Kevin Kallaugher by Kevin Kallaugher

Kevin KallaugherNo Zoom

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, 9 months ago

    pooptin will bankrupt Russia if he takes over countries and former republics of the late USSR. cheney (shrub’s puppetmaster) almost bankrupted the USA with the illegal invasion of Iraq to steal their oil, and the lowering of taxes for the megarich and the elimination of taxes for the big corporations.

  2. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, 9 months ago

    @Clark Kent

    The real scary problem here is that if cooler heads do not prevail, and Putin continues his present possible course, then the only result will probably be WWIII. A nuke war that would result in the extermination of not only human civilization upon this pretty planet, but possibly all life itself. Possibly, all of the war drum beating by ultra conservatives is not the best course? President Obama is doing just fine to be cautious!!

  3. Enoki

    Enoki said, 9 months ago

    I’d love to see the numbers on how that $2 trillion was arrived at.

  4. lonecat

    lonecat said, 9 months ago

    Yes, it does seem low, doesn’t it.

  5. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, 9 months ago

    Obama is not being cautious. He is being naive. Hillary’s reset button was the beginning of a lack of vision by the administration to a very dangerous world.

  6. lonecat

    lonecat said, 9 months ago

    Big power politics is big power politics. The US acts like a big power and throws its weight around when it can, and Russia tries to act like a big power and throws its weight around when it can. Now and again they bump into each other. There are differences. Russia mostly misbehaves in its own neighborhood, while the US thinks the whole world is its sphere of influence. The US is interested in control rather than ownership, i.e. neo-imperialism, while Russia is interested in real or virtual ownership, even annexation at times, more like old fashioned imperialism. The US generally has been more successful, particularly through the use of non-governmental (or semi-governmental) aspects of control, such as multinational corporations. Nationalism has become a tool used by the ruling classes to control workers. Working people around the world have more in common with each other than they have with the ruling elites where they live.

  7. ARodney

    ARodney said, 9 months ago

    Obama is being cautious. It’s McCain and the blowhards on the right who are incredibly naive and have learned nothing from their foreign policy failures under Bush. A military threat is EXACTLY what Putin wants, since that is the only thing propping up his popularity at home. Republicans gave Osama bin Laden exactly the military action that what HE wanted too, and it didn’t work out well then either. Obama’s moves to block banks and Visa and Mastercard were genius. The Russian stock market is starting to plummet, and Putin’s popularity won’t be far behind.

  8. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 9 months ago

    @Robert Landers

    The fact that Obama hasn’t started a shooting war is isolationism, just like Chamberlain in ‘38.


    Writing while it was all Top Secret, Churchill assured everyone that, had Chamberlain sent the BEF to join with Czechoslovakia’s 15 divisions, victory over the Wehrmacht would have been assured (France was not willing to go to war with the UK against Germany in ‘38, because Maginot wasn’t ready). Later historians said that going to war in ‘38 would have been the wrong war in the wrong place with the wrong allies for the wrong reasons. Britain’s Top Secret air defence radar was not yet fully implemented, and, without that radar, the Luftwaffe would not have suffered the massive losses that caused Hitler to abandon the Battle of Britain. And, had Britain surrendered, Hitler said he would have let Britain keep the Raj. So it was indeed a mistake for Chamberlain not to go to war in 38.

  9. Enoki

    Enoki said, 9 months ago

    @ARodney

    No, ARod, Obama is being indecisive just as he has been in previous foreign policy actions and decisions.
    His decisions to date have almost uniformly increased instability in the world and have resulted in the US having diminished capacity and credibility with other nations.
    .
    Obama is a weak and indecisive leader who is frequently absent from the whole decision making loop.
    By the way, the Russian stock market rebounded and is gaining now.

  10. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, 9 months ago

    I resent the notion of Angela Merkel in this picture. Germany was against the war and didn’t participate in any way, shape or form – as far as this is possible for a nation still a bit under siege…

  11. Stipple

    Stipple said, 9 months ago

    This morning’s news from congress.

    Just small arms and food and clothing along with medical aid, no boots on the ground…

    I find that disturbing, the numbers show 2020 as the turning point leading to global war.
    I hate when leaders field their plays from non science sources. Coulda had another six years, oh well.

  12. Stipple

    Stipple said, 9 months ago

    @ansonia

    “probably WWIII
    is in the very same sentence you quote.

    To me that means he worries about escalation of hostilities if the US steps in and helps kill Russians.
    What does WWIII mean to you?

  13. Enoki

    Enoki said, 9 months ago

    @Ruff

    I did Ruff along with the original Brown University sources.
    .
    First, the cost of 2.2 Trillion is based on estimates of veteran benefits through 2060.
    .
    Then there is no attempt on the part of the Costofwar.org people to thoroughly document any of their findings. The civilian casualty numbers are as spurious as those published and widely discredited that Lancet made in England.
    .
    Then there is no actual cost accounting dividing sunk and fixed costs from variable ones. Everything is lumped into the $2.2 trillion number to inflate the costs for political purposes.
    .
    While I recognize that the war did increase the cost of military operations I also don’t like that those arguing against it are using what are essentially disingenious lies to try and promote their position.
    They need to let facts that are accurate and open make their case. But, they don’t do that.
    .
    It seems to me that out of one side of their mouth they scream about Bush lying and then out of the other they lie about their own position.
    Whether Bush lied or not is a seperate issue. But, lying to promote the opposition position is equally bad and Brown University is doing that and Reuters is repeating it.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    KAL’s point is perfectly rational, and now we’re saying we’ll go after the Ugandan “bad guy”… As a nation in the past 40 years, it’s time we stopped pretending to be “good cop” while everyone who opposes us is either “bad cop”, or bad guy.

  15. Enoki

    Enoki said, 9 months ago

    @Ruff

    So, your counter argument is based on two Leftist Progressive academics who worked for Clinton and now Obama?
    The bias of their views is self evident from their CV’s.

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