Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, about 1 year ago

    Back when Sir Reagan ruled the US, Iraq used chemical weapons in Iran, and it was no big deal

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 1 year ago

    Syria happens to be some very valuable real estate. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want it, and both sent mercenary armies to conquer it. Britain, France, and Turkey want a piece. Israel thinks, if Syria gets rid of al-Assad, the French will get it back (best) or the Ottomans (second best) and Israel will be safer.


    So al-Assad’s WMD are all excuses to decapitate the Syrian state.


    The Saudi mercenaries are known to have chemical weapons. (For those who can’t read Arabic, it says ‘Made in Saudi Arabia’, and experts have identified the device as a chemical weapon.)

  3. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, about 1 year ago

    @Rockngolfer

    I understand that St. Ron wanted Iran to lose, that thing with the hostages was still fresh. But providing Iraq with target packages for chemical warfare? He’s lucky to be dead…

  4. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, about 1 year ago

    I just checked it out on Wikipedia, it seems the U.S. still has 3150 tons of the stuff, so the cartoon is accurate. It was supposed to have been destroyed by April 29th 2012. Mr. President? Would you care to explain yourself?

  5. r2varney

    r2varney said, about 1 year ago

    @MortyForTyrant

    They are trying to find a buyer.. free enterprise and all.. you know. There are lots of buyers around but they will not submit to the expense of removing the “Made in the USA” stickers.

  6. pirate227

    pirate227 said, about 1 year ago

    The difference is that Syria is using theirs.

  7. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    Except the US has gotten rid of theirs seeing as how chemical weapons have proven so ineffective and little used. I’d bet shelling that town in Syria with explosive rounds would have done more damage and caused more casualties.
    That was the case with Saddam’s use of these weapons on the Iranians and Kurds and the case in WW 1 as well.

    Of course, since Benson knows zip point $#@+ about chemical weapons he just goes with the popular and ill-informed version in making his cartoon.

  8. Ruff

    Ruff GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @ansonia

    So what are you doing with this comment ?? Demonize your opponent !!

  9. Quipss

    Quipss said, about 1 year ago

    @PAJ

    still believe that Iraq had anything to do with Saudi Arabians, Sheltered in Pakistan is the jurisdiction of Iraq….

  10. NeoconMan

    NeoconMan said, about 1 year ago

    @pirate227

    pirate227 said, “The difference is that Syria is using theirs.”


    And America isn’t. What’s the point of building weapons if you never use them? What a waste of taxpayers’ money.

  11. r2varney

    r2varney said, about 1 year ago

    @Enoki

    Except the US has gotten rid of theirs seeing as how chemical weapons have proven so ineffective and little used.
    .
    Huh.. you sure about that?

  12. Stipple

    Stipple said, about 1 year ago

    Chemical weapons are inferior to explosives.
    Wind gusts, turbulence, these affect the dose up to 100 fold.

    Putting 100 times more than should be necessary will do the trick if the stockpiles are large enough (think USA) and this will kill all animals while leaving structures intact.
    .
    Neutron bombs are similar but have a long waiting period before the structures can be occupied.
    .
    But this using of small ineffective amounts of gas is gamesmanship and very well could be carried out by the rebels the get the dumb Americans involved, we are easy that way.
    .
    Understanding how chemical weapons function is the job of the government and they will use the most effective means available to kill their enemies.
    .
    Gas warfare is not effective and would only get them attacked by neighbors, why would Assad do that?

  13. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 1 year ago

    @r2varney

    Pretty much. After the USSR collapsed the US shipped theirs off to a disposal facility in the Pacific where they rendered the stuff mostly inert and then dumped in deep ocean.
    Besides, making these chemical weapons isn’t that hard.

  14. Dr Lou

    Dr Lou GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Not much of a comparison here…….

  15. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Sarin is pretty easy to make, VX not so much, but neither is either as effective, or horrendous, in actual use. As stipple rightly notes, pretty useless actually in combat situations, inaccurate, and easily defended against by any modern military. (Of course, the U.S. will give our troops “protective gear”, and pre-treatments, that are more dangerous than the weapons! Please note “Gulf War Syndrome”, that was, and is real, just like Agent Orange damage!)

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