Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years 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”?

  2. MiepR

    MiepR said, over 3 years ago

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

  3. Radish

    Radish GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Does escalation of force apply to Texas gun ranges?

  4. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years 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.

  5. furnituremaker

    furnituremaker said, over 3 years 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

  6. 2011worldchamps

    2011worldchamps said, over 3 years 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?!!

  7. Radish

    Radish GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

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

  8. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years 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.

  9. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    They were also had visas, some of which were out of date too. They also used other peoples names too.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    Wouldn’t you if invaders came and tried to corrupt and confuse your children? Just wondering.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    How about stand down then get out then pay reparations for the next 2 decades.

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Think of it this way. The US is an invader. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia to name a few. Plus the US is good and mass slaughter. Best way to create more enemies. And Empires always wants enemies.

  13. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    Are you sure you aren’t just confusing the Taliban with Al Quaida? Since the USA doesn’t care who they kill. Plus the US always either names them all “enemy combatants” or the use of hostages whether that was the case or not. Mostly not.

  14. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military acted like they had to reinvent the ancient Third World practice of the road checkpoint. There are two ways to do it. One is the coward approach, where you’re worried about getting blown up by a suicide bomber. The way to handle the coward checkpoint is to assume positions away and above the checkpoint and minimize potential casualties by sending one soldier at a time to search the vehicle so that no more than one or two soldiers could possibly be injured or killed. Then there is the way that most military force to do it, including England. You stand out there and you take the risk and you show that you are a real live breathing human being and you act like one. And sometimes people, and kill you. Because after all you are at war.

    Interesting story from the occupation of Iraq, UK forces who occupied Basra had lower casualty rates than American forces. Turned out that the main difference was the way that they dressed. The British forces didn’t wear wraparound sunglasses, didn’t wear helmets, and wore tightfitting shirts that revealed the outlines of their bodies. The Americans wore baggy outfits and Kevlar and helmets and wraparound sunglasses. The effect was to make the Americans look less human. Psychologists think that Iraqi insurgents found it easier to shoot at and kill the Americans because they didn’t look as real as the Brits.

    Of course the really big point is that any soldier who serves in an illegal occupation of a country that doesn’t want US forces there is asking to be killed. Don’t enlist, and if it’s too late because you already did, refuse to serve and face court-martial like a person of honor and dignity.

  15. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @edinbaltimore Bear in mind, we are talking about the country rife with banditry. Banditry that hardly existed before the United States invasion in 2001. There are lots of fake checkpoints manned by fake soldiers. So someone is yelling at you in a language you don’t understand and they have big guns it’s not terribly surprising that you might just keep going.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).