Michael Ramirez for December 14, 2014

  1. Picture 1
    Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 9 years ago

    An assault rifle also kills many non-combatants but I guess that doesn’t count. It is more fun to bash the President. Personally I like the drones ability to get at the enemy leaders rather than killing the grunts on the ground. If we could make world leaders pay for their bad behavior directly there would be a lot less trouble in the world.

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    ConserveGov  over 9 years ago

    denis1112 said, 28 minutes ago“Maybe Feinstein should sing to them .Nude.”—————————————————I was going to have a nice Sunday breakfast but not after that mental picture…….. LolBtw Of course if it was Bush droning people to death, the liberals on here would be going nuts.Great toon, once again, Mr Ramirez!

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    ConserveGov  over 9 years ago

    40 MILLION of OUR MONEY spent to tell us that the CIA roughed up some terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who were actively trying to kill every single American!Thanks Democrats! You f’n Morons!

     •  Reply
  4. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 9 years ago

    In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, civilians fear the drones, because they were initially used so often with rotten, or deliberately false, intelligence. They were intially also flown so folks DID hear them, and like the V-1’s of WW II, people would experience fear, but at least with the V-1s Brititish citizens knew when the engine stopped, they were either safe, or needed to duck.

    I support using drones if someone RELIABLE is on the ground, staying safe in their positions, to confirm targets. A perfect example was when our folks on the ground said NOT to fire on four girls collecting firewood, who were NOT planting IEDs.

    the long rifle (sniper) has also been condemned at times through history, but at least we knew what we were taking down, drones are not as effective, as they’ve been used too often. Even an A-10 is much better, with a pilot on board.

    If you torture someone for weeks, months, or even years with extreme pain, vs killing them on the battlefield, and they’re dead in seconds, which is more “cruel”? If a person falls from a helicopter and is dead in seconds, vs someone wounded, gravely, and suffers for years as an amputee or paraplegic, what’s cruel?

    War is by definition an inhumane act, so often blessed by relgions, well all the bible religions. Which is why MRFF and Mikey Wienstein ( a Jew, not atheist) has it right.

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    tengu99  over 9 years ago

    Yes, plots were stopped. And yet didn’t reports about 9/11 indicate that all the intel was there we just didn’t act. Something to do with agencies not wanting to share and missed opportunities due to politics? ….It wasn’t torture that stopped those plots. It was agencies putting arrogance and pride aside to focus on a common goal.

     •  Reply
  6. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 9 years ago

    ^anweir; it was cute changing from UAV to UAS. I’ve experience “arc light” as well as a really cool Marine pilot in an F-4 dropping a rack of napalm about 20 meters beyond our position on “bad guys”. The Marine at low level was a lot less scary, well, as far as you can say about napalm anyway!

    The real feature is one is indiscrimnant, the other is very discriminating in targeting.

    BTW: the “V” in V 1 and V2 stood for vengence. Drones ARE used as “terror weapons”, now silently and unanounced bringing death from and unseen source. Without valid target recognition on the ground, it IS indiscriminant terrorism. Thermal imaging btw, going back to the first gulf war with apaches firing missiles at armor, and blowing up OUR GUYS, proved it is NOT valid target recognition.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Michael Ramirez