Steve Benson by Steve Benson
- August 23, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson
Chip Bok by Chip Bok
About Steve Benson
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning in 1993, Steve Benson has been a lightning rod for more than 20 years as the staff editorial cartoonist for The Arizona Republic. Benson sums up his career best: "I don’t aim to please. I just aim."
© 2009 Creators Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (37) Jump to Comments Form
motivemagus said, 3 months ago
What am I missing here? Did I miss a news story?
KarlOSMArkSimOS said, 3 months ago
Veterans of Foreign Wars - “V” means Victory. Killing the Bastards that attack us until they give up and start acting like human beings. War wins Peace.
Obma - “V” means the American military is a bunch of killing bastards. We need to send a basket of flowers and apologize to any dictators we may have offended. We didn’t mean to point out that they brutalize their people. Peace not War. Kum Ba Yah.
bewoolner
said,
3 months ago
To members of the WW2 generation, the “V” sign means “Victory.”
To members of the Woodstock generation, the “V” sign means “Peace.”
Trying to read anything else into it besides the different ways the generations see things is just inserting your own views and prejudices into it.
Give it a rest KarlOSMArkSimOS.
harleyquinn
said,
3 months ago
To Obama it means apologize and rename. Kind of a slap in the face to those who did put their buts on the front line.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago
bewoolner
well said – after that, it’s speculation, which won’t slow this crowd down any lol
omQ R
said,
3 months ago
I think the cartoon is saying that Veterans are the best people to understand peaceful overtures.
Ken Shields said, 3 months ago
you folks have entirely too much time on your hands to wallowe in the sordid depths of your individual minds,
it’s just a cartoon.
pitboss67 said, 3 months ago
Not at my vfw hall .. will u see this sorry wish u it was truth
omQ R
said,
3 months ago
Around here, nothing’s “just a cartoon”. ;-)
omQ R
said,
3 months ago
Ok, see, grammar IS important: (where’s English Teacher when you need him/her? Please, come back! I’m sorry I ever doubted you!)
“Not at my vfw hall .. will u see this sorry wish u it was truth”
Is it:
“Not at my VFW Hall. Will you see this sorry <….>. You wish it was truth.
Or:
“Not at my VFW Hall will you see this sorry wish. You <…> it was truth.
Or:
Not at my VFW Hall will you see this. Sorry, you wish it was the truth.”
At any rate, we have other veterans on this forum, I’m sure they can weigh in.
M Henri Day said, 3 months ago
KarlOSMArkSimOS, have you ever been personally attacked by Iraqis or Afghanis ? As far as I know, neither of these nations have ever attacked the United States (presumably the «us» to which you refer in your posting) - although it may indeed be the case that they did become a bit violent when their own countries were invaded by yours….
Henri
cjr53 said, 3 months ago
Hmmm, didn’t the V with the back of the hand showing mean “Victory” (you can see your own fingers and thumb)?
Didn’t turning the hand around showing a V with the fingers and thumb exposed to the audience mean “Peace (the signal flasher sees the back of their own hand)?
I seem to remember that distinction being made back in the 60s when the “Peace” signal was so common.
Simon_Jester said, 3 months ago
On what do you base that opinion KarlOSMArkSimOS?
Let’s hear it.
HUMPHRIES
said,
3 months ago
KarlO, Here’s a real flag waiver for ya - “for those who have fought for it, Peace shall have a special flavor the protected shall never know.” - Convince me you’ve done anything.
motivemagus said, 3 months ago
cjr53 - Winston Churchill originally used the back of the hand in his “V for Victory” signal, until one of his people quietly informed him that that is the British equivalent of “the bird.” Thus, he was telling the British people to..um…well…
For the next six months, he kept consciously turning it around, but there are some photos of him giving the two-fingered salute to the British people.
benbrilling
said,
3 months ago
I think some folks here have it all backwards. Obama has ordered the military to bring home their fallen in public ceremonies to honor them. Bush, as you may or may not recall, brought them home in secret, prohibiting the press, hoping nobody would notice them. Bush (and Cheney) wanted to pretend everything was nice and tidy and wars have no consequences. They didn’t even include the costs in the budget. Hey look! No cost, no casualties, don’t we have a nifty war?
senorbullwinkle
said,
3 months ago
All it means today is, TWO more Beers Please !
Every Bartender knows that.
It could mean, ” Hey, look, I’ve dropped my cigarette !
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
MHenriDay
“have you ever been personally attacked by Iraqis or Afghanis ? As far as I know, neither of these nations have ever attacked the United States”
Perfectly reasonable question. Did you ask that of Clinton when he bombed Serbian civilians? We should have nothing to do with Darfa? Germany never attacked the US in either war.
There are different mind sets in being a leader and in being a follower. In general the most successful tend to lead.
cdward said, 3 months ago
Germany never attacked the US in either war.
WWi - The torpedoing of the Lusitania was not on America per se, but there were 128 Americans aboard who perished. The Black Tom armory explosion was (and still is) suspected to be German sabotage. Both of these were contributing factors to the US entry into WWI (aside from Wilson’s own reasons for wanting to enter).
WWII - The Germans declared war on the US following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Simon_Jester said, 3 months ago
cdward….no, the biggest factor in the US entering WWI was the Zimmerman telegram.
Furthermore, it was the conservative Republicans who did not want the US to intervene against Hitler, not the Dems.
GNWachs…there’s a slight diffrence. Clinton never said, nor did he even hint that Bosnia-Herzegovina was a threat to the the US.
Such was NOT the case with GW Bush’s invasion of Iraq…anb by the way, the intervention in the Balkans was NOT a full scale invasion,, either.
KarlOSMArkSimOS How about a response? Come on, how you gonna save ‘Murca from our enemies if you can’t face down one, little question?
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
Simon
Absolutely correct. The Republicans were the isolationists just before WWII. During Bush II the Dems became the isolationists. With Obama in, we increase our presence in Afghanistan.
Personally I think the Republicans in late 1930s were indeed isolationists - they preferred Hitler over Stalin- but the Dems did it for political reasons as we are seeing now that they are in power.
I thought Clinton was wrong then. Also he bombed an aspirin factory- why?
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
cdward
“WWi - The torpedoing of the Lusitania was not on America per se, but there were 128 Americans aboard who perished.”
So in your view it would have been appropriate for the US to go to war and attack Libya after Lockerbie?
senorbullwinkle
said,
3 months ago
GNC,
No, we shot down their air bus first, and they retaliated. and the WWl started like this http://tinyurl.com/26fa98
same deal for WWII. The Treaty of Versailles like this http://tinyurl.com/ntygmo
Now maybe you can apologize to Clinton for trying to stop WWIII..
This is where I add those naughty names, But I’ll let you do it this time !
PS I dropped out of public school in the 10th grade. Seems I Got a better education than you.
PSS bush wanted oil, even before he ran for Pres., See P-nac.
blacy said, 3 months ago
Given
there is far more potential for a meeting of minds between Obama and members of the VFW, given they are both being used by super rich ideologues to vilify the newest boogie men – people from the middle east – a usefully vague category.
How ironic Saudi Arabia is not amongst the nations we seek to mold into unregulated capitalism – even though the vast majority of 911 highjackers were Arabians and their laws are incredibly women hating). Must be all the oil they have and how in debt we are to them.
This shell of an empire wont’ last long. At its core the u.s. is consumed with fear, never really aware of how our past hubris has made us the bully boy in the family of nations. Spoiled and greedy, casting our policy and chemical filth all over the world.
Every dawn brings another chance to make amends.
petergrt said, 3 months ago
“Now maybe you can apologize to Clinton for trying to stop WWIII.. ”
I didn’t realize that Lewinsky got that mad?
Fairportfan said, 3 months ago
harleyquinn said
To Obama it means apologize and rename. Kind of a slap in the face to those who did put their buts on the front line.
You mean Republican chicken hawks like Draft-Dodger Danny and Deserter George W?
(And before you say something about Cliunton and the draft - Clinton voluntarily gave up his exemption.)
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
SBW “PS I dropped out of public school in the 10th grade.”
I would never have guessed.
senorbullwinkle
said,
3 months ago
For someone who didn’t know any better, why Clinton went to Bosnia / Herzegovina, I guess I do sound like a Genius. And for someone who whines constantly about being civil, you’re no better than any of us.
Just shows your no smarter than a high school drop out ! LOL
PS you might want to read up on Cal Worthinton, a dumb okie
http://boongawnee.com/calworthington.com/Tv/NEWS8.html
http://tinyurl.com/m2a9bt
Grossing $600 Million a year !
cdward said, 3 months ago
“So in your view it would have been appropriate for the US to go to war and attack Libya after Lockerbie?”
GNW: Aside from leaving out part of the rationale for declaring war against Germany (sabotage inside the USA by German agents), Simon is correct about the Zimmerman telegram being the biggest factor. Having said that, much of the country was against entering that war, and to be honest, if Germany hadn’t insisted it had the right to torpedo our ships, I don’t think we would have. Given the political mess that created WWI, a truly tangled web, it probably would have made more sense for us to stay out.
So no, I don’t think it would have been appropriate to attack Libya after that terrorist attack. Of course, I’m generally against attacking others at all.
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
cdward
This is getting really weird. I said the entrance of the US into WWI was the impetus for Germany’s defeat. There then followed this series of non sequiturs.
All kinds of discussion re why WWI started etc. Zimmerman, Versailes, etc. Many theories out there but all I said our entrance helped the “allies”.
Buzzy-One said, 3 months ago
Hey GNW, get snide with the Seniorbullwinkle if you will but I think you’ve been had or there’s been some serious progress made while others are waiting for Saint Regean’s replacement.
senorbullwinkle
said,
3 months ago
I give it a “9.9”, It’s such a beautiful backstroke. Apparently, you left many of us with the wrong impression. Must be, we are at fault. We dont read minds. especially when you have lost yours.
http://tinyurl.com/8yxwk They should have declared war on us, the big bullies of the world, and they would have if they stood half a chance. ” THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM”….(.to blow them out of the sky.)
Try to follow, GNC, WWI started over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand .
WW2 started because everyone was unhappy with the Treaty of Versailles, and the powers to be didn’t care to fix it.
GNC, http://tinyurl.com/ngtwpm <<<<<<<
Simon_Jester said, 2 months ago
GN Wachs, since when does the word isolatonist mean someone opposed to a war?
It means someone who wants his nation to act unilaterally, the way the conservatives did all through the Bush II years.
You cheered when Bush tore up the ABM treaty, and gleefully bashed the French for not going along with the war in Iraq,
THAT’S how an isolationist behaves, 10-4?
KarlOSMArkSimOS said, 2 months ago
Henri – ‘US’ would be mankind, human beings, the individual. In America the individual reigns supreme through the Constitution. We do not worship or respect Governments or States. Politicians work for “US”, we are not their servants. We are offended by Tyrants, Dictators, and Authoritarians. At times we become so offended by the brutality that we rise up and strike them down. Not because of hate or love of war, but because we care for and love our fellow man. Hopefully you would fight to stop a tyrant from standing on my neck as I would for you.
Humphries – I’ve felt the ground shake at Ben Hua, partied in Saigon, seen the Ho chi Minh Clock in Nakhom Phanom, seen families living in foxholes with the guards in Phnom Penh, seen the sunny beaches of Hue, seen fishing nets in the bay at Da Nang, seen Rolling Thunder and monsoons over Ubon, Udorn, and Korat, seen buffs lumbering off the beaches of Utapoa. Mostly I’ve seen friendly beautiful people everywhere I went, maybe we met, I always had a big smile. They are beautiful places. I also felt sad for the 3 million murdered when we abandoned them.
I’ve seen a man on all fours in the middle of the road being beaten by police in Sicily because he caused an accident; seen mandatory roadblocks in England where police check your papers and inspect your car, then fine you 40 pounds each because your windshield wash was not full or a tire had low pressure. They can pretty much enter your house at anytime for the good of society. Oh how I miss the authority and security of the Motherland (or Fatherland).
GNWachs
said,
2 months ago
@Simon Jester Do you just make up your own definitions?
Wiki
“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.
Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Simon_Jester said, 2 months ago
No…do you just cherry pick the answer that dovetails with your point of view?
http://www.answers.com/topic/isolationism
Indeed, an isolationist can be stridently nationalistic, endorse military preparations, sanction certain forms of imperialism, and engage in outright war, particularly in Latin America or the Pacific. At no time did most isolationists seek literally to “isolate” the United States from either the world’s culture or its commerce.
GNWachs
said,
2 months ago
@Simon
I opened your source-answers see above- and these were the first 2 sentences. Cherry picking is ignoring the obvious and going for the obscure.
The definition from your source is exactly what I wrote. What do you want?
“A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. as a historic attitude in the United States can best be defined as opposition to intervention in war outside the western hemisphere, particularly in Europe; to involvement in permanent military alliances; and to participation in organizations of collective security. Above all, isolationists seek to preserve the United States’s freedom of action.”