Bob Gorrell by Bob Gorrell
- May 29, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
John Deering by John Deering
Walt Handelsman by Walt Handelsman
About Bob Gorrell
Since 1983, Bob Gorrell has been an editorial cartoonist in Richmond, Va. first with the Richmond News Leader and then, starting in 1992, with the Richmond Times-Dispatch. On January 1, 1998, he resigned from the Times-Dispatch to concentrate on syndicated editorial cartoons and comic panel features for Creators Syndicate.
© 2009 Creators Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (16) Jump to Comments Form
parkersinthehouse said, 5 months ago
mightier than the mouse - woops - i mean the missile
nomad2112 said, 5 months ago
Yeah, it didn’t work for Iraq either.
dtroutma said, 5 months ago
The U.N. was chopping up Saddam’s missiles that could go 10 Km too far, when Bush launched his attack. The pen can also write propaganda.
curiosity1 said, 5 months ago
OK - so here’s the $100,000 question - what should the countries of the world do? Invade north Korea? Not likely…
TrickyPickle said, 5 months ago
That *is* the question isn’t it? What haven’t we tried? War? Check. Economic sanctions? Check. Economic incentives? Check. Diplomacy? Check. What’s left?
cdward said, 5 months ago
What’s left? More diplomacy. Then more diplomacy. Then more and more and more.
In this case, we keep at it until either a) things get better or b) N.K. tries something stupid like an attack on, say, S.K. or selling nuclear material abroad. Then you come to S.K.’s aid in a manner that meets their needs (including war), and/or stopping their transportation of materials outside of N.K.
churchillwasright said, 5 months ago
CD: You are pathetically naive. Yes, we will continue diplomacy over and over again. But the scenario will more likely go like this:
During all these negotiations, the world will conclude that N.K. can’t be exporting nuclear materials. The international community (read: the U.S.) board and inspect ships leaving N.K.. This P.O.s their nutty leader, who then attacks S.K. We then “come to S.K.’s aid in a manner that meets their needs (including war)” (of course S.K.s major cities will be gone, and hundreds of thousands will be dead), the U.S. will then flatten N.K. (with sophisticated, military weaponry that is nothing like the WWII era stuff we used in the early ’50s).
The wacky-left (like you) will come out of the woodwork, saying it was all the U.S.s fault: we had no right to board N.K.s ships, everything found was “dual-use” (remember that term?”), there was no exit strategy, and besides, the U.S. has nuclear weapons (and were the only ones to ever use it), so why shouldn’t every tin-pan tyrant on the planet have it too? (Oh, and it’s Bush’s fault). I can even see the super-duper loony-left (and right) calling for Obama-Biden to join Bush-Chaney at the war crimes trials.
Just another win-win situation. /sarc off
cdward said, 5 months ago
churchill, you are an interesting fellow. What I hear you saying is that diplomacy is naive. Do I have that right? It sounds like what you’re saying is to keep talking is pointless.
In that case, what do you suggest? Another brilliant “preemptive” attack? That was the the Bush way – set an ultimatum, and if they don’t do what you want fast enough, invade. Which is the sort of behavior one might expect from a poorly raised child, not a world leader. Or do you suggest walking away and forgetting they exist? I’m curious just how you think we ought to deal with N.K. if not first with diplomacy.
TrickyPickle said, 5 months ago
I’m not certain you’re right on this one CD. There is a real threat of someone like N.K. selling nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapon technology, to other parties who mean to use them. I don’t think any amount of diplomacy will derail N.K.’s nuke program. But I also don’t think sanctions will work and clearly incentives don’t work. War may end up causing the problem we’re trying to avoid in the first place. So where does that leave us? On another note, the reason a lot of these countries want a nuclear deterrent is to put a limit on the influence of outside powers (like the US) on their own countries. This means they can pretty much get away with any kind of abuses with very little fear of retaliation. Lefties will think that heck, it’s their country their leaders can do as they please as they have a right to self governance. Righties will believe they have an obligation to intervene on behalf of beleaguered populations. Neither side is attractive to me.
cdward said, 5 months ago
TrickyPickle, I don’t deny (and said as much) that N.K. has the potential for selling its material – and that this should not be allowed. It’s just too dangerous to let it fall into the hands of, say, terrorists. I never suggested we should let that happen.
The problem is, as you say, what to do? It’s my opinion that you keep talking first. Unfortunately, there are too many who would prefer to go into attack mode almost as a reflex, and we’ve seen where that gets us. And Iraq didn’t even have weapons of mass destruction.
You are right that countries seeking nuclear weaponry often do so because they feel threatened by the likes of us. As nutty as Kim is, however, I think he understands that using his pathetic version of a nuke would only result in his swift and certain death.
I’d argue, however, that most “lefties” feel each country should not be allowed to just do whatever it wants. Rather, they are more likely to believe that each country has a responsibility to the others, and that would mean approaching possession of nukes very carefully and considering the war option only after consensus is reached and every other option is exhausted. Too bad so many are so impatient.
But, if you can think of a better approach, I’m open to hearing it.
churchillwasright said, 5 months ago
CD: I did not say negotiations were naive, I said you were naive.
I’m more of a realist. I don’t think diplomacy will work with N.K. They will continue to do what they do regardless, just as they did during Clinton and Bush. Best case scenario is that Nutjob kicks while all the negotiating is still going on.
But I never advocated a preemptive strike, so don’t put words in my mouth. I merely laid out a scenario wherein the world (if they were thinking straight and had the “guts”) wouldn’t allow N.K. to export nuclear tech during the negotiations, N.K. would counter, and the events that might transpire after (ultimately ending with it’s America’s/Bush”s fault).
I think mine is a realistic scenario. If you don’t agree, I’d care to hear yours. But again, don’t put words in my mouth.
BTW: Don’t remember Bush’s ultimatum and ultimate attack (you know– the “the Bush way”) Must have been on vacation that week. But I do remember hearing about 6 nation talks and UN condemnations– the same things that are going on now. If you could post me a link I’d appreciate it.
danielsangeo said, 5 months ago
“BTW: Don’t remember Bush’s ultimatum and ultimate attack (you know– the “the Bush way”) Must have been on vacation that week. But I do remember hearing about 6 nation talks and UN condemnations– the same things that are going on now. If you could post me a link I’d appreciate it.”
Sorry, but I’ll give you more than one:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0209-08.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.html
Full text available at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saddam_has_48_Hours_to_Leave_Iraq
“Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals – including journalists and inspectors – should leave Iraq immediately.”
churchillwasright said, 5 months ago
DANIEL: The cartoon and every post here is about N.K. Get with the game.
cdward said, 5 months ago
churchill wrote: “But I never advocated a preemptive strike, so don’t put words in my mouth. I merely laid out a scenario wherein the world (if they were thinking straight and had the “guts”) wouldn’t allow N.K. to export nuclear tech during the negotiations, N.K. would counter, and the events that might transpire after (ultimately ending with it’s America’s/Bush”s fault).”
churchill, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m trying to understand what you suggest. The way this is written, it sounds like you think we ought to stop N.K. from exporting tech - but that it won’t work. Is that right? If that’s not right, then what do you see as the best course of action regarding North Korea? Or are you saying there is nothing that will work?
As to naivety, if diplomacy (or negotiations in your words) is not naive, then how is it naive to suggest them? I never said, “Oh let’s just talk and everything will turn up roses.” So please don’t put words in my mouth. So far, you have offered no possible course of action that I can tell – certainly nothing different from what I’ve suggested.
“I think mine is a realistic scenario. If you don’t agree, I’d care to hear yours. But again, don’t put words in my mouth.”
As I said above, you offer a scenario and then say (or appear to say – don’t want to put words in your mouth but do want to get across how I’m understanding you) that it’ll result in open war, and the left will blame Bush. In other words, open war with North Korea is inevitable, is that right?
” Don’t remember Bush’s ultimatum and ultimate attack (you know– the “the Bush way”)”
Here, I was referring to past actions in Iraq. My point was that the preemptive model which grew out of impatience (the Bush way) did not work in Iraq and would be a poor route for North Korea.
churchillwasright said, 5 months ago
CD: I’ve actually gone back and re-read your posts, and for the most part I’ve concluded that we agree. You never said “Oh let’s just talk and everything will turn up roses.” You said lets talk till things get better (they won’t) or N.K. does something stupid (they will).
“The way this is written, it sounds like you think we ought to stop N.K. from exporting tech - but that it won’t work. Is that right?” Yes, that’s right. Unless we allow N.K. to freely export, I see no reason why my scenario doesn’t hold water. Would YOU allow them to export this tech?
I never said I had a better way, or that one exists. Is a war inevitable? Depends on what you consider “inevitable”. If we stop their ships now, it may be during Obama’s administration. If we don’t (and possibly even if we do) it will be down the road during someone else’s administation (only then N.K. and Iran will be nuclear). Either way this is clearly not a good situation.
And yes, whatever happens, the left will say it was Bush’s fault.
cdward said, 5 months ago
churchill: “And yes, whatever happens, the left will say it was Bush’s fault.” That could be, but it is equally true that anything good that happens, the right will deny that Obama had anything to do with it.