ViewsEurope by CartoonArts International

ViewsEuropeNo Zoom

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, 7 months ago

    Yeah, sharing a pipeline is a GREAT way to have a relationship with Putin…just ask the rest of Europe

  2. omQ R

    omQ R said, 7 months ago

    A deal 10 years in the making.

    Hey! I notice the Serbian cartoonist, Corax, must have noticed my cringing the last time round; he’s ensured a likeness of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (without glasses) this time round.
    Multiculturalism indeed.

  3. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, 7 months ago

    Serbia has erected a statue of Gavrilo Princip, honoring his memory.

  4. omQ R

    omQ R said, 7 months ago


    Yeah, I heard about that, but it was in a majority Serbian neighbourhood in Sarejevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina. The report I heard told of the conflicting historical narratives in the Balkans concerning Princip. One problematic point for some Bosnians was that in the ‘90s war a medal of valour named after Princip was given to Serbian military, also involved in shelling of their country; while for Serbians Princip was a symbol of the over-throwing of the Austro-Hungarian empire. (my particular conflict-of-interest is that my wife is Austrian).
    The Austrian narrative is also different. ;-)
    The assassination of the arch-duke by Princip in June 1914 was tragic in more ways as he was seen as a reformer.
    For most of Europe, Princip’s action (and of his co-conspirators) meant Europe-wide devastation, 14 million dead and the sowing of the seeds for the next world war.

    Complicated character (btw, he was a minor at the time of the assassination and therfore spared the death penalty. Still died 3 years later in prison, of an infection or something similar)

  5. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, 7 months ago

    @omQ R

    So true. You are one of a very few to recognized the tragic irony about the Black Hand’s choice of target. Ferdinand was known to be the only member of the Hapsburg family who would listen to the desires & complaints of the minorities in the Empire.

    However, it’s equally true that had Princip not seen the Royal couple, or was jumped before he could shoot, it was only a matter of time, probably a short time, that another incident would have sparked an over-armed Europe into the abyss.

  6. omQ R

    omQ R said, 7 months ago


    “… it was only a matter of time, probably a short time, that another incident would have sparked an over-armed Europe into the abyss.”


  7. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends GoComics PRO Member said, 7 months ago


    and @omQ
    Are we any different now?
    As far as I can see, we are armed to the teeth and seem to think that any problem can be solved by our arms (at least, that is the impression I get from some posting here and elsewhere, to say nothing of our chickenhawks in full squawk).

  8. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

    @martens misses all her friends

    We’re already embroiled in WWIII. Pacifists just don’t see it.

  9. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, 7 months ago

    Actually, Churchy, I see things today as far worse than the situations for the 30 years leading up to WWI and 10 years before WWII. I really wish I could be more optomistic.

    Before 1914, we had the Chinese starting to re-awaken, with the Boxer rebellion, and we had a lot of unrest and small wars in the Balkans, as the Autro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were straining to maintain their status quo
    as world powers. Russia was crumbling internally too.

    During the 1930’s, the poorly re-drawn borders in Europe and the mid-east were relatively quiet, while only Germany was hell-bent on another shot at hegemony. And, Japan felt her sun was on the rise.

    Today, China is bursting at the seams. Instability threatens. North Korea has a little crazy kid, backed by a military that wants to start trouble, running the show. Japan is nervous. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the planet. Islamic extremism is growing exponentially as every year passes, and threatens to engulf the world into a holocaust that may surpass those of the 20th century. They will gladly pull the rest of mankind down with them, crying “Allah is Great”!

    Again, I am not a full Obama fan, but the President faces many difficult challanges every day, far more dangerous than Presidents Wilson or Roosevelt ever did. So far, has kept the peace, no thanks to Boehner and his Republican
    antagonists. I do not believe that our congress, as a whole, fully appreciate all the outside problems facing the United States, as they as too focused on carrying out their financial sponsors commands. Plus, none seem to know History.

    (Is it OK to call you Churchy?)

  10. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago


    I’ve hesitated in responding, but Rum has loosened my fingers. Happy Independence Day!

    We agree on certain points, and disagree on others. This is only fair.

    While we are both pessimistic regarding foreign affairs, I don’t see today’s problems as worse than those of WWI and WWII. I see them as equal to WWII, but WWI wasn’t a game changer, as far as the US was concerned. I’m not saying that the US should have kept out of it, but Woodrow Wilson (spit) ran on keeping us out of it and as soon as he won election put us in it. Then he threw anyone who disagreed with him in jail. But that’s neither here nor there.

    As far as WWII goes, I’ve asked several historians when the actual phrase “WWII” was first uttered, or printed. Some specific date, a year, a month. I assume it was before we entered the war. Or maybe not. Maybe they don’t know. No one has ever gotten back to me. Obviously WWI wasn’t called WWI during WWI because they didn’t know there’d be a WWII. They called it “The Great War”and “The War to End All War”. Did they call it this during or after the War? Did they call it “The World War”? What date did some newspaper start calling it that? Was it a European, American or German newspaper? (My money’s on American.) You have to assume it was a newspaper: They’re very clever about headlines. Like “Cannibal Cop” and “Octimom”. They didn’t have radio then, and I’m not sure if they had newsreels in the movies. (Check that; FOX [yes, FOX[ opened a theater for newsreels in NYC in 1909. and Pathe News had newsreel theaters starting in 1910, but generally speaking, you had to go to a Newsreel Theater, that is, they didn’t show them between Charlie Chaplin movies. What we regard as newsreels didn’t happen until the late ‘20s and ’30s. But I digress…)

    So again, I disagree with you when you say the President faces many difficult challanges every day, far more dangerous than Presidents Wilson or Roosevelt ever did.. More difficult than Wilson, yes, more difficult than Roosevelt, no.

    Now my major disagreement. You praise Obama for “keeping the peace”. Peace is not the absence of war. This is naive thinking. Sparing 5,000 soldiers’ lives today when you’ll have 5 million dead soldiers and civilians tomorrow isn’t good policy, unless the goal of your policy is to placate a voting block that is war-weary. The problem with this is that the enemy isn’t war-weary.

    Obviously I’m not an Obama fan but, yes, “the President faces many difficult challenges every day”. His are no more challenging than Bush’s. From the outside looking in, it was easy for Senator and Candidate Obama to criticize Bush’s decisions. Now he bristles when others Monday-morning quarterback his.

    Now, just to show you I’m fair, I give props (though limited) to Obama on certain aspects of his War on Terrorism (though, generally speaking, this is where the Left disagrees with Obama. Go figure). I like that he’s ramped up drone strikes (screw you, Rall); Bush said something along the lines of “the war on terrorism will go on for many generations” (can’t find the quote) and I believe I heard Obama say something similar very recently (again I can’t find the quote), so I’m pretty sure he’s cognitive of the problem. If he wanted to shut down Gitmo, he could have. I don’t think he likes it, but once he was Commander In Chief something changed his mind. I predict it will still be open when he leaves office, despite his saying that it would be closed within a year, right after taking office.

    So again, I think he’s naive, panders to his base, pays too much attention to the polls on this stuff, and doesn’t listen to his Generals.

    And, yes, you can call me anything you want. Just don’t call me late for dinner.

    Back to my rum and coke.

  11. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, 7 months ago


    Good Afternoon, Churchy: (at least it is here)
    I pondered your response for several hours. Yes, many historians disagree as to when the Second World War started. The Chinese feel it started in the early 1930’s. The Brits & French in 1939. Some think 1941, when Hitler invaded Russia. But, this is all academic.

    Sometimes I do not clarify my statements properly. I maintain that Pres. Obama faces a more sudden, volatile world for these reasons. Small, nuclear devices are out there, and no one really knows how many. I wouldn’t put it past some retired, disgruntled Soviet general to sell one to the highest bidder. We have troops and bases around the globe, accompanied by as many, if not more, hot spots. Despite our surprise at the tragedy of Dec. 7th, we were just as surprised at our 9/11. Small enemies today have access to the means to deliver striking blows against the mainland U.S.. N.Korea now has nuclear capability, as does Pakistan. Iran is striving for it. Our intelligence services may know a lot, but how often are they taken by surprise? With all these outside dangers facing the safety and security of the United States, we have a polarized congress, each side pushing far to the Left and to the Right respectively,and showing our enemies, and our friends, just how divided we are. You state that we are already emboiled in WWIII. In a way, we are. Much of the world’s peoples are at war with eachother, and we are drawn into it all. Once this nation entered the 1st and 2nd world wars, both parties pretty much pulled together, and the nation focussed upon getting the job done.Korea, a “police action”, started to change our perceptions of war. We could not just stand by. Vietnam stretched the government’s credibility with it’s own citizens, with many falsehoods about it’s beginning and it’s continued support eroding. Lebanon, Panama, Grenada? Desert Storm? Then, the Iraqi invasion. I, and I am sure, many Americans are tired of us playing world Policeman. How much of the aforementioned invasions were critical to U.S. security interests? I don’t know. There are always issues which the general public does not, or maybe even should not, be aware. But you are right in claiming that our enemy is NOT war-weary. The only statement by Pres. Bush I agree with is that “it’s better to fight them over there than here.” On one hand, the ISIS conquest of Iraq seems to be an intra-mural revolution among Islamic sects. Yet, in the end, it will probably pose a greater threat to us. So, it comes down to HOW , and HOW MUCH should the U.S. get involved.You may find this hard to believe, Churchy, but my general outlook on American affairs and governance are on the conservative end. It’s just that the present Republican party does not represent the older principles of the GOP. All their actions , from 1981 on, show their unwavering support for the interests of the exceptionally wealthy, Wall Street and Corporate America. Even at the expense of many millions of working (or once-working) Americans. The Democrats are little better. I do think FDR’s safety net of TEMPORARY unemployment, and welfare benefits were a good step to take, in response to threats of Communism and Socialism. It was subsequent governments, state governments too, which stretched his

    ideas out of control. But I, for one, think they have tried to commit the American taxpayers to an over-abundance of social outlays, Personal AND corporate welfare. For instance, all the illegal immigrants who have been entering this country for the past ? years; No one can tell me that they are not having an effect on the present work force. How many of them are put on subsidized social services the minute amnesty is declared? WE ALL have to pay for these services! Massachusetts Dem. Gov. Patrick is striving to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses!

    I respect President Obama, but I did not believe he possessed the experience necessary for the presidency. But of late, he has started to show some grit by standing up to Boehner, and acting. Whether correctly or not, he is taking some initiative. The Repubs, despite all outside threats, and brewing domestic turmoil, remain focussed on carrying out their financial sponsor’s agendas.I believe ALL presidents, upon entering the Oval Office, are advised about certain issues which WILL NOT BE CHANGED OR REPEALED. NAFTA was one such issue, on which I think Clinton was “advised” . Yes, GITMO will probably remain open.

    Lastly: This country, and our society functioned best under a system of regulated Capitalism. Everyone who wanted to work had the chance of upward mobility, of improving their situation, of raising a family, and retiring in their emeritus years. That’s all gone now. We are not, at present, a nation of people, of citizens, free enough to pursue our hopes. The U.S. has devolved into a technocratic hive, every drone for himself, and if you cannot keep up, well, that’s too bad.

    Again, I apologize for my pessimism, I’m going out for a walk.

  12. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, 7 months ago

    ps: I don’t know how this happens. I composed the above diatribe into several paragraphs, but after I hit “submit” , everything got pressed onto one long block! It makes me look like I failed fourth-grade composition class!

  13. churchillwasright
  14. Refresh Comments.