That would be American involvement in WWII, subby. Try to follow along...

Non-American WW2 started with Germany invading Poland in Europe, and some small scuffle with tanks in eastern Russia.

The whole "who should rule the land around the Tigris and Euphrates" battle has been going on for literally Millennia. No matter how you cut it, he's right on this one.

Well, if you consider the US involvement in the Iraq-Iran war as the beginning, there is no question. We got more involved around 1982. On May 17, 1987, the US had our first casualties in the Gulf. The Iraqis attacked the USS Stark.

One could say we have been in a Middle East war since 1982. Or that we have been at war in Iraq since 1990 since we had the no-fly zones continuously until the beginning of the Iraq invasion

unlikely: Non-American WW2 started with Germany invading Poland in Europe, and some small scuffle with tanks in eastern Russia.

You forgot Japan

oh no, obama!

didn't you know, that is the only rule in this crazy game?

Dumb headline.

If we want to count the start of WWII not from the US perspective, it's 1937 when the Marco Polo Bridge Incident happened as Japan invaded China.

If we really want to go back, one can claim WW2 started at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (at least from the german's perspective)

What an idiot.

If he doesnt even know basic American history, how do you people think he is even remotely qualified to be even a Junior senator, let alone President?
This guy is becoming more of a joke each day.

Dumbass tag for submitter, apparently.

If we really want to get technical, the disputes that started WWII were brewing since the Treaty of Westphallia.

hillary4real

I admire your troll-fu.

/not

hillary4real: What an idiot.

If he doesnt even know basic American history, how do you people think he is even remotely qualified to be even a Junior senator, let alone President?
This guy is becoming more of a joke each day.

You're probably the worst troll in Fark right now, Jackass. Keep swinging though. Maybe one day you'll land yourself a Fox News spot.

Thread:

1. whine about the headline
2. whine about semantics
3. whine about historical causation
4. overlook the fact that Obama is referencing an arbitrary timeline for how long wars are allowed to last.

/not subby

you know, if it weren't for the dumbass tag, i'd actually find this pretty amusing.

but subby used the dumbass tag, and thus, they fail.

starbum: If we really want to go back, one can claim WW2 started at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (at least from the german's perspective)

LocalCynic: If we really want to get technical, the disputes that started WWII were brewing since the Treaty of Westphallia.

To be honest, the war really started with the death of Charlemagne, the splitting of Austrasia, and the creation of separate Germanic and Frankish kingdoms.

hillary4real: What an idiot.

If he doesnt even know basic American history, how do you people think he is even remotely qualified to be even a Junior senator, let alone President?
This guy is becoming more of a joke each day.



SOMEONE didn't study reading for comprehension...

/Hot pockets

Whatever, Mister Obama isnt exactly in the winners circle for this race anymore.
He maybe had a shot a month ago but, no longer.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

If you want to really go back, both World War II and the Iraq War started when we came down from the trees and started banging rocks together.

hillary4real Quote 2008-03-22 12:18:01 AM
What an idiot.
farm2.static.flickr.com
If he doesnt even know basic American history,

Except he is quite right about American history. Our involvement with WWII was hsorter than our involvement with the Iraq war.

USP .45: 4. overlook the fact that Obama is referencing an arbitrary timeline for how long wars are allowed to last.

I actually don't think its arbitrary. How many wars can you honestly think of that last longer than 5 years and ended well for us? Revolutionary war...? America doesnt like getting involved in this protracted shiat.

If you really want to go back, one can claim WWII started when Yoshio Kaga (grandfather of Takeshi Kaga) sieged Kitchen Stadium from Toshiro Morimoto.

tallguywithglasseson: If you really want to go back, one can claim WWII started when Yoshio Kaga (grandfather of Takeshi Kaga) sieged Kitchen Stadium from Toshiro Morimoto.

Blasphemy. That was a coup from inside who then turned themselves OVER to Yoshio Kaga.
Learn history, dumfbuck.

If you want to really REALLY go back, World Ward II had its foundations laid when Satan rebelled against God and caused evil to form in the world.

hillary4real: Whatever, Mister Obama isnt exactly in the winners circle for this race anymore.
He maybe had a shot a month ago but, no longer.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Yeah, I'd like to see Hillary JOG!

Bill Frist: If you want to really REALLY go back, World Ward II had its foundations laid when Satan rebelled against God and caused evil to form in the world.

Freaking Morning Star...

hillary4real: Whatever, Mister Obama isnt exactly in the winners circle for this race anymore.
He maybe had a shot a month ago but, no longer.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

The saddest part of this guy is that he doesn't realize he makes Hillary look worse every time he posts.

If you want to really, really REALLY go back, it all began when the Thetans were created!

ToxicMunkee: Yeah, I'd like to see Hillary JOG!

The thought of Hillary's breasts bouncing makes me sick to my stomach....
/that is all

USP .45: overlook the fact that Obama is referencing an arbitrary timeline for how long wars are allowed to last.

So you're okay with the US being in a never-ending war, one that costs the US twelve billion dollars a month?

DamnYankees: I actually don't think its arbitrary.

Then you don't know what the word 'arbitrary' means. Moving on.

Note the intricate rhetoric being used here:

1. Establish an arbitrary timeline

2. Contrast a just war with a contentious one

The underlying premise being, "if you're fighting a just conflict, it shouldn't take longer than WWII did."

A more accurate statement would be to compare the conflict in Iraq to the Vietnam War. Obama won't do this because:

1. He loses the timeline rhetoric (Vietnam war being 1959-1974)

2. He loses the ability to contrast the moral aspects

3. He adds the "omg Iraq=Vietnam" line which everyone will cringe at

hillary4real: Whatever, Mister Obama isnt exactly in the winners circle for this race anymore.
He maybe had a shot a month ago but, no longer.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

How much is the Hillary campaign paying you to be their whore?

Befuddled: USP .45: overlook the fact that Obama is referencing an arbitrary timeline for how long wars are allowed to last.

So you're okay with the US being in a never-ending war, one that costs the US twelve billion dollars a month?

No, I made my point: Referencing the WWII timeline is arbitrary, and not even analogous.

Standing behind this premise and my opinions on Iraq are not mutually exclusive...unless of course you are a blatant partisan and insist on putting words in my text field.

DamnYankees: starbum: If we really want to go back, one can claim WW2 started at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (at least from the german's perspective)

LocalCynic: If we really want to get technical, the disputes that started WWII were brewing since the Treaty of Westphallia.

To be honest, the war really started with the death of Charlemagne, the splitting of Austrasia, and the creation of separate Germanic and Frankish kingdoms.


Actually, this can largely be traced back to when Pope Zachary corresponded with Pepin the Short to tell him that who actually holds the reins of power is more important than who is lawfully entitled to those reins of power.

USP .45: The underlying premise being, "if you're fighting a just conflict, it shouldn't take longer than WWII did."

A more accurate statement would be to compare the conflict in Iraq to the Vietnam War. Obama won't do this because:

Why is Vietnam less arbitrary? WE LOST VIETNAM! So Obama is supposed to say "we lost Vietnam, but since we haven't been in Iraq as long, we aren't totally sure we've lost Iraq yet."

That's retarded.

WWII is a good marker because it was a pretty long war (almost 4 years), which was both noble and well fought. In order to justify an engagement longer than that, you're going to need to give a freaking reason, both tactically and morally.

Ground_Hog: The saddest part of this guy is that he doesn't realize he makes Hillary look worse every time he posts.

That is his intent.

geminilaser: How much is the Hillary campaign paying you to be their whore?

Then they should stop payment on the check, because hillary4real is clearly not delivering the goods.

That is if the goods were to actually make people want to vote for Hillary.

No, I made my point: Referencing the WWII timeline is arbitrary

I don't think the word "arbitrary" means what you think it means.

USP .45: A more accurate statement would be to compare the conflict in Iraq to the Vietnam War.

The other telling comparison is when will we have tried to run Afghanistan for longer than the Soviets? They tried for a little over 9 years. We are doing a little better than they did (there isn't a superpower funding the Taliban this time), but winning?

valloned: That would be American involvement in WWII, subby. Try to follow along...

Yeah, sure. But that was a funny headline.

++1

DamnYankees: Why is Vietnam less arbitrary? WE LOST VIETNAM!

So you're arguing that WWII (total war) is more analogous to Iraq (counterinsurgency) than Vietnam (counterinsurgency).

1. At face value, you are clearly wrong.

2. Claiming we "won" or "lost" is a non sequitur
a. we didn't lose Vietnam militarily, so you're wrong on that as well

Obama is still a dumbass after all these lame attempts to justify his claim. Subby's point about when WWII started is valid, but even better is to ask when it ended. The US Army still occupies parts of Germany and Japan even though major combat operations ended long ago. Similarly, in Iraq major combat operations ended back in 2003 and we are now in the occupation phase just like Germany and Japan five years after the end of combat operations there.

If Bush had said the exact same thing, this would be a 600+ thread filled with morphing Bush/chimp pictures.

USP .45: 4. overlook the fact that Obama is referencing an arbitrary timeline for how long wars are allowed to last.

Oooh!

How long are wars allowed to last?

Alien Robot: Subby's point about when WWII started is valid, but even better is to ask when it ended.

With the surrender of Italy, Germany and Japan?

hillary4real

Whatever, Mister Obama isnt exactly in the winners circle for this race anymore.
He maybe had a shot a month ago but, no longer.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Look at the date on the cartoon you posted. You are your own worst enemy.

/ 8/7/07
//never forget

USP .45 [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-22 12:36:55 AM
DamnYankees: Why is Vietnam less arbitrary? WE LOST VIETNAM!

So you're arguing that WWII (total war) is more analogous to Iraq (counterinsurgency) than Vietnam (counterinsurgency).

1. At face value, you are clearly wrong.


I don't think Iraq is quite like either of those wars. Vietnam was still more like a regular war, but where the other side had to use guerilla tactics.

Iraq was like a traditional war that ended quick as hell and has turned into an occupation with a civil war swirling around us.

I don't think either WWII or Vietnam are that analogous.

Alien Robot: Obama is still a dumbass after all these lame attempts to justify his claim. Subby's point about when WWII started is valid, but even better is to ask when it ended. The US Army still occupies parts of Germany and Japan even though major combat operations ended long ago. Similarly, in Iraq major combat operations ended back in 2003 and we are now in the occupation phase just like Germany and Japan five years after the end of combat operations there.

We weren't still losing soldiers to hostile forces in Germany and Japan five years after combat operations ended over there.

hillary4real: Whatever, Mister Obama isnt exactly in the winners circle for this race anymore.

OK, I get it. You're a troll. Whatever.

But the fact that you have posted that image makes me realize there is at least one person out there who actually believes that it somehow reflects reality.


Not you, of course, but the artist, at least.

Wow.

USP .45:


The issue at hand here is the scale of the wars. WWII had two very large fronts for the Americans fighting multiple enemies with clear goals in mind. The current war is concentrated in Iraq and we still haven't achieved "victory", whatever the hell that is now.

Skleenar: How long are wars allowed to last?

If you're Obama, as long as WWII apparently.

If you're trying to be rational but still what to use rhetoric, then the next most comparable conflict.

If you're ideally rational, you'd treat each conflict as a unique situation militarily, economically, socially, and geopolitically.

USP .45: 3. He adds the "omg Iraq=Vietnam" line which everyone will cringe at

Anyone cringing?

All I see are nods of agreement.

Thanks for that illustration. I wouldn't have thought of it myself.