Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. William Bednar

    William Bednar GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Yeah, golf is much more fun that dropping bombs!

  2. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, almost 3 years ago

    Israel wants to bomb. What’s the matter with bombing? Doesn’t bombing always work? I mean for politicians?

  3. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

    I know that cartoons are not a good place for detailed argument, but I’d be interested to know from someone who opposes the deal with Iran exactly what’s wrong with it.

  4. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 3 years ago

    That’s about right.

  5. dtriedel

    dtriedel GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    I am waiting for this very competent artist to deal with a subject other than Obama and how bad he is. It’s going on six years, time for a fresh look at something else.

  6. squirrelchaser

    squirrelchaser said, almost 3 years ago


    This deal allows Iran to keep its refined uranium. This deal allows Iran to keep their centrifuges. This deal allows Iran to select which sites will be inspected. In theory, this deal will slow down Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in practice it does no such thing. Remember, Iran does not need, or want, to build huge mega-ton ICBMs, small bombs that fit in suit cases will work just fine.

  7. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago


    “Remember, Iran does not need, or want, to build huge mega-ton ICBMs, small bombs that fit in suit cases will work just fine.”

    Excellent observation. Good reason for discontinuing the ill-advised and ultra-expensive missile-defense “shield”. Add those hundreds of billions to the “plus” side of our ledger; it’d be like found money, and I hear Uncle Sam could use some right about now….

  8. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago

    It is a shame that our historical dealings with Iran have been so counter-productive, starting with propping up the shah, etc.

    More recently, we accused Iran of being part of the “Axis of Evil”, which also included Iraq and North Korea. Then we invaded Iraq: the only one of the three without an active nuclear weapons program. What did that say to the world? If you have a nuke program, we won’t invade. So both North Korea and Iran increased their efforts.

    In addition, after we leveled Iraq, Iran wanted to talk to us. They had to go through the Swiss, since we, at the time, wouldn’t talk to them directly. Iran was frightened: we over-ran Iraq quickly and completely, and they were willing to negotiate in order to keep us from doing the same. We chose not to pay any attention to them. Once we showed how completely we botched the occupation of Iraq, they lost their fear.

    Opportunities come and go. Sometimes we take advantage.

  9. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago

    Agreed. Some circumstances could and should be reversed. Every day that Guantanamo remains open is a failure of the Obama Administration. Every day we stay in Afghanistan, every day we don’t shut down NSA spying, every day the PATRIOT acts remain in force, same thing. Regardless of their genesis, these are now Mr. Obama’s problems. I recognize it is not that simple, and that Congress needs to cooperate to be able to achieve the ends I feel we need to achieve, but his job is to motivate them to do the right thing.

    But if he’s in the White House, it’s now his baby.

    No doubt previous administrations made mistakes. Some of them were opportunities lost which likely will never be available again, as noted in my post above. Some, though, can be acted upon even now, and that’s not being done, regrettably.

    And because they are not being done, they are fair game for negative commentary.

    I say this as one often accused of being a liberal, if it matters.

  10. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Just more fodder for the chickenhawk brigade. The ONLY existing nuclear threat in the Middle East remains, Israel. Going over to South Asia with Pakistan and India, quite another problem, religiously driven, but Islam vs HInduism.

    Logical treaties with logical controls are logical. Hmm, maybe the “righties” just reflect on all the treaties that D.C. signed with the multiple native tribes, and we broke EVERY ONE OF THEM! (But sshhhh, " good Christian white guys" are never the ones who lie!

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

    Is timing your only problem with the agreement? Sanctions can always be imposed again if Iran fails to make good on the agreement. If it’s a good agreement otherwise, I don’t see that this issue of timing should be such a big deal.

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago


    My understanding of the fundamentals of the deal is as follows:

    •Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5%, and “neutralise” its stockpile of uranium enriched beyond this point
    •Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites
    •There will be no further development of the Arak plant which it is believed could produce plutonium
    •In return, there will be no new nuclear-related sanctions for six months if Iran sticks by the accord
    •Iran will also receive sanctions relief worth about $7bn (£4.3bn) on sectors including precious metals
    So, yes, they can keep enriched uranium, but only enriched to 5%, which is way below weapons grade. I assume that the sites to be inspected are the ones that the West believes are the most problematic. My memory from back in the days when the US and the USSR were negotiating was the so-called “national-technical means” were generally considered pretty reliable — that is, the US almost certainly knows where the trouble spots are.

  13. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

    As soon as you say “towel heads” you remove yourself from the ranks of the reasonable.

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

    I’ve never believed in these homey analogies, but since you introduce one, there are a number of services for which one pays (at least in part) up front. Insurance for one. My contractor always wants a deposit. I don’t find your argument persuasive.
    You say, “The lifting of sanctions provides economic relief to their population, who will then be more likely to support their leaders in the continued acquisition of nuclear weapons.” Well, maybe the lifting of sanctions will demonstrate to the Iranian people that they are better off without a nuclear weapons program. Again I don’t find your argument persuasive.
    If not this agreement, then what? Leaving the situation as it was, with no controls whatsoever on the Iranians and the Israeli government just itching to attack? This agreement is definitely better, in my opinion.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

    I certainly agree with you about the current government in Iran. I have Iranian friends, and I’ve heard what they have to say. I don’t want the government of Iran to get nuclear weapons, and in my judgment (for what it’s worth) this deal will help keep them from getting nuclear weapons, at least for a while. I don’t like nuclear weapons in anyone’s hands. I fear that given enough time some one some where some time is going to use one. And then another. And then another. I don’t have a solution, but I’m opposed to proliferation of any sort.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).