Boom boom

I dont see how we can make that assumption. There are a LOT of people who are on the left who love Biden and hate Kamala. She is not a well liked person, in fact it's very likely that Biden would have done even better in the polls had he chosen a different running mate. Kamala Harris has been pretty open about staying in the Middle East and even taking a more active military role in countries like Syria. I think that's the point of the comic, that even though she is the first female VP that it doesnt make her a great person or candidate for the position. I'm not saying it isnt dark humor or in poor taste, but this doesnt need to be a right or left thing, she is just a warhawk and a terrible person.

Some good points all around- but it is a tad more nuanced than that. Syria for example- the US dropped them like a potato and walked away. But deciding to not get involved in a messy situation where people are getting hurt, to avoid hurting people.. it’s more complex than just “if we get involved people get hurt..” Germany invades France, after they invade- they don’t need to decimate the country like they did when invading. The allies come to liberate France while Germany is trying to rebuild and establish German Order. The allies then are the ones destroying buildings. The conflict the allies brought is causing people to die, causing the desperate Germans to crack down on the citizens harder, causing scarcity of food and supplies which means civilians get even less because what is there gets prioritized to the war effort to defend German occupied France.

So who is the “bad guy” there? Would history be better off, would the French be better off of the allies had looked at France and said: “well... there is a French government and the Germans are ‘helping’ them stabilize the country. We should mind our business because our bombs are going to hurt people...” it actually might have been better. Short term it would have been better for a lot of French, and it would have been worse for other French. Speaking of the French, they helped us in our first civil war- the American revolution in which we took arms against our government and seceded from the crown, the second civil war saw fighters and aid from all over Europe come to help. Should everyone have just watched the US and waited for us to sort it out? I’m not saying yes or no. I’m saying that in fairness- these issues are more complex than just “military involvement is bad.”

In the ultimate sense- any use of force is a failing of higher social progress. But sometimes people fight. If you see a woman and a man taking about what movie to watch and then the man starts beating the woman... do you do nothing? Help the man? Help the women? Try to break them up and fight whoever fights you back? At what point does an ability to help, and seeing someone in need of help, dictate that it is an ethical responsibility to help? And more pragmatically perhaps- what are the criteria to use for when one should enter a conflict in their own self interest or the interests of stability or prudence?

Idk. To me, it’s just a political cartoon. Biden and Harris haven’t entered office yet. They have plenty to deal with and we shall (probably) see what actually happens. It isn’t unreasonable based on past policies and statements as well as the philosophy the two have outlined on foreign policy that one might make this joke. Is it poor taste to use the sentimentality and the image of “bombed out villagers” as plot device in a comic? Is this comic going for dark chuckles? That’s probably subjective.

Fair points. The only thing I'll add to the WW2 comparison is that one of the reasons the US also had reservations about getting involved is because they actively either didnt care or in many cases you had large swathes of the government that agreed with the National Socialist Nazi Party in Germany. Anne Frank and Martin Luther King Junior were alive at the same time (many people set them in different eras) and the overwhelming majority of the same people in the states who supported segregation were the same people who actively supported antisemitism at both local and national levels. Jews were not a popular people in the US. Supporting them abroad was even less popular. Adding that to the staunch isolationist policy the US was trying to take during WW2... yeah. I wont go as far to say that there is a majority in the US who agree with the devastation in Syria, but there are a whole lot of people who just dont care unfortunately.