Chip Bok by Chip Bok

Chip Bok

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. NeoconMan

    NeoconMan said, 2 months ago

    Well, you see; here’s the thing. Two thirds of all the weapons we paid for to fight Iraq with never got used and were just sitting in the deserts.


    Aside from the fact that my weapons manufacturers made a ton of money off the taxpayers, this isn’t a complete loss. Because now we’re giving all those weapons to American police departments to maintain law and order in the States.


    So it’s a win-win situation all around.

  2. Beau Nobo

    Beau Nobo said, 2 months ago

    Ever since September 14, 2001, when President Bush declared war on terrorism, there has been a crucial, yet often unrecognized, shift in United States policy. Before 9/11, law enforcement possessed the primary responsibility for combating terrorism in the United States. Today, the military is at the tip of the anti-terrorism spear. This shift appears to be permanent: in 2006, the White House’s National Strategy for Combating Terrorism confidently announced that the United States had “broken old orthodoxies that once confined our counterterrorism efforts primarily to the criminal justice domain.”

    In an effort to remedy their relative inadequacy in dealing with terrorism on U.S. soil, police forces throughout the country have purchased military equipment, adopted military training, and sought to inculcate a “soldier’s mentality” among their ranks. Though the reasons for this increasing militarization of American police forces seem obvious, the dangerous side effects are somewhat less apparent.

    Undoubtedly, American police departments have substantially increased their use of military-grade equipment and weaponry to perform their counterterrorism duties, adopting everything from body armor to, in some cases, attack helicopters. The logic behind this is understandable. If superior, military-grade equipment helps the police catch more criminals and avert, or at least reduce, the threat of a domestic terror attack, then we ought deem it an instance of positive sharing of technology — right? Not necessarily. Indeed, experts in the legal community have raised serious concerns that allowing civilian law enforcement to use military technology runs the risk of blurring the distinction between soldiers and peace officers.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/

  3. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, 2 months ago

    I knew this was Obama’s fault. The entire 1033 program was HIS idea, back in 2001 when he secretly took over the government. It was part of his master plan to make the GOP look bad, along with starting wars we couldn’t afford and crashing the stock market so he could seize power.
    .
    Thank god brave cartoonists saw through his evil plot and realized that he was behind it all, right from the start!

  4. Kylop

    Kylop said, 2 months ago

    TJ you ar being so naive. Who do you think assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Who was the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll? Not only is this the latest of steps in his plan to take over the earth but it also proves he’s a time traveling illuminati!

  5. Hiram Bingham

    Hiram Bingham said, 2 months ago

    @Kylop

    ^ Et tu, Brute et Obama?

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 2 months ago

    This is what a “war on drugs” and a “War on Terror” will get you when the military has so much excess equipment, they GIVE IT AWAY! This has been going on for a long time, and it is NOT Obama, but an infestation of years of political appointees running agencies. Welcome to the military industrial profit complex…

  7. Dale Hopson

    Dale Hopson GoComics PRO Member said, 2 months ago

    Wasn’t Obama

  8. echoraven

    echoraven said, 2 months ago

    @Beau Nobo

    Great post!

  9. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 2 months ago

    Just an aside on psychology and acceptance by the public: when I was in the Army, we weren’t allowed to wear fatigues off post, either civies, or “Class A” uniforms, period. Then when Guard and others started wearing those “work clothes” off post, the sight of uniforms being everywhere became more “acceptable” for people to accept a “military police state”- hmm, that was during the early Reagan era.

  10. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    @dtroutma

    You weren’t allowed to wear uniforms off-base during Vietnam so you wouldn’t be harassed by the “tolerant” left. The military wore their uniforms off-base during WWII and Korea, and nobody thought we were in a military police state.

  11. NeoconMan

    NeoconMan said, 2 months ago

    @churchillwasright

    ^ I agree; it’s time to encourage the wearing of uniforms out in public so that Americans will get used to living in the future police state.

  12. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, 2 months ago

    Everywhere except at the border where we need them.

  13. Refresh Comments.