghanis in their battles with the Russians. And we worked with Iraq in their fighting against Iran. But the USA had been working on an Iraqi liberation policy since Bill Clinton signed a bill in 1998 stating that our main agenda should be to rid Saddam of power. Was W thinking about Iraq since day 1 in office? Certainly! Because the policy was handed down to him and was still ongoing... I digress!

@Richard - I did not say that the bashing was being done by the artist. Rather it comes from the posting at this site with other graphics stating Americans are stupid because of signs in front of toilets, etc... But I hope it's all in good fun.

Further, the graphic is more than that. It's supposedly about the world's view of the war depicting a vast majority who are against the war. Certainly in America there is a majority of those for the war.

I wholeheartedly agree about the geographical ignorance of Americans (and probably most people worldwide if the truth be told). Our public school systems are ridiculous in that they would rather focus on radical agendas (teaching graphic sex-ed to 5th graders who should be learning history or geography!). Not only could they probably not find such countries on a map, but many would probably even have the wrong hemisphere!

Chris Whisonant, 2005-07-17

@Chris: "Certainly in America there is a majority of those for the war."

There was a vast majority. There isn't any more. There isn't even a majority. The numbers swung away from supporting the war at the point where the public realized that we had been lied to by the administration (and that the mainstream press whose responsibility was to expose the lies had instead fallen for them hook, line, and sinker). You can see the progression of data from multiple polling organizations here:


Richard Schwartz, 2005-07-17


but we liberated his country

consider that Europe would probably still be wearing swastikas if it were not for our pre-emptive attacks in Europe

Aren't you forgetting the Russians, Brits, Poles, Canadians and many other nations who played a part in the liberation of Europe from the Nazis?

Yes, you played an important part (which we are grateful for), but I very much doubt you can take all the credit.

Armin Grewe, 2005-07-17

@Armin - I'm not forgetting the other help in WWII. But really consider how the war would have lasted had we not helped.

@Richard - the poll numbers also show that there was no major decline in support for the war until the election got underway and the left had its "wrong war wrong time" approach. Then you had to deal with the lies of Fahrenheit 9/11 that many in the public believed. If you haven't watched it, check out FahrenHYPE 9/11. A different story painted by the likes of Dick Morris (not exactly part of the Vast Right Wing!!)

So to just cite poll numbers is extremely misleading - remember it was the exit polls that showed Kerry winning the election by a good margin and not losing by the 4 million votes that he lost by. Remember some of the tactics the left (mostly) used to discount the war. First you had Fahrenheit - less a documentary and more of a mad man's hatred of W. And you also had the CBS news fiasco of forged documents brought out at the last minute. The media you spoke of was also more concerned with tallying up the US death toll that they lost sight of why we were there and the good that was going on. The press was nearly jubilant and almost wet themselves when the number cracked 1,000! That's a lot of life, but we lost that many in the matter of 3 days in Vietnam. Yet they still compared the war to Vietnam. I watched ABC every morning just about and it was always a lead story of the death toll in Iraq or Bush's military service. And then after W was re-elected the media just seemed to forget about that because they had no reason to harp on it any longer. It quickly became business as usual.

Chris Whisonant, 2005-07-17


I am very grateful for the americans coming into the war. But I find it a little easy to bring out the "if it weren't for us you would be still wearing swastikas" trump card.

A few points to mention:

1. If there is one thing that was really, really well done by the americans in Germany and in Japan was the way that they stayed and supported the build-up in the coutries, on a really long term basis. The sad truth about american involvment in conflicts nowaday is that this long-term commitment is not there (Afghanistan, which you mention, is a case in point). Hopefully we will stay both in Afghanistan and Iraq long enough, but I fear that will not be the case.

2. The public opinion was massively against getting involved in the war in the US - it was only after Pearl Harbour that opinions swung to the other side.

3. I agree entirely with Martin's comment, it all comes down to one's national self-interest. And the particulary irritating thing about this american administration is that any of these international actions are always justified by some implausible moral high ground (I mean, if you really want better rights for people and democracy, surely we should being in Saudi Arabia, right?). I found the bluntness of say, the Reagan administration, or the realpolitik of Kissinger, refreshingly honest.

4. I find criticising political decisions an integral part of the democratic process - and we *are* entitled to comment on american foreign policy because it affects *us* as well. The struggle against terrorism requires some concerted coordination from every country, and neither the US nor we can afford completely ignoring the wishes or the objections of the others.

5. Since I am ranting (sorry Chris), my real worry is the massive erosion of civil rights in the US (and in many European countries by the way) in which we start throwing away the fruits of really painful lessons for the sake of convenience. Like the Geneva Convention. Like Habeas Corpus. I was amazed at seeing the hate directed at the ACLU, for instance. This is dangerous!

I say this because we have been there. Here is a little chilling quote:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

- Hermmann Goering

I hope I haven't offended you.

Andrew Magerman

Andrew Magerman, 2005-07-18

great thanks,

a lot truth in it ;-)

Andrea Altefrone, 2005-07-18

Good Post, Andrea - especially point 5.

Martin Hiegl, 2005-07-18

Martin, you are probably talking to Andrew not Andrea. :-)

Volker Weber, 2005-07-18

Whoops ... yes Volker, you are right of course! =o)

Martin Hiegl, 2005-07-18

@Chris: Whatever interpretations you want to believe for why the poll numbers were what they were then, or why they are what they are now, however plausible or implausible those reasons are, you are missing the point. The graphic reflects the truth about what opinion is now. The majority in the US, knowing what we know today, does not believe that the war in Iraq was justified and no longer support it. This goes across multiple surveys, and well beyond the margin of error. If you prefer to think of it as being based on believing rather than knowing what we know, so be it. If you prefer to think that the majority was deluded by Michael Moore, the media and the Kerry campaign (despite the fact that it seems contradictory to believe that Kerry convinced so many people to change their minds about the war and yet he still lost), then so be it. If you prefer to believe that the utter lack of WMDs doesn't indicate that the administration either deliberately lied or was totally incompetent, then so be it. If you prefer to believe that people aren't legitiamtely questioning whether certain strategic decisions ("shock and awe" bombing, lower troop strength than recommended by experienced commanders, focusing on Baghdad instead of securing borders, etc.) that allowed a strong insurgency to develop were correctly and competently made, so be it. None of what you believe, or of what I beleive for that matter, changes the fact that the graphic is an accurate statement and that construing it as "bashing" is a denial of the reality of the actual poll numbers and is an assumption of hidden motives without justification.

Richard Schwartz, 2005-07-18

Old archive pages

I explain difficult concepts in simple ways. For free, and for money. Clue procurement and bullshit detection.


Paypal vowe