Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Might I remind folks and chickenhawks that Russia really DOES HAVE nuclear weapons with delivery capability? Ukraine is for Ukraine, Russia, and the EU to work out, we have no dog in the fight, and should muzzle our war dogs who shout big, while hiding in the very back of their kennels.

  2. DoctorUmmmNo

    DoctorUmmmNo said, 9 months ago

    Benson is truly the unthinking man’s conservative cartoonist. BHO made the same mistake GWB made with Putin & Georgia, the same mistake GHB made with Hussein & Kuwait… Sending in troops isn’t an option. Benson was gung-ho for Iraq, & seems to think there is no limit to how much money & how many lives we should spend on foreign adventures.

    Despite Da Trout’s suggestion that we don’t have a dog in this fight, we do. An unstable Europe isn’t good for America. We should be supporting Russia’s neighbors who are threatened by Putin’s expansionism because they share our ideals of free markets & Democracy.

    Economically, the US & Russia aren’t dependent on one another, but Europe & Russia are. The Euro-chucks have a lot more leverage. The response to Putin should come from the EU & (for those States that are members) from NATO.

  3. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, 9 months ago

    There really is no military option, contrary to what the right-wing pundits keep screaming about. They are only trying to make political points out of this, to the detriment of the nation.
    Then again, them’s the same folks who didn’t mind obstructing any kind of progress, to the detriment of the nation, for political reasons.

  4. Baslim the begger says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the begger says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    In Tom Clancy’s last book Command Authority, Russia is obviously intent on invading the Ukraine and seizing Crimea. No many people would consider Clancy a “liberal” but his President Ryan asks his people what his options are. The answer comes back… “not much.”

    Which is one of the reasons I like reading Clancy. He actually listened to experts and did not go off beating a drum to some particular dogma. He obviously believed in a strong US military and a somewhat aggressive foreign policy. But his president gets the same answer that Obama would get on asking the same question.

    While Clancy’s president does sent a token force to help the Ukrainians, it is under the auspices of an existing deal. In the end, the Russians get Crimea, but are prevented from overrunning Ukraine not by force but because the US can threaten to completely undermine the Russian president’s rule and force him to back off. I doubt our real world has such an option, although we can hope that sanctions will have some effect. In Clancy’s book the Russians cut off the gas to Europe. Putin could do that, but it would be stupid in the long run. He would just force the Europeans to realize that they could not deal with Russia. Fear can be more effective than force, sometimes.

    Oh, and Lisa, how much option did the US have in Hungary in 1956? Or East Berlin in 1953? Or in Prague in 1968? Or Georgia in 2008? (What did the “Decider” decide to do then?)
    In the face of history, your sneers fail.

  5. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Putin may have to be fought, just as we had no choice in fighting Hitler. He may take over Europe if we don’t, but we are no where near deciding that yet. There are 450 nuclear warheads aimed at Russian targets sitting in American silos. And, our Armed Forces are twice as big and much better armed than Russia’s. We have a much bigger and stronger economy than Russia. We can support a much larger and stronger war than Russia. All of those facts sitting right out of view behind that bicycle changes the picture quite a bit.

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    The real issues don’t revolve around “unstable” areas, Europe, or elsewhere, but rather UNPROFITABLE to U.S. corporate interests, like well, the MIC.

  7. wbr

    wbr said, 9 months ago

    the question is does the USA honor treaties it signs?

  8. coraryan

    coraryan GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago


    “Obstructing Progress”? You mean like Harry Reid & the Senate?

  9. coraryan

    coraryan GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago


    Hell, we’re financially destroyed now!

  10. Baslim the begger says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the begger says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago


    In 1994, the US, UK, Russia and Ukraine did sign a memorandum, known as the Budapest Memorandum.
    See here for analysis.

    It apparently says the following:

    The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine … to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

    First of all this is not a treaty. It is not a mutual defense treaty, specifically. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate.

    It does not bind the US or UK to military intervention. At least not legally. One might argue for a moral obligation to intervene, but as the cases of Hungary and Czechoslovakia show, moral outrage is trumped by military practicality.

    The seizure of Crimea is a violation of the memorandum. But I doubt that even the Ukraine wants to go to war over that. Certainly, they have not.

    So far the other actions in the Ukraine are not overtly Russian (covertly — yes). Massing forces on the border with Ukraine is also a threat and a violation. But what is the Ukraine doing to secure it’s borders?

    The US has been doing something. It has been effecting economic sanctions. As recent history shows, that may not be enough. (It hurt Iraq’s people but not Saddam.)

    But back to practicality.
    Where are US forces? Tied up in Afghanistan and South Korea. You want to strip protection from South Korea?

    How well could the US project force in the Ukraine?

    Would NATO man up and commit forces if the US got involved?
    Poland might. Once upon a time Turkey (ancient foe of Russia) might have.

    A strong show of force might work to deter Putin, but that requires full buy-in from Europe. What are the odds of that?

    Don’t be delusional.

  11. wbr

    wbr said, 9 months ago

    yes beggar you are correct bho has reduced the military to the point ukraine [and estonia] are on their own

  12. NoCons

    NoCons said, 9 months ago

    It’s cute how the Cons hate government spending, and yet expect our government to control everything in the world.

    can you explain that math for me? Thank you.

  13. Refresh Comments.