Stanek Sunday funnies, “Bomb Syria” edition
Here were my top five eight (there were so many to choose from!) favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of the post!
by Toby Toons…
a twofer by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Ben Sargent at GoComics.com…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Jerry Holbert at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=7379931]
Sep.08, 2013 7:41 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I love this one…
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1236511_10201314047405997_186951954_n.jpg
I think, what’s emerging as one of Bush’s greatest legacies, is that he was so reckless in international conflicts, that he’s made our nation a lot more cautious regarding jumping into situations, which is a good thing.
Oh please EGV,
If we were ever going to learn from misadventures, it would have been after the Vietnam War.
Call this what it is. We have a community organizer turned commander in chief who shot off his mouth, is in way over his head and has no clue what to do next. He is no match for the world’s tyrants and bullies and they know it.
But it seems like we didn’t learn from the Vietnam war, right? I mean, just yesterday you told me that you were against the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts, but the country wasn’t – so how can you make the case that we learned anything?
I said if we were ever going to learn it would have been after Vietnam. Obviously we have learned nothing and aren’t going to.
My point is Obama is commander in chief. Its time he be expected to put on his big boy pants and held responsible for what he says and the decisions he makes, or has no clue how to make. Let’s stop finding some way to blame Bush, however subtle.
While its obvious I have no love for Lyndon Johnson, at least he was held responsible for his decisions and I don’t recall him sniveling about inheriting a mess.
I’m not blaming Bush – I’m saying we learned from him – is that bad?
EGV,
Not bad, just inaccurate. IMO the American people see THIS action for the folly that it is and THAT is the reason they object.
But Mary – you said you were against the OTHER actions in the past – so how were you smarter than everyone else? You saw those actions as folly, right?
“I see so many people now — many of them men, interestingly enough — tangled up in an almost school-girlish, co-dependent, apologetic relationship with this President [b o]. As though “poor baby” should be tacked onto the end of every description of his failures….”
Ex-RINO,
Marianne Williamson called.
She wants you to be the poster boy for her ‘poor baby’ all girl choir.
Also, your mother ship called.
They said it sounds like you are stuck on stupid.
Please re-configure your communicator for automatic updates.
They did not sound happy. There was some back ground chatter about getting your head out of Uranus.
Live long and prosper. To infinity and beyond.
Ken – Let me remind you that a great number of Republicans, including one you probably voted for (McCain) support some action in Syria as well.
Your position is easy in everything – you just jump against anything Obama supports. At one point in time, I do hope you research something, understand a problem, and have an educated position.
I’m with Jack – most of your posts are creepy. The rest are just a waste of time. I’ll just assume, on every thread, you are against the President, and have a lot of other cute little phrased sayings that are either sexual or racist. We get the point. Move on.
Hi EGV,
Not necessarily smarter, just had a different perspective and good memory of history.
How was your perspective different from GW’s on those efforts – where specifically did you disagree with his approach?
EGV,
My perspective was we had no business invading Iraq, period.
Ex-RINO,
Quick, take a self portrait, while you still have your pouty face on.
Thanks Mary – so you’d consider yourself an isolationist? Or are you just a peace and love hippie (and I don’t mean that in a bad way).
What’s the last military engagement that you supported? WW2?
…and by “that you supported” – I mean would have supported, if it predates the time when you were around to support a military engagement.
EGV,
WW2 predates me, the Korean War I don’t remember.
Not an isolationist, and hardly a peace and love hippie.
Let’s say my 95y/o mother sums it up very well when she says:
“I’ve seen more wars in my lifetime than I can count and not one of them ever did a damned bit of good”.
Since we’re having a nice conversation today – which I appreciate – let me ask one other question before I go off to watch football.
“To whom much is given, much is expected”.
When there are nations whose citizens are in trouble – and we’ve had plenty to choose from other the years – I’m not talking about Syria specifically – just in general, when there are nations where kids and citizens are killed – and we have the power to help, do you feel like we have some sort of obligation to do something?
If we don’t, are we conceding that we aren’t the top dog – that we aren’t the leaders of the free world?
Ex-RINO,
I will give you credit for sort of getting one thing right.
I am against the bo-RAT.
If she ever manages to do just one thing right it will probably be un-intentional.
John McCain does not represent me, or conservatives, or republicans.
On this issue John seems to be impersonating a democRAT.
Are you a castrato or are you a natural soprano?
Hi EGV,
Other nations are perpetually in trouble. Should we invade N. Korea and free the people in concentration camps? Did we step in to help the Sudanese? How about the Rawandans? What are we doing to stop forced abortion in China? Who’s civil war do we step into? Never seems to be a shortage of them and there is certainly enough brutality against women and children to go around. Weren’t rebels in some West African country cutting off the hands of their victims, which included children?
Top dog or hot dog, you can’t be the world’s policeman.
Ken,
You know I like you. But please, let’s converse like adults, however much our opinions may differ.
I voted for #4, but it was a tough call as they were all about the same.
I voted for Benson’s, like usual. A slow-motion war is the most doomed for failure. Like telling the bad guy: “I’m going to turn you in!” “We’re going to strike your chemical warfare plants. Now, please don’t truck all those weapons off to another country like Saddam did.”
Ex-GOP, puh-leeze! At least Bush had support from most of the rest of the world. And what instigated those wars? A little thing called 9/11. What’s Obama’s catalyst for war? That Syria killed the last few thousand quicker than the messier way he killed the previous 100,000?
Ex-GOP says:
September 8, 2013 at 9:53 am
I’m not blaming Bush – I’m saying we learned from him – is that bad?
It’s bad because we have all learned our lesson — except for Washington.
If only Obama had some basic moral training. He’d know that this cannot be a just war, if he knew anything about Just War Doctrine.
I am with Hans. The international support is not there since ther are no valid reasons for Obama to intervene in Syria. Power has gotten into “our chief’s” head. Pope Francis does not even talk to him. Last I heard Pope Francis wrote a letter to Putin but seems to want as much distance from Obama as possible.
Hi Thomas R,
You are being too charitable. We have a president who is an international laughingstock. I had hoped the Chinese would threaten to call in our debt if Obama didn’t get his ego in check, in fact I wondered if that might have happened as he was toning down the rhetoric.
Now John Kerry is blowing smoke that Assad has a week to hand over his chemical weapons or face an attack. This is nothing more than face saving for our flaming narcissist of a president, something I’m sure Pope Francis recognizes and is desperate to appeal to someone who is indeed a leader. Not a particularly nice guy, but a leader. I must admit I envy the Russians.
In the meantime Assad, who I’m sure is quaking in his boots, will take every precaution to protect himself, his gov’t, and his stockpile of weapons since our fearless leader has graciously given him so much warning.
Mary: in the previous thread on Syria I reasoned that Obama is viewed as somehwat of cretin by the international community. Anyone has a ball-park figure how much, we the tax payers, will shell out for this strike?
Hi Thomas R,
Obama viewed as somewhat of a cretin. LOL. My friend you are again being charitable. :)
Good question on what we will shell out, or should we say be put on the Chinese credit card.
Nah, Obama will just raid the social security/medicare funds and also levy the burden on the middle class. Wait a minute: is the third option likely?
http://www.politickernj.com/67451/monmouth-poll-less-half-country-believes-obama-wants-help-middle-class
Mary,
Thank you for your wise and well meaning counsel.
Your ‘patience’ is a marvel to me.
Your conversations with Ex-RINO reminds me of a scene from ‘Nuts’.
An attorney [Richard Dreyfuss] goes to the mental ward of the county hospital to visit his client [Barbara Streisand] who is under observation to evaluate her competency.
While RD is waiting to see BS he engages in a serious conversation with a very intelligent woman about mental illness. RD mistakenly believes this woman is on staff at the hospital, until an orderly arrives to give the woman her meds.
Then RD realizes he has been attempting a ratiional conversation with a lunatic.
With regard to Ex-RINO, you are attempting to reason with someone who is so blinded by his emotional attachment to what he desperately wishes to be that he can no longer distinguish between what is real and what is not.
Ex-RINO is so obsessed with retreiving the ever elusive deck chairs that he WILL NOT dare to note the orchestra playing and the fat lady singing as the Tiitanic is listing increasingly ‘leftward’.
Or as the apostle Paul warned, Ex-RINO is willfully utilizing “human cunning with cleverness in the techniques of deceit.”
Either way, your kindness to the ‘poor baby’, tho well intentioned, is only encouraging and enabling his dysfuntion.
But having given your wise counsel serious consideration, I will impose a 30 day suspension on myself for meditation and introspection and seek the more perfect way.
Hasta la vista senora.
Ken, you are letting Ex get the best of you, although myself I wonder about his lack of reasoning as it relates to the following statement he made:
Ex posited: I’m not talking about Syria specifically – just in general, when there are nations where kids and citizens are killed – and we have the power to help, do you feel like we have some sort of obligation to do something?
Although this question was not directed at me, I take exception to Ex describing the US as having
the power – be more specific as I do not understand what this means? and
the obligation – again be more specific as I do not understand this term as it applies here?
So Ex, in consideration of our domestic issues and our nation’s economic problems through the duration of Obama’s presidency, weigh power and obligation for me? Be specific on where this power comes from and how are we obligated to expand this “power” on Syria?
Hi Ken,
No need to seek any “perfect way” my friend or to impose any moratorium on yourself.
I was just troubled by the last sentence of your last post(1:07PM). You are very adept at getting your point across without these sort of comments. We will not always agree with or even particularly like each other, but we can keep it, well, polite.
Yes I’m well aware I haven’t always followed my own advice and gotten a little hotheaded at times, and people on this blog have made it known when offense has been taken, so I’m not pointing fingers. More like a gentle and well intentioned rebuke.
Ken – what gave you the idea that you needed a break – being called creepy by one of the most level headed people on this board?
Regardless, enjoy the time off.
Thomas
We have the means, economically, and in military strength.
“We have the means, economically, and in military strength.”
Well see, how I see it is just because we have the means doesn’t mean we have the justification. There are almost two hundred countries in the world, at what point is it justified for us to intervene in internal conflicts? To what extent are we protecting the innocent, or are we simply forcing other countries to abide by our decisions within their personal borders?
I don’t like the thought of children and noncombatants killed by any type of warfare by either government or rebels, but countries don’t tend to gain stability by being messed with by outside powers. When do we let people in other countries decide on what type of government they want and get? I get that we want to send a message about chemical warfare being unacceptable, but why would it be acceptable if they were razing everyone with traditional bombs (which they have been, for quite a while). And it’s also tough to see who is the correct “side” to support. Assad may be bad, but the rebels are an extremist sect who have committed their fair share of atrocities, and if they win Syria has some more pain and oppression in store. It’s not a situation I think has any easy answers, but I think the US is way too willing to mess in other country’s affairs and has been for a long time. And we’re very selective about it, as long as a country is a good trade partner or ally to us we seem to be okay with letting human rights violations take place. Just seems like a huge mess to me.
Lol Ken’s comments would be 1000X less creepy if he could cut down on the racism, insinuating the president should be killed/is better off dead, stop making weird sexual insinuations, and stopped acting like being female is an insult (seriously, I have a daughter, it makes me mad to see people being like “lol SHE is blah blah blah” when referring to males, as if being a girl is a bad thing that should be used as an insult).
I mean seriously, the al-Nusra Front has attacked Christian convents and taken credit for dozens of suicide bombings, among other things. They’re even allied to Al-Queada. The FSA has done some not very pretty things too. If they oust Assad I don’t see them being a whole lot better to the citizenry than Assad is. What a horrible mess that country is in. I don’t think us dropping some bombs is going to fix what ails that place, and could very well make it worse especially when we don’t have much international backing at all.
Jack -
I 100% believe that if we can make gains without military intervention, that would be awesome.
I’m just going back to my original question – my hypothetical scenario in which Tommy R had a question on. We spend way more than anybody else in the world – I believe that stat is our spending is more than the next 15 countries…something like that. So I think it’s a fair question.
I’m way more in favor of us cutting our military spending and concentrating on defense and diplomacy instead of having eleventy billion bases all over the place and trying to decide what rules everyone is going to abide by within their countries, and which human rights violations we’re going to ignore versus which ones we’ll hypocritically have a problem with.
A lot of jobs tied up in the military…everybody hates pensions, but have you seen what happens when people talk about reforming military pensions? Yikes.
Well yeah, I realize it would take decades for my preference of a smaller military and a different focus on foreign policy to take place. We can’t put thousands of people out of work suddenly, it would be a long time. And I don’t think it’s fair to take away existing pensions, but I don’t think it’s wrong to reform the rules for future people joining the military.
I just really don’t like this attitude that we can pick and choose which countries we’re going to intervene in based on… whatever we want? We don’t have any oversight, really. I just don’t see much good coming out of any of this.
Don’t mind me, I’m really just a hippie at heart.
I don’t like the attitude either…but I’m also pretty leery of the attitude that we should just put up huge walls and never intervene. These situations just remind me of what a broken world we live in – I mean, small country with a civil war going on – way too many people killed and way too many displaced – then somebody crosses a line of behavior that the world set a long time ago. No international quick decision can be made because some countries are good buddies with others – oil, arms, politics – so that gets squashed. Then we have some politicians saying we should have gone a long time ago – some saying we should never go – most looking at the poll numbers first, our domestic interests second, and the people in the other country third. We have kids literally dying, and the question here is how we make sure Obama either wins or loses.
I mean, what a mess – everything.
Well I’m probably more isolationist than you are, but I’m not arguing that we never intervene, ever. I do think it sucks that politics and other things are taking precedence over lives lost though.
I’ll make an analogy, I guess. I know a lot of African and Arabic immigrants, mostly women, and when I talk to them about women’s rights in their countries they have a lot of disdain for western feminist groups coming in and telling them how to fix their countries. The groups “intervening” don’t know the culture, the people, the history, etc and end up just offending and making things worse, a lot of times. It may be well intentioned, but people need to be empowered to fix their own cultures, you can’t really impress change from another continent, you just end up with more problems.
I think the same kind of thing can be applied to the US trying to force democracy in Iraq, or wanting to “protect” children dying in Syria by bombing government targets and possibly giving a nasty, extremist rebel group a chance to end up enforcing their version of oppression on the Syrian people. It’s just… I don’t think we can force this to end. We might have military might, but we are not that country and we’re not the Syrian people. We should help if we can, but the people that actually live there and have to deal with the consequences of the government, rebel, and US actions are the ones who are eventually going to force change. We certainly have a White Savior complex going strong, though.
But I also get that chemical weapons should be dealt with, even if it’s just used internally in a civil war. They are a pretty awful type of weapon that the world has agreed at large not to use anymore. But I just don’t know that military action is the best way to deal with that.
I’m not isolationist. At all. I also think we shouldn’t drop bombs on Syria, even in a limited way. “The world” has a just war doctrine. We should follow it.
Ex-GOP: We have the means, economically, and in military strength.
I’m with Jack in that this in no way justifies intervention in Syria. Leave economics within our borders as we sure are in need of some healthy market recovery. Secondly, military strength does not mean that we are the reincarnation of the Greeks and Romans here. Where is the direct threat to the US national security in this conflict? The international community thinks Obama is a quack Ex.
Mostly agree that this is just a mess. BHO has egg all over his face, Putin just made himself the Savior by coming to BHO’s rescue so the Pulitzer Prize winner who has no stomach for war and real leadership is shown to be a wimp, Putin gets to keep Asaad, and jerk around BHO who he detests and the US which he hates. He knows BHO is a weak-kneed community organizer who is in way over his head. Putin is like a “junk yard dog” and is still KGB through and through so he smells weakness and goes in for the kill, the jugular preferred. The president is incompetent, narcissistic, and weak except when it comes to promoting the slaughtering of babies unborn and just born, now that is another story.
Hi PLL
You hit the nail on the head. Obama is no match for the likes of Putin, the Iranian mullahs, or the Chinese. And we expect what when we put an empty suit with a flashy smile in power? To think people even viewed Obama as messianic. Unreal.
You folks are really making a great case that Obama shouldn’t be re-elected again. Oh wait…
Thomas -
Do you advocate then cutting down our military budget, getting involved in less efforts, and taking a more isolationist role?
Ex-GOP my dear Watson: no, no and no. If you re-read my comment you will hopefully understand that being the world’s “superpower” does not automatically causate to involvement in every conflict anywhere on this planet. If you think that, unfortunately then, you have no concept of what it means to utilize our “superpower” abilities wisely. This is a civil war and our wonderful commander-in-chief does not think beyond his stuck-up nose on the consequences to this nation (monetary, economic and international). What is the reason other “superpowers” are staying out of this conflict?
Jumping the gun and screaming that someone promotes the US as being an isolationist for attempting to point out some disadvantages, is misplaced on your part. Again- there is no imminent danger to our national security, there are civilians who will very likely be killed by our troops, and we have no international support. Well maybe when the Summit of Eight (G8) totally turns its back on us, you may get your wish of the US being isolated.
We cannot afford to be “The World’s Policeman.”
How is it we can criticize Syria for killing 1,400 ppl with chemicals when the US kills 1,200+ unborn children PER DAY and still BHO says he would do everything in his power to protect children. Oh, yeah, I forgot–they’re not really children until they’re born (even then he makes the distinction they are to be wanted children). That’s the cartoon I’d like to see portrayed.