Ted Rall Editorial Cartoon, February 04, 2013 on GoComics.com

ConserveGov said, 4 months ago

Hindsight is 20/20.

If after giving commands to stop, the motorcycle kept approaching and was not stopped before blowing up the soldier and his platoon, would the soldier have “done the right thing”?

MiepR said, 4 months ago

If we weren’t screwing around in Afghanistan in the first place, would your question be of any relevance?

Radish said, 4 months ago

Does escalation of force apply to Texas gun ranges?

Michael wme said, 4 months ago

Mr Rall foolishly went to Afghanistan and spoke to the people, who seemed friendly with no particular hatred of Americans. This was obviously wrong of him.

Real reporters from real newspapers like the New York TImes and the Washington Post go embedded. They don’t even have to leave the US unless they enjoy travelling and staying in foreign hotels. All their stories are written for them by professional writers from the US government information office. Mr Rall could have had all his Afghanistani cartoons drawn by professional cartoonists working for the US government information office, which I always refer to as the Ministry of Truth.

But no. Instead he reports what he actually saw and heard, which is a violation of the regulations necessary for the duration. The US government has made it clear that it is absolutely necessary to suspend the US Constitution until this war is over, so that means at least for the rest of the millennium. So we absolutely cannot have anyone reporting what is actually going on in the world, and we have seen that the MSM has been following that edict, and only publishing press releases written for them by the US government, as every loyal American author and artist should be doing.

Mr Rall should be aware that the US hanged a Nazi cartoonist in ‘47 for his cartoons criticising the US that he published during WWII. And we’re at war again, so those same rules apply.

As ConservGov points out, the Washington Post reported the story in the correct way, clearly showing that the soldier(s) who killed the boy had no choice and did exactly the right thing. That’s the only way to report on the killing of children.

No one has the right to criticise essential military actions like killing Afghanistani children any time the US military thinks it necessary or convenient.

edinbaltimore said, 4 months ago

However the Taliban/Al Qaida have been known to use children (especially those with mental disabilities) to do their dirty work. Of course, the Cleveland police were following protocol when they used 130 shots to stop a fleeing car they THOUGHT had fired shots. It rammed a police cruiser, so I guess it was justified. There was cocaine in the suspects systems, but no guns were found. But if you’ve done nothing wrong (not talking about the drugs in this case) you don’t have to worry.

Ms. Ima said, 4 months ago

The terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers lived in America. They saw the people, went to strip clubs, drank alcohol and still murdered thousands of Americans in the name of their religion.

furnituremaker said, 4 months ago

saw a soldier cut from neck to crotch in ’Nam by a child when
he was passing out candy to a bunch of kids

bobwinners said, 4 months ago

Dumb Centaurians… it should be drink the blood and THEN vaporize the remains. BTW, did you know that drinking blood was a common practice during the late 1800s?

2011worldchamps said, 4 months ago

so Rall’s idea is that our soldiers to stand down when approched by someone even after being told repeatedly to stop? Why, so he can draw an other cartoon depecting a whole lot of dead american soldiers?!!

David said, 4 months ago

I hope that Rall’s comment is intended to highlight the inexcusable nature of war in all it’s forms as well as the bidirectional nature of it consequences despite any attempt at ethical behavior. Of course rules of engagement are to protect our soldiers, whether it’s from a hidden car bomb or from the guilt of killing other human beings.
I think the last image is off base though. To think some amoral CIA interrogator-type is responsible for our battle field ethics is (I sincerely hope) nonsense.

Radish said, 4 months ago

22 vets a day kill themselves many because they can’t stand the memories of the war crimes they were involved in.

mickey1339 said, 4 months ago

I understand what the comic implies, I also understand that often times in the heat of the moment we react for our own survival and follow the training we have been given. I also know that like Viet Nam, the Taliban have no regard for human life and will use women, children, older people, whoever they can to serve their deadly purpose. So then our troops, who have been raised in a humane society that respects life gets put in this jungle of death with “The Rules of Engagement” to guide our actions.
It’s war. If you can justify war to begin with, do we all follow the rules? No. Did the Japanese in WW 2 and the Vietnamese in Nam? No. Does the Taliban give a damn about the Geneva convention rules? No. As a combatant in a war like any we have fought in the middle east, are you going to fight a war by “conventional method”? No. So we fight and try to maintain some shred of decency and humanity in the process. Will we make mistakes? Absolutely. Anyone that’s ever been in combat knows how quickly things change and how we often have to make life and death split second decisions. Then when we return home we live with the nightmares, PTSD, and sometimes suicidal ideation as we try to reconcile ourselves with the war.

In one sense the “Rules” to be applied to a war is an absurd concept. How is butchering people ever justified or realistically regulated by a set of rules? And to Rall’s point, they change with the society and their rationale for how to fight the war. My sympathy still goes to the soldier who trusts in his superiors to do “the right thing” and make some definition of action for the insanity of war for him to follow.

FWIW I am an older (66) Libertarian, have lived with too much violence in my life justified by self righteous politicians who so easily committed us to wars that should have never happened. It’s sad to say but our military policy will not be governed by a defensive posture as outlined in our Constitution, but more because we can’t afford (fiscally) to any longer “save the world for democracy.” Thanks for letting me share.