Skip to content

Fool Me Thrice

© Tom Tomorrow

Why are we so willing to go to war? Is it because the US media keeps us in a state of constant fear? Is it because corporations with strong government connections make lots of money off of war? Or because politicians get a boost in their approval rating during times of war?

Why do we still think of ourselves as the world’s policeman? I think isolationism is a mistake, but we seem to err in the other direction too much. And this comic doesn’t even mention Viet Nam.



  1. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I believe there are 2 sides to this situation to look at and weigh before picking a 3rd plan.
    First, (plan A)you have the do nothing and wait and see if anything happens. The isolationists point of view. We know from history that this can sometimes be a big mistake, WWII for instance. We completely underestimated the intent and scope of the enemies plan and had to put forth a monumental effort to prevail. This is the classic stick your head in the sand plan.

    Second (plan B) there are the shoot first ask questions later group and they may be invested in that strategy for the reasons listed above (fear, profit, power). This strategy prevents the first one, but at what cost? The classic what we’ve tried for the last ten years plan.

    There needs to be a third plan to deal with threats such as Iran. IMO all out war is unnecessary in this particular case. If however the situation develops and they become nuclear we need to act. PC or not they are or have been known to sponsor terrorist organizations and their leader (Ahm a dinna god) has repeatedly professed the propensity to wage war. Like North Korea their words need to tempered with a certain amount of understanding. Most of what they say is self serving chest thumping to keep power, however we cannot or should not discredit their ability based solely on that assumption. If they go nuclear they could use it, but would they? It seems, as is usually the case, no one can answer that question with any certainty.

    For my 2 cents the only workable solution is (plan C) to target their nuclear assets with our advanced missile systems and their population centers with our nukes, then maybe invite them to dinner and a tour of our targeting center so they see what we’ll do if they attempt any offensive action. This puts us into basically cold war status with them, but avoids the direct confrontation of plan B and the unpreparedness of plan A. The speak clearly AND carry a big stick plan.

    The media, corp and politican types like the hype. It keeps the almighty dollars rolling. Of course their is option D, appoint a congressional super committee or simpson/Bowles type of commission to evaluate the situation and come up with solutions and then completely ignore them or ponder their complete incompetence….

    Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
  2. Patricia wrote:

    IK — “Yes” to all of your initial suggestions!

    Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
  3. ebdoug wrote:

    But remember we introduced the Saudi Princes into Afghanistan in the 1980s. We hired them as mercenaries. They took away the rights of the developed portions of Afghanistan. Education for woman, health care, etc. So what is our responsibility for a situation we created?

    Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
  4. oregonbird wrote:

    Who is this “we”?

    Apparently we’ve achieved a new banker. Because China certainly isn’t going to fiance any further wars — the anti-Chinese rhetoric that has suddenly cropped up, and Obama’s rattling sabre to be sheathed in Oz, is proof of that. But since the administration is comfortable threatening Iran, there must be backing — pure corporate backing? Have we moved past national assistance into actual corporate fiancing?

    Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
  5. GreatWhiteNorth wrote:

    If it’s not Iran it would be somewhere else. The industrial military complex needs to be fed. More American lives will be lost (military), more foreign lives will be lost (mainly civilian), but it’s ‘the cost of doing business’ to keep the machine running. Until a major paradigm shift in thinking, the system will always respond with threats of force because that’s how it’s been set up.

    Sure, there are continuing real and etherial concepts such as long-term energy security and ‘human rights issues’ that need to be addressed geopolitically. But I don’t even see those discussions on American soil (i.e. actual planned reduction of oil dependence) – why should they be so important in other parts of the world to the extent that we would force them to comply? Just saying what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Just my view from up here…

    Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink