Jeff Danziger by Jeff Danziger

Jeff Danziger

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 3 years ago

    And, for added effect the bomb is filled with strongly worded UN resolutions!

  2. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 3 years ago

    I keep seeing calls for Assad to be replaced. I don’t think replacing him with an Al Qaida or Muslim Brotherhood backed government will place Syria’s chemical weapons in safe and responsible hands. We should be careful about what wish for.

  3. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, about 3 years ago

    Pretty much our response to everything: Blow up some brown people! (Preferably from a safe distance, so we can proclaim how brave and strong we are without actually risking getting hurt.)

  4. ARodney

    ARodney said, about 3 years ago

    So, you choose Al Qaeda rebels over Assad’s Hezbollah and Iran? Since you hadn’t noticed, there is no good solution in Syria, except Obama’s preferred path — Assad out, current government stays in power through a negotiated settlement. We have almost no leverage to cause that outcome, and if we “got rid of Assad,” it’ll be the Afghanistan Taliban all over again.

  5. Mark

    Mark said, about 3 years ago


    How is that the best choice? Is someone holding a gun to our head forcing us to take sides?

  6. Stipple

    Stipple said, about 3 years ago

    Obama is Bush’s brother from another mother.
    We do not have a two party system, just two party voting, the politicians do not have any differences.
    Tell them then send the American boys in to die.
    Why do we let the idiots pick our candidates? The Method is failed, big time.

  7. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, about 3 years ago

    I did say “preferably”. I know you have the reading comprehension of a fruit fly (who was dropped on the head a lot during the larval stage) but do try to keep up.

  8. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 3 years ago

    “…we’re only doing this because of oil.”

    I don’t think it’s oil. Syria produces around 400,000 plus barrels per day but uses around 300,000 barrels per day. The 100,000 barrel per day net production would not be significant on the world market.

  9. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    we ARE doing this because of oil! They can’t fool us.
    Also if the president does this he has sold out to the wealthiest Vulture capitalists.
    (not that all capitalists are bad and/or extremists).

    This will be his worst mistake and his biggest regret!

    He is willing to do this alone, because of the extra powers given to the president under the GOP’s War Powers Act.

  10. Steam  Vapor

    Steam Vapor said, about 3 years ago

    The middle-east “Troubles” have been going on since WW2. I’ve been hearing about them all my life and am SICK TO DEATH of hearing about them.
    1. Tell EVERY mideast country to man up, get a backbone, if they don’t like their leader, and do WHATEVER is necessary to change. I mean WHATEVER.

    2. Israel can take care of itself, without our financial help. If it can’t… so what!

    3. Every country over there has to take care of itself, without our help. If it can’t… so what!

    4. The USA, UK, and many others went through a civil war and came out stronger. Hey, mideast countries, do you see a pattern here?

    5. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the strong states IN THE REGION to take care of the weak states. They’re YOUR brothers, NOT OURS.

    6. Whatever shakes out, shakes out. You’ll be better for it.

    7. If they cut off the flow. so what. Our technology can come up with other energy sources. We are the best on earth at this.

  11. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Both parties have gone totally NUTS! NO attack on Syria, period! The “argument” is that we have to fight a Hezbollah backed regime, to install an Al Qaeda backed regime, exactly WHO attacked the U.S., and who poses a “threat” to Israel?? Oh, right, U.S.S. LIberty, we, I guess, should support those who’ve actually attacked the U.S. directly in the past!!

  12. benbrilling

    benbrilling GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Quagmire. Again.

    (Except this time it comes with a Nobel Peace Prize.)

  13. comicsssfan

    comicsssfan said, about 3 years ago

    The world and history will look at us harshly if we don’t go in with guns blazing.

  14. pirate227

    pirate227 said, about 3 years ago

    GO NAVY!

  15. comictoles

    comictoles said, about 3 years ago

    Reminds me of the old (10 years old) quip… We’re between Iraq and a hard place.

    But really, this is a tough one. If I thought that the motives of “world leadership” were really altruistic, I would be all for a major thrust to oust the Syrian regime and help a new one form.

    But… I fear that at best, we’ll go half-assed, leaving things in even worse chaos and disarray- and a breeding ground for pissed-off fundamentalists (aka, terrorists). Or, we’ll just put in a weak puppet government (a-la Afghanistan), and it would still be done for some geopolitical-financial purpose. Leaving the people maybe even worse off than they were before.

    As far as the immediate situation- I just don’t know what a limited attack will do to help anyone. At least, if we are going to use force, we should be sure to take out Syria’s offensive capabilities. I don’t think force is the answer though. I wish I knew what is the answer (I’d write to Obama immediately :-)… ), but I think it lies in the area of building, communication, assistance, etc. and not destruction. Maybe I’m just idealistic, but we’ve seen how well the destructive approach works….


  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).