Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail

Comments (8) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    It’s not like he did anything to deserve it anyways. Except, of course being the darling of the uber-liberal socialists that gave him the “award”.

  2. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    Obama was not George W. Bush, and he defeated John McCain, and both those things really were major steps forward for world peace, saving tens of thousands of lives. I also think it was given prematurely, but you can hardly blame Obama for that. Oh! I forgot! You’re a conservative troll, you can blame Obama for anything! (Haven’t seen so many “Obama created the Chevy Volt” cartoons lately — is it because conservatives figured out that it predates him, or is it because they’ve started selling pretty well?)

  3. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago

    “Everyone is missing the collateral damage the US gets from it’s cowardly drone program like Pakistan’s government becoming less friendly to us.”

    As if Pakistan’s govenment was ever friendly. They have nudge-winked on their “attempts to control” Al-Qaeda traffic and their borders. They even jailed the person who they believe helped us find bin Ladin. Remember, he was living within yards of a Pakistani military facility, but they just couldn’t find him.

    I agree the drone program is dead wrong, but the idea that Pakistan’s government was ever our ally is as silly as believing that Saudi Arabia is our ally.

  4. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago

    The Nobel Prize for peace was given simply because Obama was not GWB, and did not appear to be willing to apply Cowboy Diplomacy. The fact that GWB was gone from the White House did make the planet slightly more likely to be peaceful. And if you think the Nobel people got it wrong, remember that Yassir Arafat also won the same prize. Go figure.

  5. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Well, well, well. It,s been a while CorARYAN. Stop letting them into our country? Hmmm. There are many (most) Muslims who chafe under the totalitarian rule of the Taliban/Al Qaida. Look at the reaction when the French freed portions of Northern Mali. Did you see the CBS story last night on the Afghan youth ensemble touring the US? It’s not Muslims. It’s the INTERPRETATION of “sacred scripture” by fanatics who only believe in THEIR interpretation. Western religion has plenty to be ashamed of in its history: Crusades, Inquisition, Cromwell, Henry VIII, etc. For the most part, we’ve realized that OUR fanatics are indeed that, and most denominations have more or less marginalized those people. Unfortunately, Islam is more fractured than Christianity. When a heretofore unknown cleric can declare a Fatwah, and have his small group of followers engage his vision, it becomes extremely hard to confront him/them. You can’t hold a dialogue with someone who has a closed mind.

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    My “problem” with drones has long been the use of them to fight an undeclared war in “friendly” nations, and going after “terrorists” is not a legal rational if not with the agreement of the nation involved. We’ve “taken out” drug dealers in a number of countries, WITH their “permission”, and well sometimes covert operations haven’t been PUBLICLY “okayed”.

    Lack of concern for collateral damage is the other major issue. In a helicopter, a Hellfire went into four “insurgents” sitting around a fire, blowing up the entire building next to them. The pilot then followed up with machine gun fire, that could have done the job with LESS exterior damage beyond the target, for a few dollars in ammunition, not the $68,000 for the single Hellfire. Using these drones with Hellfire missiles is expensive, both in dollars, destruction of infrastructure like homes, and needlessly lost lives.

    As often said, Obama has “cleaned up” the program considerably from the Bush/Cheney rules of engagement, but while security of intelligence does NOT require total transparency with the public, international law should be complied with, not just an opinion of US “legal authority”.

  7. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago


    “international law should be complied with, not just an opinion of US “legal authority”.”

    This is one of those times when I thought you were absolutely correct, but my curiosity got the best of me and I had to look it up. Turns out that we were only mostly correct. It seems there may be a hole in the national soveriegnty thing that is similar to our states having “hot pursuit” authority. Here is the address of an article in the Yale Journal of Iternational Relationns. I found it interesting but not definitive. It appears that there is no “definitive” in this case.

  8. mshefler

    mshefler said, over 3 years ago

    I’ll repeat a comment I made to another similar editorial cartoon. The drone assassination pr\ogram is unconstitutional. Google “Bill of Attainder” and note how and why our constitution explicitly forbids it.

  9. Refresh Comments.