Comics

Friday Funnies: Boots on the Ground

|

NEXT: Brickbat: Police State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kind of a downer this morning. At least it doesn’t have the Statue of Liberty shedding a tear in the background, I suppose.

    1. I think that addition would push it over the limit into farce.

  2. Is the thought-bubble coming from the gun or the helmet?

    1. The gun, we all know guns have minds of their own and can randomly decide to start shooting people.

      1. Ugh, you reminded me of my BP spike this AM reading FB seeing a liberal douche commenting on a florida story about a new dad dying from a stray bullet from a neighbor’s house. Comment: “So which will be the dumbest gun nut response: 1) he should have had his own gun so he wouldn’t be a victim. 2) this could have happened with a knife too.”
        And the kicker this guy is FBI. And since the anecdote has nothing to do with background checks or mental illness, the only possible implication by spreading this BS is Total Disarmament. But you know since he’s one of the ‘right’ people, I’m sure he believes this means everyone but him and his LE colleagues.

        1. Stop reading Facebook. Problem solved.

          1. Stop reading Facebook.

            Encourage others to do the same.

        2. And the kicker this guy is FBI.

          I’ve yet to meet a LEO that wasn’t a rabid gun control advocate. Cops like them some unarmed civilians.

          1. When I used to go to a gun club regularly there we lots of cops shooting there too. They always were friendly but I suppose everyone was at this place.

            1. Cops like them some unarmed civilians.

              When I used to go to a gun club regularly there we lots of cops shooting there too.

              IMO, it’s a kind of litmus test.

              I grew up with cops that knew who I was from the shooting range. As long as you weren’t 4 and waiving the gun around, they didn’t care on or off the range. The kind of officers that wouldn’t need a gun to deal with a dog.

              More urban officers later in life look askance at you if you know the make and model they’re carrying. Even though every kid over the age of 8 can do the same thanks to FPSs.

              If your job is to enforce the law and you look crossways at people simply for knowing what a gun is, you are a statist motherfucker who deserves every internal affairs enema and negative performance coal-raking review that’s given to you.

            2. I’m not sure I’d feel safe in a gun range full of cops.

              1. inter city cops? I’d nope the fuck out..

                Country cops? I wouldn’t worry for the most part.

              2. I stopped going to the 3-gun shoots at my club after a SWAT thug roid-raged on the organizer after posting a last-place time.

        3. Why would you be surprised that an FBI agent wasn’t fully supportive of confiscation? His employer isn’t stockpiling ammo for nothing.

        4. So he doesn’t carry?

          1. Don’t know him well enough to know. I do know he like to go kill wild boar in the SE with night vision ARs though, just don’t know if the hardware is his.
            I guess I still get a little surprised when mil/LEO types are total TEAM BLUE like this guy since he’s all pro-Obama, anti-GOP, anti-gun, pro-Obamacare, etc. I would normally expect that LEO types would be more conservative with gun grabbing being the lone outlier position.

  3. Is Bok saying we should have left US soldiers over there to fill those boots? Or that we never should have sent the boots over in the first place? Or is he poking fun at the Iraqi soldiers for throwing down their arms and refusing to defend their country?

    /Moar labelz

    1. Maybe he’s saying the US should have sent some slingbacks instead.

      He really is too clever for us

      1. If you’re too clever for your audience your career will be short and bitter.

        Here’s hoping…

  4. Well we gotta have something on the ground right?

    http://www.WentAnon.tk

    1. Anon is getting closer and closer to passing the Turing Test.

      1. If it were really sentient, it would have linked to something like this.

      2. Anon will pass it before Buttplug does. Between Anon and Tony, it’s a closer call.

  5. So it’s miles ahead of BP?

  6. Yeah, not so much a “Funny”, but a good point none the less.

    1. Chip Bok and Henry Payne are never funny.

    2. he has no point this is fucking stupid politicizing of the deaths of my brothers
      just fuck this guy in the ass

      1. Really? No point? I think the point is pretty clear. It is anti-war in general and a specific response to the devolvement of Iraq into civil war. It doesn’t really have a political angle either, other than “war is bad”. Or rather more specifically “the Iraq war was bad.”

  7. Usually enjoy coming here and reading you guys’ quips.

    Today’s Friday’s Funnies, not so much. I knew kids that went over and didn’t come back.

  8. What the fuck?
    It wasn’t all for nothing, the men i knew who died didn’t go to war so that Iraq could live happily ever after, we went because if we didn’t our brothers would have one less gun on their side. Those that died did so for their brothers to have a better chance to be able to come home not for a king on the throne commanding them to die for the glory of Iraq. I volunteered for 1 IA tour in Iraq and 3 in AFG because I felt that even if war is unjust that I needed to be there beside my countrymen to help the fight. If you weren’t there don’t fucking talk about it being “all for nothing” it’s fucking disrespectful of our dead to view them as so simple minded that only democracy taking hold in Iraq would have made their sacrifice worth it.
    Just sayin

    1. Hey Vic. I don’t take it as disrespect toward our most intrepid and patriotic youth who love the country and are ready to do whatever it takes.

      It’s a callout to the assholes that send them thoughtlessly on missions with stupid rules of engagement and without clear goals. The goal should have been crystal clear–like go get the assholes that ram airplanes into our skyscrappers and institutions of defense. Get them quick, and without mercy. Teach them they can mess with others, but the ole R, W & B, you do not mess with. After the mission is complete, you come home and we all are safer and better for it.

    2. it’s fucking disrespectful of our dead to view them as so simple minded that only democracy taking hold in Iraq would have made their sacrifice worth it.

      Vic,

      I don’t think he is talking about it being all for nothing at the individual soldier level, he is talking about it at the geo-political level. At that level, the mission was to secure Iraq and give their leaders and military a chance to be able to secure their country. That mission failed, despite what you and your fellow soldiers did.

      1. “At that level, the mission was to secure Iraq and give their leaders and military a chance to be able to secure their country. ”

        That was successful – we did give them their chance. What they do with it is not “our” success or failure.

        1. That was successful – we did give them their chance. What they do with it is not “our” success or failure.

          You are of course correct.

        2. Thats how I feel, and if they hadn’t been cowards and turned and ran tossing down their uniforms, I would have signed back up for another tour, because I believe in freedom for all peoples of this earth and would gladly lay down my life to give the chance to my fellow man.

    3. That’s fine, but this.country’s effort there.clearly did.not accomplish its stated goals, and this was predictable. The politicians and pundits that pushed for the decision to go to war sold the country a bill of goods, and relied upon the sense of duty and goodwill that you and your brothers in arms have for the country.

      I don’t like politicizing this either, and this cartoon is shocking in a way, but those who.make these decisions and who push for war need to be reminded of their past mistakes and held accountable for.them, in order that they not be repeated.

      1. held accountable

        Freedom means being free from consequences.

      2. Ok you cooled me down but seriously if this guy had walked up to me in public and shown me his art for friday funnies i would have punched him square in his face

    4. it’s fucking disrespectful of our dead to view them as so simple minded that only democracy taking hold in Iraq would have made their sacrifice worth it.

      Soldier’s sacrifices may or may not be “worth it”. That’s why people honor their sacrifice – because of their subordination of their personal goals or values to that of country regardless of the outcome. You don’t need to evaluate, for good or ill, the political effects from a given conflict in order to give weight or value to the honor of those who fought and died in it. And, similarly, you can discuss the effect and worth of a conflict and remark on the cost in casualties as a rational assessment without any real effect on the honor of the dead. Indeed, doing so coldly without letting emotion get in the way is probably the only way to avoid more of the same.

      Thank you for your service.

    5. Hey Vic, I think you miss the bigger point: your buddies that never returned were wasted. Their patriotism, willingness to risk and sacrifice snuffed out so some politician could try to avenge a botched hit on his daddy. Their lives snuffed out because our political leadership doesn’t give a fuck about national sovereignty, rule of law or (once they decided to abandon those principles) properly waging a war.

      Good for you that you volunteered for all those deployments. But your ire is misplaced. The people here love you and respect your life a hell of a lot more than the leadership that put you into harms way in the first place. And we’re not mocking your dead buddies. We’re lamenting the lost lives and potential…all for nothing.

      /end rant

    6. With all due respect, we have no duty to you or the dead to suppress our opinions on any subject. Mere presence on the battlefield is not the sole qualifier for participation in discussion of war and its consequences. I bet you’re not a cartoonist, yet here you are, commenting on a cartoon. Unless you have ink on your hands…

      1. I didnt ask to suppress the opinions but it came off disrespectful and it pissed me off because its deeply personal to me.
        I did not criticize his line work or art at all, just more than a little depressed after whats been happening and its just more salt in a very open wound.
        sorry to tweak

    7. I was there. Missed the first year of my daughter’s life trying to teach the IA how to soldier. Waste of my time and any other soldier’s time, sweat, and blood.

    1. “Forward, the Light Brigade!”
      Was there a man dismay’d?
      Not tho’ the soldier knew
      Someone had blunder’d:
      Theirs not to make reply,
      Theirs not to reason why,
      Theirs but to do and die:
      Into the valley of Death
      Rode the six hundred.

  9. and tell me again why the military is largely directed by civilian, often elected, people?

    1. The alternative is a pretty scary proposition. See: Sherman, William Tecumseh.

      1. Sherman’s mission was given to him by Lincoln–who according to my history book was elected. The mission was to destroy the Southern Aristocracy. Mission accomplished. End of slavery.

        Got a problem with that?

        1. Mission was to preserve the Union. If the South had left the Union because Yanks talk funny, Lincoln would still have waged war. Slavery was the reason for secession. The war was to preserve the Union.

          1. That’s southern revisionism. After the Missouri Compromise was overturned, the Southern Aristocracy–specifically the notorious hot-heads of South Carolina– wanted to not only preserve but expand their “noble institution”. Their economy depended upon it. They fired the first shots at Sumpter. The war was fought over slavery. The moral justification given by Lincoln eloquently on many occasions was to end slavery. That is what most of the Northern soldiers fought and died to do. At the time it was known and understood that individual rights is a principle that applies to all. Protecting another’s individual rights protects yours.

            1. The revisionists try to paint it like slavery had nothing to do with anything, and that secession was about tariffs and anything else they can think of other than slavery. And that is false. Secession was indeed all about slavery. But the war was not. The war was, as Lincoln himself said it many many times, to preserve the Union. If he could have preserved the Union without ending slavery, then he would have done so. He said it himself.

              1. The Founders specifically founded the Union to protect individual rights and, unlike now, at the time of the Civil War it stood for individual rights. Note Lincolns great respect for the Founders. Attacking the Union was attacking individual rights. I don’t think we are in disagreement, really.

                1. I don’t think we are in disagreement, really.

                  I think you’re full of shit, really.

                  1. Oh. I am wrong then.

                    Later…

                    1. Oh. I am wrong then.

                      About a great many things.

                    2. Well, maybe to that, too.

                      The Southerns wanted to secede from the Union so they could continue slavery. That is the principle the were fighting for. That is what you are sanctioning. Good luck arguing that.

                    3. I’m not making an argument. I’m pointing out the falsehood in yours.

                      The falsehood being that Lincoln waged war to end slavery. That is absolutely false. He wages war to preserve the Union.

                      If Northern states had tried to secede because they didn’t want to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, Lincoln would have waged war on them to preserve the Union. Even if it meant crushing Abolitionism and forcing slavery onto the Northern states.

                      But the South seceded first, so slavery was abolished instead of being force onto everyone.

                      Lincoln would have been happy either way, because his goal was to preserve the Union.

                    4. “The falsehood being that Lincoln waged war to end slavery. That is absolutely false. He wages war to preserve the Union.”

                      I am arguing that the following logic. Union=protection of individual rights=destroying those in the country that violate individual rights by promoting slavery.

                      You think Lincoln was motivated to simply increase the power of the state. That is, shall we say, a minority opinion that needs substantial evidence to back up. It is pretty clear what the Southern Aristocracy wanted.

                    5. You think Lincoln was motivated to simply increase the power of the state.

                      Yes. That’s what preserve the Union by force means. It means that after waging war to stop states from leaving the Union, the precedent has been set to wage war against any state that attempts to leave the Union for any reason.

                      The United States of America was plural before Lincoln, and singular after.

                      Because it was no longer a union of sovereign states. Sovereign states can leave if they want. That’s what sovereign means.

                2. Lincoln and his followers pissed all over the Declaration of Independence.

                  1. And your rationalizations of men who fought to promote slavery is not?

                    1. Next you’re going to say that those of us who oppose the war on drugs want children to use heroin. It’s the same logic.

                    2. War on a man-made substance versus a war on people violating the rights of others. How is that the same?

                    3. HELLO BOTARD/MURCAN/MNG!

                      /argumentum ad nauseum

                    4. Yep. I’m done.

                    5. How is that the same?

                      If you oppose this then you support that.

                      In one case this is the right to secede from the union and that is slavery.

                      In the other case this is the war on drugs and that is children using heroin.

                      Logically equivalent fallacies.

                    6. David, read some Lysander Spooner.

                      http://lysanderspooner.org/node/23

                      http://lysanderspooner.org/node/43

                      Nothing revisionist whatsoever since they are topical.

                      It’s simply a case of an enemy of an enemy is rarely a friend. The War Between The States had many causes and supporters, at large or parochial. It stands that Lincoln himself explicitly stated that if could preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he’d do it, if he could preserve the Union by not freeing any slaves, he’d do it. After all, the Emancipation Proclamation was a writ by the Commander and Chief, which freed slaves only in the as yet unconquered territory. And it was a military tactic held in reserve when the North’s support began to wane.

                      In short, the war was fought for an amalgamation of Northern PROGRESSIVE interests, of which slavery was a cornerstone. Lincoln had to work to contain the Northern zeal of progressives after all, as it began to go too far. Libertarians are, and were, against slavery, but there was not complete unity in the cause of abolition, and there was much infighting. The wagers of Northern aggression were, in part, abolitionists who were ALSO STATISTS, and therefore their rationales would not be in keeping with libertarian ideals even if the desired results were the same.

                    7. And your rationalizations of men who fought to promote slavery is not?

                      I’m not rationalizing anything. All I’m doing is pointing out that the claim that Lincoln started the war with the intention of ending slavery is false. He intended to preserve the Union. If he could do it and keep slavery, then that’s what he would have done. He said so himself.

                      Whatever. Believe the myth. Doesn’t matter to me.

        2. End of slavery.

          Except, of course, for the slavery still allowed in the states that did not leave the Union.

          Got a problem with that?

          With what, your distortion of history. Yes, I kinda do.

          1. I keep finding out that there are different niches of libertarians that have some pretty unprincipled if not out and out statist positions. For instance some like to gloss over the statism and outright despotism of the Southern Aristocracy. Are you one of these states-righters I’ve heard about within the Libertarian movement? States and counties government regularly violate individual rights just as well as the Feds. Use to be the Feds who had to step in a stop it. Civil War is the obvious example.

            1. Pointing out the fact that the war was to preserve the Union, not to end slavery, is not an endorsement of slavery.
              Endorsing secession is not an endorsement of slavery. What if Northern states tried to secede because they didn’t want to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act? Would secession and states’ rights be OK then?

              1. What if? There is no what ifs with the Southerners at the time of the Civil War. They fired the first shots. They attacked the Union. With all the faults, the Union did, over all, stand for individual rights. People still had that notion. The idea is hard to grasp now, because we have as a country strayed so far away from the idea. Attacking the Union, was attacking the Founders and their principles to Lincoln and many in the country.

                1. It wasn’t a Civil War. The South was trying to leave the Union, not overthrow it. After secession that Union outpost was, at least from the point of view of the South, trespassing on their territory. Pushing off trespassers is not the same as attempting to overthrow another country.

                2. Is that love and respect of our founders why Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus for confederate officers?
                  Slavery was immoral yes, but so is destroying your countrymen for wishing to form their own country when their ideals no longer jive with yours in also immoral.
                  the question is- is it our job to slay the worlds monsters? George Washington would have said no

                  1. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in the border states only and it was temporary and for a specific reason. These states had local officials with gangs that were violating the rights of people with abandoned. He had to do what he could stop it as fast as he could. Was it right, it is unsure.

                    Overall, Lincoln’s actions to end slavery were noble and moral. I cannot believe I am on a Libertarian blog having to say this. It is disheartening.

                    1. He had to violate rights because other people were violating rights. What a noble man.

                    2. It’s only disheartening that you are suprised by this.

                      Good cannot be achieved by doing bad. Even if the end result has a part that you agree with.

                      “The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle.” – Rand

                      You claim the opposite, that he had good enough reason to do terrible, rights-violating things to people. That is an unprincipled stance, and and “ends justify the means” mentality.

                    1. I voted for John Brown.

                      The Civil War was the Union declaring its monopoly over indentured servitude. People can’t own people. Only the federal government can own people.

                3. The Union was so committed to individual rights that it initiated conscription in 1863.

    2. Cause the founders were smart enough to think maybe the military in charge of the military would be even worse (see Fascist states mid 20th century for an example).

      Yeah, it has its issues, but I damned well WANT my military under “civilian” control.

      Now – for strategy and tactics, the SMART civvie would be wise to take counsel from experienced military people, etc. etc. etc.

  10. This just reminds me of my brother’s funeral – 101st Airborne. He died of cancer, not Iraq (he participated in “1st Gulf War”, not “Gulf War – Bigger And Stupider”). But he was only 29.

    I cried like a baby – a lot because of those goddamned boots with a helmet on them sitting up there, and then the roll call, and when they call out his name, no one answered…..

    THANKS, CHIP

    Otherwise, wretched, therefore, perfect! Happy Friday, Reasonoids!

    1. Sorry, man. That sucks.

      1. (and with that said, since this is H&R and we’re all heartless assholes, are you saying Chip should have included a TRIGGER WARNING?)

        1. hamilton, dude! Too soon!

          1. Ugh. Wasn’t sure, and I apologize unreservedly. I get the snark level wrong here too much.

            1. Naw, it’s all good! Been 21 years – I don’t mean to get all teary eyes. Just, when I see boots and a rifle in the ground with a helmet on it….

              NEVER TOO SOON!! THANKS FOR NO TRIGGER WARNING, CHIP!!

    2. Almanian,

      “when they call out his name, no one answered…..”

      That part is the worst. That, and I never want to hear Taps again the rest of my days.

      1. Agreed
        Taps Taps, Lights out, all hands turn into your racks, maintain silence about the decks, taps

      2. I can attend an event commemorating some Civil War event and get teary eyed whenever taps is played for those I never knew (and for some who fought for a despicable cause). Wars are the saddest events in U.S. history and most could have been avoided if rational men sought solutions other than killing each other.

        1. ” Wars are the saddest events in U.S. history and most could have been avoided if rational men sought solutions other than killing each other.”

          People are not rational. The majority are irrational. The world is populated with assholes who want power.

          Look at history. It is about one group fucking over the other. Nothing has changed and history has not ended. Most of the world – the overwhelming majority still thing in tribal us v. them terms. Shia v. Shiite, Chinese v. Japanese, Hutu v. Bantu and Russian v. everyone else. That is the world. It is not going to change easily. Wish it would.

      3. Taps is the most depressing music I know. /serious

        They should have a trigger warning before playing it.

      4. I’m telling you, I cried like a baby – it was gut wrenching. And I. Don’t. Cry.

        But it was my brother, and a very moving service.

        Mostly what I got out of it was how kick ass the 101st guys are! I still stay in touch with some of them, 20 years later 🙂

  11. Regrettably, I can’t think of any wars that the U.S. has won since the end of World War II. However, that does not mean that our Armed Forces did not serve and fight honorably and bravely in every way. They did what they were asked to do, and did it very well.

    Unfortunately, probably the only American people who really understand and care about that are those who lost people in all those wars. In my mind, it would be absolutely devastating to lose a son in war, or any other way for that matter.

    Also, we have many thousands of veterans who have been physically and mentally maimed for the rest of their lives because of all these wars. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, one can say that all these wounded veterans are the legacy of Bush, Cheney, and Obama.

    It will certainly be “interesting” to see what happens in the future when the next administration occupies the White House and the Congress. What new wars are on the horizon? What new enemies will our politicians create so we can go to war with them, and keep the cycles of death and destruction in motion?

    Everyone have a nice weekend.

    1. One thing is for sure. If an R is elected president in 2016, those war protesters will suddenly rematerialize to protest against BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH’S ILLEGAL WARS!

    2. I don’t think we’ve won any wars because we as a society don’t have the stomach to see a war through as a result of being better informed and empathy.

  12. Could have left the thought balloon out, but not too bad. 8-(

    1. yeah that was what set me off… still think its in bad taste

  13. Needs moar dead civilians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.