MacArthur wanted to nuke China! Where the heck would we be getting our TVs and computers from if Truman hadn’t fired him???
The south keeps screwing with the north over a line IN WATER that isn’t even in sand! YES, the north sucks! The south also has lots of very advanced weapons systems. Seoul is within CANNON range of the north, they don’t need missiles!
For 60 years we’ve (that’s the UN btw, not just the U.S.) been playing chicken with pea-brains– but maybe they look out and see it exactly the same?
Things WERE better under the Clinton policy, then “W”, Cheney, and Dumbsfield screwed it up– and it’s another mistake the Repubtards are now going to saddle Obama with??
stroutma - your argument is weak. First, mocking your oposing political party does not make you smarter or more right. It’s actually a sign of weakness that you have nothing to say but ad hominems.
In terms of your argument relating to Korea, if the UN has been playing chicken with pea-brains for 60 years (as well as the US) has is that then W’s Cheney’s and Rumsfield’s fault? and how is Clinton’s any better since he’s part of that 60 years. Furthermore, Clinton himself recently said that he wished he was a war time president because he would have been more popular and gotten more stuff done (that fits is ideological view).
As far as lines in water… name me a country that is on a body of water, especially if it borders near another country, that doesn’t have a line of demarcation between their water and open water or a border line of some kind? You will find that every country does, and it’s wise to do so as well. If you can keep the enemy away from land (where people actually reside) because there is a water border, then you have a better chance of saving lives. That is just one mere reason for a water border.
I think you would create better arguments if you first attempted to refute your own ideas and imagined every feasible argument (focusing on the reasonable). Then attempted to prove those potential arguments false while allowing yourself to be wrong (if that is at all possible). Not only will you have better arguments, but you may find that many of your views are erred, while cementing those that are not erred. But that advice is only for the wise and those who actually care about truth and being honest (especially with one’s self).
Clinton was providing fuel oil, supplies, and they were cooling it.
That “police action” on the peninsula was a UN operation and those buildings on the line are manned by UN troops, not just US, and officially there is only a cease-fire, not a “peace agreement”. So “technically” every President since Ike was still a “war President”.– but there was no “war”, only a “police action”.
National boundaries are a problem, including “territorial waters” and those have led to many disputes. Different countries also keep trying to define their “territorial waters’ differently. When one country constantly comes as close as possible to the line, and claims they didn’t, well, if you want to visit the U.S.S. Pueblo- get a visa and your passport.
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, whatever– if they are a “political party” in the United States– if they believe in following the rule of law, and doing what is best for the nation and the people, and NOT FOR THEMSELVES, they are not my “opposing party”. That individuals who reject these principles SHOULD BE MOCKED, and voted out of office- is different.
I will start with your ending comment first. Obama actually referred to Republicans as enemies. In terms of ideological view, those who do not adhere to your view and espouse one opposite your own are, by definition, opposing. If one group wanted to mandate national healthcare and the other did not then they are opposing each other’s view. Furthermore, by making statements of “Repubtards” is to do more than say that you are in opposition to their views, but that those aligning themselves with such a party and views are intellectual morons whose views are not even worthy of review or refutation. This is childishness in action. However, I am glad that you did attempt to argue points rather than make pointless attacks.
Clinton was providing… So? That still has nothing to do with your original points, nor the comic strip, nor W. This country provides a litany of resourses to a multitude of countries, many whom don’t even like us, and have so for longer than I’ve been alive. The issue is whether what we are providing and to whom we are providing it to is beneficial to us as a country as well as to the people of the country we are providing such resourses to? Do such actions result in “good” being done, or simply good intentions with ill fated results?
If your point was to say that Clinton provided resources to a country whom holds our country and our ideals as trash and whom purposely harms and steals from its own people for the individual power of its corrupt leaders and W refused to do that… well, I don’t see how you made a profitable or good point. Maybe you should elaborate as that is what I have deduced from your limited discussion.
As far as the attack from N Korea… only Koreans were harmed according to the reports I heard from CBS news last night. No American nor UN people were harmed, only innocents and a couple S Korean military folk.
Yet, that has nothing to do with your argument of Police Action vs. War Time. Are we in an actual war with N Korea? If so, please provide the Congressional statement of war. What you are saying is that you know better than President Clinton on the difintion of war since he regarded himself as NOT being a war-time president. I’m sorry, I think I’m siding with Clinton’s definition on this one.
Finally, you haven’t made a valid defense of your ‘no borders/boundaries on water’ claim. If anything, you made the inverse. If we, nor any other decent country, claimed borders on water then any evil or malicious country in the world could claim every inch of water their own and then have right to defend it. Imagine fishing 50 ft from shore and a Cuban, Chinese, Russian, Iranian, etc., vessel arrest you for tresspassing and illegal fishing in their waters.
Governments define borders for a reason and fight over them for a reason. One can only hope that those governments which are the most moral and do the most good would ensure a fair application of borders, boundaries and conduct. However, bickering and fighting over land and water will never end… welcome to reality. So knowing that such issues will never end, how would you deal with that knowledge? What is the wise course of action? How can good people and innocents protect themselves from evil tyrants? How can one government protect itself from another?
Life is not a field of rainbows and flowers. Reality is as ugly as it is good, learning to deal with it and how to make it more good than ugly should be the wise goal of every individual and every good government. Allowing bullies and tyrants and evil dictators to destroy innocent lives and lessen the ‘pursuit of hapiness’ and liberty of others only makes the world more ugly.
The World’s problems in the SE Asia can be indeed traced to the firing of general MacArthur.
Modern China has a lot more at stake - with their embrace of capitalism and the resultant booming economy, the last thing they would (should) want is military instability in the region.
To help them see more clearly the dangers of their continued unfettered support of the NK, we should help the Japanese to re-militarize - announce a $1/2 trillion sale of weapons to them … that would get their attention and clamp-down on the NK.
I liked MacArthur….a General with long-term USA security in mind….
If Truman had acted in America’s best interests and agreed with MacArthur on the need to defeat Communist China for putting troops in Korea…..and the better choice to reject the Surrender Crowd in the UN…..think how many lives of Americans, Koreans and Chinese might have been saved by a Victory led by MacArthur!
Count the USA’s cost in lives and money and diplomatic problems since 1951………for rejecting the time-honored ideal of Victory, the US policy adopted and kept these last 60 years!
A link to a little history and currency on some “lines”- which the UN drew, and North Korea has always disputed, just like all the lines in south Asia drawn by the European powers.
Jack- Having a questionably viable “nuke” and using one strategically or tactically are not the same thing.(And the north set theirs off under well, “W” ,(2006 test, underground, with low yield.) But NO (weapons) nukes IS good nukes.
As to “gravity’s”upset about “repubtards”- that is a group that includes: Coburn, Inhofe, Boehner, McConnell, and the bunch unable or unwilling to accept any facts whatsoever, scientific, cultural, economic, or otherwise. It is NOT a condemnation of either all true “conservatives” or Republicans- which the far right refer to as RINOs, quite inappropriately.
At least X attempts to be less volatile linguistically, though not addressing the real issues.
Now when all the right wingers learn to spell “Obama” and stop condemning anyone to the left of Goebbels as a “commie”, or other diatribe label, and spewing hate at every opportunity, maybe we’ll believe they’re using sense and logic?
“they oppose his cloaked agenda toward Socialism In Our Time”
Yes, this obfuscated, unclear agenda that only the Chosen Ones of the Immaculate Beliefs can divine. Just like how, for example, Peter can make sweping generalizations about all who voted for Obama.
@ golfer: While that’s … interesting (to use a neutral word), I don’t see its relevance to any of the comics to which you’ve posted that. The issue is not Palin and her (in)ability to locate countries on a map. The issue is Obama and his foreign policy. But thanks for attempting to distract meaninful discourse with useless information.
worldisacomic over 13 years ago
Ramirez your good! I knew President Dark Helmet was full of it. Just didn’t think it was gas!
Wraithkin over 13 years ago
Smoking a pipe indeed!
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
MacArthur wanted to nuke China! Where the heck would we be getting our TVs and computers from if Truman hadn’t fired him???
The south keeps screwing with the north over a line IN WATER that isn’t even in sand! YES, the north sucks! The south also has lots of very advanced weapons systems. Seoul is within CANNON range of the north, they don’t need missiles!
For 60 years we’ve (that’s the UN btw, not just the U.S.) been playing chicken with pea-brains– but maybe they look out and see it exactly the same?
Things WERE better under the Clinton policy, then “W”, Cheney, and Dumbsfield screwed it up– and it’s another mistake the Repubtards are now going to saddle Obama with??
WarBush over 13 years ago
So much for the Start treaty. We’ll blow ourselves up and become roach food.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
stroutma - your argument is weak. First, mocking your oposing political party does not make you smarter or more right. It’s actually a sign of weakness that you have nothing to say but ad hominems.
In terms of your argument relating to Korea, if the UN has been playing chicken with pea-brains for 60 years (as well as the US) has is that then W’s Cheney’s and Rumsfield’s fault? and how is Clinton’s any better since he’s part of that 60 years. Furthermore, Clinton himself recently said that he wished he was a war time president because he would have been more popular and gotten more stuff done (that fits is ideological view).
As far as lines in water… name me a country that is on a body of water, especially if it borders near another country, that doesn’t have a line of demarcation between their water and open water or a border line of some kind? You will find that every country does, and it’s wise to do so as well. If you can keep the enemy away from land (where people actually reside) because there is a water border, then you have a better chance of saving lives. That is just one mere reason for a water border.
I think you would create better arguments if you first attempted to refute your own ideas and imagined every feasible argument (focusing on the reasonable). Then attempted to prove those potential arguments false while allowing yourself to be wrong (if that is at all possible). Not only will you have better arguments, but you may find that many of your views are erred, while cementing those that are not erred. But that advice is only for the wise and those who actually care about truth and being honest (especially with one’s self).
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Clinton was providing fuel oil, supplies, and they were cooling it.
That “police action” on the peninsula was a UN operation and those buildings on the line are manned by UN troops, not just US, and officially there is only a cease-fire, not a “peace agreement”. So “technically” every President since Ike was still a “war President”.– but there was no “war”, only a “police action”.
National boundaries are a problem, including “territorial waters” and those have led to many disputes. Different countries also keep trying to define their “territorial waters’ differently. When one country constantly comes as close as possible to the line, and claims they didn’t, well, if you want to visit the U.S.S. Pueblo- get a visa and your passport.
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, whatever– if they are a “political party” in the United States– if they believe in following the rule of law, and doing what is best for the nation and the people, and NOT FOR THEMSELVES, they are not my “opposing party”. That individuals who reject these principles SHOULD BE MOCKED, and voted out of office- is different.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
I will start with your ending comment first. Obama actually referred to Republicans as enemies. In terms of ideological view, those who do not adhere to your view and espouse one opposite your own are, by definition, opposing. If one group wanted to mandate national healthcare and the other did not then they are opposing each other’s view. Furthermore, by making statements of “Repubtards” is to do more than say that you are in opposition to their views, but that those aligning themselves with such a party and views are intellectual morons whose views are not even worthy of review or refutation. This is childishness in action. However, I am glad that you did attempt to argue points rather than make pointless attacks.
Clinton was providing… So? That still has nothing to do with your original points, nor the comic strip, nor W. This country provides a litany of resourses to a multitude of countries, many whom don’t even like us, and have so for longer than I’ve been alive. The issue is whether what we are providing and to whom we are providing it to is beneficial to us as a country as well as to the people of the country we are providing such resourses to? Do such actions result in “good” being done, or simply good intentions with ill fated results?
If your point was to say that Clinton provided resources to a country whom holds our country and our ideals as trash and whom purposely harms and steals from its own people for the individual power of its corrupt leaders and W refused to do that… well, I don’t see how you made a profitable or good point. Maybe you should elaborate as that is what I have deduced from your limited discussion.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
As far as the attack from N Korea… only Koreans were harmed according to the reports I heard from CBS news last night. No American nor UN people were harmed, only innocents and a couple S Korean military folk.
Yet, that has nothing to do with your argument of Police Action vs. War Time. Are we in an actual war with N Korea? If so, please provide the Congressional statement of war. What you are saying is that you know better than President Clinton on the difintion of war since he regarded himself as NOT being a war-time president. I’m sorry, I think I’m siding with Clinton’s definition on this one.
DJGravityX over 13 years ago
Finally, you haven’t made a valid defense of your ‘no borders/boundaries on water’ claim. If anything, you made the inverse. If we, nor any other decent country, claimed borders on water then any evil or malicious country in the world could claim every inch of water their own and then have right to defend it. Imagine fishing 50 ft from shore and a Cuban, Chinese, Russian, Iranian, etc., vessel arrest you for tresspassing and illegal fishing in their waters.
Governments define borders for a reason and fight over them for a reason. One can only hope that those governments which are the most moral and do the most good would ensure a fair application of borders, boundaries and conduct. However, bickering and fighting over land and water will never end… welcome to reality. So knowing that such issues will never end, how would you deal with that knowledge? What is the wise course of action? How can good people and innocents protect themselves from evil tyrants? How can one government protect itself from another?
Life is not a field of rainbows and flowers. Reality is as ugly as it is good, learning to deal with it and how to make it more good than ugly should be the wise goal of every individual and every good government. Allowing bullies and tyrants and evil dictators to destroy innocent lives and lessen the ‘pursuit of hapiness’ and liberty of others only makes the world more ugly.
petergrt over 13 years ago
As usual, Mike hit the bull’s eye!
The World’s problems in the SE Asia can be indeed traced to the firing of general MacArthur.
Modern China has a lot more at stake - with their embrace of capitalism and the resultant booming economy, the last thing they would (should) want is military instability in the region.
To help them see more clearly the dangers of their continued unfettered support of the NK, we should help the Japanese to re-militarize - announce a $1/2 trillion sale of weapons to them … that would get their attention and clamp-down on the NK.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Bummer…humanity could end over a guy who can’t even get a decent haircut.
I wonder, if south Korea was attacked by the north, would the US be able to respond or does it have its hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq?
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member over 13 years ago
I don’t like my own idea. I would prefer to get closure. But, the ‘Cold War’ approach yielded NO Nuclear Yield. To apply that strategy to N.Korea:
We Stare and rattle swords AND DO NOTHING as they do provocative things.The cost is a bunch of boats and posts. The alternative is another Iraq.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
I liked MacArthur….a General with long-term USA security in mind….
If Truman had acted in America’s best interests and agreed with MacArthur on the need to defeat Communist China for putting troops in Korea…..and the better choice to reject the Surrender Crowd in the UN…..think how many lives of Americans, Koreans and Chinese might have been saved by a Victory led by MacArthur!
Count the USA’s cost in lives and money and diplomatic problems since 1951………for rejecting the time-honored ideal of Victory, the US policy adopted and kept these last 60 years!
mrdoody over 13 years ago
DJGravityX, I like your style…enough said.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
A link to a little history and currency on some “lines”- which the UN drew, and North Korea has always disputed, just like all the lines in south Asia drawn by the European powers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11839284
Jack- Having a questionably viable “nuke” and using one strategically or tactically are not the same thing.(And the north set theirs off under well, “W” ,(2006 test, underground, with low yield.) But NO (weapons) nukes IS good nukes.
As to “gravity’s”upset about “repubtards”- that is a group that includes: Coburn, Inhofe, Boehner, McConnell, and the bunch unable or unwilling to accept any facts whatsoever, scientific, cultural, economic, or otherwise. It is NOT a condemnation of either all true “conservatives” or Republicans- which the far right refer to as RINOs, quite inappropriately.
At least X attempts to be less volatile linguistically, though not addressing the real issues.
Now when all the right wingers learn to spell “Obama” and stop condemning anyone to the left of Goebbels as a “commie”, or other diatribe label, and spewing hate at every opportunity, maybe we’ll believe they’re using sense and logic?
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ Every politician has political enemies, dude. What’s so terrible about Obama saying he has enemies?
rockngolfer over 13 years ago
So this is what happens when most of the writers are on vacation
I posted this elsewhere on less read cartoons.
http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/sarah-palin-confuses-whos-on-our-side-in-northsouth-korea/
petergrt over 13 years ago
Most 0bama voters cannot find the USA - all 57 states (as stated by his highness …) on a map of the planet … no slip of a tongue here …!
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
“they oppose his cloaked agenda toward Socialism In Our Time”
Yes, this obfuscated, unclear agenda that only the Chosen Ones of the Immaculate Beliefs can divine. Just like how, for example, Peter can make sweping generalizations about all who voted for Obama.
Wraithkin over 13 years ago
@ golfer: While that’s … interesting (to use a neutral word), I don’t see its relevance to any of the comics to which you’ve posted that. The issue is not Palin and her (in)ability to locate countries on a map. The issue is Obama and his foreign policy. But thanks for attempting to distract meaninful discourse with useless information.