Signe Wilkinson for January 04, 2015

  1. Missing large
    cmsears  about 8 years ago

    so true.

     •  Reply
  2. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 8 years ago

    We had a reason in WWII.

     •  Reply
  3. Airhornmissc
    Liverlips McCracken Premium Member about 8 years ago

    @cdward: I would say we had a reason in Afghanistan too. We, and by we I mean W, just screwed up the operation. Left it to the next guy to actually dispose of the SOB and try to clean up the mess.

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    twhalen  about 8 years ago

    If you want to thank a vet, do everything you can to get him or her a job.

    Don’t give them a lame “thank you for your service”.

     •  Reply
  5. Picture 1
    Theodore E. Lind Premium Member about 8 years ago

    I guess that is because war is not a good thing. Anybody with a half an ounce of intelligence and any compassion would start a war only as a last resort. I don’t know why the conservatives think we need to go fight every two bit dictator and expend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. The last few wars have not ended well and it seems to me anybody with half a brain would be looking for a better approach.

     •  Reply
  6. Obviousman
    CrazyRubes  about 8 years ago

    By that logic, we should start with the largest human rights violators and work our way down the list. US or Europe, WWII was not fought because Hitler was a genocidal maniac but because he threatened all of Europe. There were active threats (with an actual army) to those nations. By your logic, we should attack China because of human rights violations. The United States regrettably has little place in “playing policeman” for the world. To do so threatens the sovereignty of other nations and could make an awful lot of enemies. The UN should do the policing. The only way they could do that properly is if most nations give up more of their sovereignty to the UN. It’s not a matter of not being a coward, it’s a matter of diplomacy.

     •  Reply
  7. John adams1
    Motivemagus  about 8 years ago

    There’s been some recent criticism that it is too easy to “send in the troops” when everyone knows there are only a small number of people who will be affected — certainly not most well-off families. When everyone must face the costs of war, fewer people are willing to start one. Some have suggested mandatory service. Not sure I agree with that, but it is a legitimate concern.

     •  Reply
  8. Taz
    JohnHarry Premium Member about 8 years ago

    Conservative pols like to go to war because there is a LOT of money to made. All those “defense contracts” to be doled out to their local “defense contractors”. Wrap yourself in the flag and start a defense contracting company -allow a big budget item for political donations.

     •  Reply
  9. Frank frazetta wolfmoon s
    ossiningaling  about 8 years ago

    I think it was more of a “Goldfinger” move. By increasing the risk to supply, Cheney was able to raise the cost for demand. That explains why he maxed out all the US reserves at the height of the price increases.

     •  Reply
  10. Albert einstein brain i6
    braindead Premium Member about 8 years ago

    Why did we invade Afghanistan again? To get the people behind the 9/11 attacks? Why are we still there?

    Maybe Cheney, Willard, or one of the other ChickenHawks can supply the answer.

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    eddodt  about 8 years ago

    and we WON the second world war…and gave UP the afghan war…

     •  Reply
  12. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  about 8 years ago

    The “defense” budget is NOT being spent on those who carry the weight, the troops, over 90% goes to contractors in one form or another. (And then there’s the other half-trillion in “black box” money that also goes to CEOs to “administer”.)

    Also, while body armor is nice at times, my son’s kit in Iraq weighed several times what I ever carried in ‘Nam, which is part of why so many of our current vets suffer back and leg injuries, that cripple ’em up, permanantly. MRAPs also still get folks seriously damaged, while “better than dead” it will cost us a lot more in the end, and Congress and right-wingers especially don’t want that money spent, nor does the Pentagon accept responsibility.

     •  Reply
  13. Zoot and saxophone
    Boise Ed Premium Member about 8 years ago

    The statistics on this cartoon are pretty telling, but I wonder what the percentage was for Vietnam?

    And all you “conservatives” who are hot to fight and “support our troops”: how about funding the VA properly to take care of the troops when they come home maimed and scarred?

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    hippogriff  about 8 years ago

    superposition: No, the majority may get the government they deserve, but the rest, who tried to prevent it, do not..logicalone: Munich was too late. The proper time would have been at the invasion of the Saar, which was a massive and successful bluff by Hitler..jeff cartwright: As I have been saying, give disabled veterans the help they need and stop disabling more..churchillwasright: Wrong again. It is Royal Dutch Shell, to whom the US seems willing to give the Arctic Ocean to pollute. They may sell to China, but the real money goes to Amsterdam.

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    eubie22  about 8 years ago

    That’s the difference of a WWII army filled with draftees and an Afghanistan War army that is all volunteer.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Signe Wilkinson