Brought to you by War Mongers Int'l. When anything else would do but your penis is too tiny cum to War Mongers Int'l.

/I like this one better
//US Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group

VIETNAM NEVER HAPPENED... Amusement Park is nowwww open for business.

Quietly if you're living in a veal box.

Call it "war mongering" or whatever you want to, but since we
obviously HAVE to have a military, we'd be remiss if we didn't have
the toughest, best trained, best equipped, and most technologically
advanced military in the world. I, for one, am damn glad we have it
that good. It saved my life and brought me home safe to my family
and kids in 1991.

I sincerely desire and hope that cooler heads will prevail in Iran,
and here in the U.S., but I don't see how that's going to be
possible as long as Ahmedinnerjacket is "President" of Iran. It's a
Catch-22. We're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't.

followmeinfantry: /I like this one better
//US Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group

So do they have like picture day where they have to pull this whole thing off? It looks like a rather involved process to say "cheese."

If we didn't have a Permanent Wartime Economy™, we'd be farked as a country.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: So do they have like picture day where they have to pull this whole thing off? It looks like a rather involved process to say "cheese."

I'm pretty sure they're supposed to be able to do rather involved things on short notice at any time.

That's where the money goes.

Might as well get pictures, if nothing else is going on.

The only way the US should even think about doing this if they've got full NATO support, including significant troop committments from France and Germany (two countries that have shared concern about Iran in the past).

Opening a third front without additional support would be madness.

I can tell from some of the pixels etc.

FTFA
Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Not this shiat again
So shiatis are backing Sunnis

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: The only way the US should even think about doing this if they've got full NATO UN support

What business does NATO have with Asia?

We shouldn't be doing jack sh*t without international consensus.

They have the resources, we have a vastly superior military.
Y'know, in any other era of history, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

whidbey: Diplomatically, I agree. But I was referring more to the military implications. Wouldn't that be pretty much the boldest thing the UN ever did?

IcarusWept: They have the resources, we have a vastly superior military.
Y'know, in any other era of history, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

I think that quote just made the profile.

I can't see the US doing anything to Iran, and I can barely imagine Israel doing a bombing of a nuke plant.

We've already tried "damned if we do". This time, I'd like us to try "damned if we don't".

Let's just get it over with:

Fair_Poopsmith: I think that quote just made the profile.

As the dumbest things ever said on Fark?

Might makes right! Hurdee Hurdee.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Wouldn't that be pretty much the boldest thing the UN ever did?

It would be commendable to get the Security Council on the same page, yeah, but it's a pipe dream considering that this is yet another "concern" manufactured by the US.

Iran is no danger to the region, and we're living up to the accusations the rest of the world levels at us, that we are the biggest terrorist nation on the planet.

You'd think Americans would understand this after the klstrfk that was/is Iran.

But no, there are plenty of Farkers who'll argue that Iraq is a success until they're blue in the face.

whidbey: Fair_Poopsmith: I think that quote just made the profile.

As the dumbest things ever said on Fark?

Might makes right! Hurdee Hurdee.


I didn't really read it that way... I sorta took it that IcarusWept was just sort of vocalizing a sense of curiosity about how quickly perspectives can change. Dunno.

Yeah that whoopass works so well on small countries like Viet Nam and Iraq.

Good old religious intolerance vs. religious intolerance. The cycle never ends because humanity in general can't figure out that this shiat doesn't actually matter.

Fair_Poopsmith: Dunno.

I can't speak for him either, but it sounded like he was lamenting the days when we didn't question why we get dragged into bullsh*t military operations.

Icarus?

Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare: Yeah that whoopass works so well on small countries like Viet Nam and Iraq.

In the case of Iraq it worked extremely well. We just cant figure out that whole occupation and rebuilding part. In Vietnam, well I wasn't born then so I can't give you my 'expert' analysis.

SharkUW: Good old religious intolerance vs. religious intolerance. The cycle never ends because humanity in general can't figure out that this shiat doesn't actually matter.

Once humanity figures out that religion in general is nothing more than organized bullshiat, the problem is solved and we can actually try having rational discussions about resources and so forth.

But as long as there's the religious "us" and "them" it'll never happen.

whidbey: As the dumbest things ever said on Fark?
What part of my statement is wrong? I don't think I included an opinion, and 4/5 Gods agree I'm not qualified to give one.

Might does not make right, but when did right ever win a war? What's the bumper sticker? War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left.

At any other time in history, we'd have taken what we needed and laid waste to the primitives. We may regress, time will tell.

Postal Penguin: In the case of Iraq it worked extremely well. We just cant figure out that whole occupation and rebuilding part. In Vietnam, well I wasn't born then so I can't give you my 'expert' analysis.

It's the same old con. In both cases, the militarily topheavy United States was basically stalemated by a bunch of grassroots guerillas. We eventually got the hell out of Vietnam.

And yeah, we're getting away with Iraq because apparently a lot of people forgot that...or weren't born yet.

whidbey: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: The only way the US should even think about doing this if they've got full NATO UN support

What business does NATO have with Asia?

We shouldn't be doing jack sh*t without international consensus.
FTFY

Postal Penguin: In the case of Iraq it worked extremely well. We just cant figure out that whole occupation and rebuilding part.

We're getting there, and we've corrected many of our own past mistakes regarding rules and engagement and cooperating with Iraqi locals. Aside from the issue of Iraqi government corruption, one of the biggest problems is the violence wrought by outside influences like Al-Qaeda and Iran via local surrogates in their efforts to maintain chaos. That's why this sort of force is being contemplated in the first place.

IcarusWept: whidbey: As the dumbest things ever said on Fark?
What part of my statement is wrong? I don't think I included an opinion, and 4/5 Gods agree I'm not qualified to give one.

Might does not make right, but when did right ever win a war? What's the bumper sticker? War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left.

At any other time in history, we'd have taken what we needed and laid waste to the primitives. We may regress, time will tell.

I'm still not sure how it reads, then. Either way, balls for speaking your mind.

AndyMan1: FTFY

Now see, I was trying to be nice...

But you're right. There hasn't been a good reason for the US to get involved in anything since 1941. And that was in defense.

The US sucks trying to wage war on its own. We should give it up if it's not working.

IcarusWept: At any other time in history, we'd have taken what we needed and laid waste to the primitives.

Speaks volumes about how you consider the Iranian people, Icarus. You might want to stop while you're ahead.

IcarusWept: They have the resources, we have a vastly superior military.
Y'know, in any other era of history, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

True. In another time, we would just label them "savages" and take what we want. The realities of the world have changed now, though. No longer is asymmetric warfare a minor nuisance to the occupying power. Car bombs are incredibly destructive and any bright physics grad student can make a nuclear weapon if they have enough money to spend.

So Iran's had a good couple of years to intensely study us next door in Iraq, and we think we can go there and pull the exact same thing? I don't think we've adapted enough as the whole mentality behind how easy it will be was exactly the same as it was in Iraq.

Is it not obvious? All of Iran's moves so far seem to be testing or studying us... from how close their speedboats can get to what IEDs work best.

I was just thinking we could use another war. Help boost our economy and such.

VideoVader: Postal Penguin: In the case of Iraq it worked extremely well. We just cant figure out that whole occupation and rebuilding part.

We're getting there, and we've corrected many of our own past mistakes regarding rules and engagement and cooperating with Iraqi locals. Aside from the issue of Iraqi government corruption, one of the biggest problems is the violence wrought by outside influences like Al-Qaeda and Iran via local surrogates in their efforts to maintain chaos. That's why this sort of force is being contemplated in the first place.

AQ is a tiny, tiny fraction of the troublemakers. Its a secular war. The facts show it to be without a doubt, but I guess since our Kinsg say it isn't...

VideoVader: Aside from the issue of Iraqi government corruption, one of the biggest problems is the violence wrought by outside influences like Al-Qaeda and Iran via local surrogates in their efforts to maintain chaos. That's why this sort of force is being contemplated in the first place.

I don't know whether to congratulate you for your insufferable optimism or berate you for buying so into the myth.

But I'll just say that our own incompetence trumps both factors in your example.

ukiah: I was just thinking we could use another war. Help boost our economy and such.

Except we don't have the same economy as we did back during World War II. But I'm sure the countries where we outsource the work will do very well.

Judith Miller says bomb them, so, BOMB THEM ALREADY!!!

Can't you people read?

whidbey: Speaks volumes about how you consider the Iranian people, Icarus. You might want to stop while you're ahead.

It's exactly what we did to native americans.

Actually, I'm hoping that was sarcasm, ukiah...

Let's have a war!
Jack up the Dow Jones!
Let's have a war!
It can start in NEW JERSEY!!

whidbey: Actually, I'm hoping that was sarcasm, ukiah...

Good eye, sir. Good eye.

It's the guns of august all over again. All you insulated war happy morons getting all geared up for what will be the biggest nightmare you might be lucky enough to live through. This is the problem with humanity, we're incapable of learning from even our recent past.

Phil Moskowitz: It's the guns of august all over again. All you insulated war happy morons getting all geared up for what will be the biggest nightmare you might be lucky enough to live through. This is the problem with humanity, we're incapable of learning from even our recent past.

I don't know if it is not learning so much as it is not caring.

whidbey: Speaks volumes about how you consider the Iranian people, Icarus. You might want to stop while you're ahead.

His terminology is spot-on. It's the Us and Them mentality. We, being Us, are automatically right-thinking, well-intentioned, cultured people, correct in all we do and deserving of all. Them, being, well, Them, are uncivilized, wrong, evil, possessing things they don't deserve and inferior to us in all ways. Doesn't matter who is being discussed, the rationale holds.

TheCid: SharkUW: Good old religious intolerance vs. religious intolerance. The cycle never ends because humanity in general can't figure out that this shiat doesn't actually matter.

Once humanity figures out that religion in general is nothing more than organized bullshiat, the problem is solved and we can actually try having rational discussions about resources and so forth.

But as long as there's the religious "us" and "them" it'll never happen.


Bullshiat, we'll just find a NEW way to make it about 'us' and 'them'. Because there are people who *profit* from making it about 'us' and 'them', and I think *they've* already realized that religion doesn't matter ('cause they sure as hell aren't *following* it). Those people will just move onto something new and pervert it until it's about 'us' and 'them'. Maybe they'll pervert and warp science into an unrecognizeable shape.

(I say that because science was once warped and perverted in the past, via eugenics. "But!" You might argue, "But other scientists said that was wrong, and wasn't a valid scientific theory! The very foundations of science/experimental testing/etc itself said it was false!", and this is very true. But A) Eugenics still stuck around for some time after scientists started doing that, and B) That only *reinforces* my point that it could happen. Because there are other members of the religion going "But our religion says that these divisions you create are wrong! Your desire to make war goes against the very foundations of our religion!", and they don't seem to be getting much of anywhere.)

People will often shape their perception of reality around what they WANT to believe, not what is actually *THERE*, religion or not.

/Of course, Ironically, my perception of this situation/what would happen if religion vanished may be warped. Although I don't think I 'want' it to be like this, I suppose I could very well be fooling myself.

Can anyone just see Bush doing something insane like ordering a strike on Tehran a month before his term's up? God. I'm actually a little freaked out by how possible it sounds.

Hrm, that last post may have been a bit over the top/rambling. Sorry, it's three AM and I'm trying to force myself to finish up some 'Final Homework' Q-Phys questions. One more left (Thank god..)

gilgamesh23: In another time, we would just label them "savages" and take what we want. The realities of the world have changed now, though. No longer is asymmetric warfare a minor nuisance to the occupying power. Car bombs are incredibly destructive and any bright physics grad student can make a nuclear weapon if they have enough money to spend.

Ah yes, the good old days when you could just ride into the village, kill their men, rape their women, kidnap their children for slaves and steal all of their shiat.

/Simpler times.
//Lord Humungus approved

Occam's Chainsaw: the rationale holds.

Maybe in the sense that a mold holds jello, but the philosophy is both infinitely f*cked and deserving of a good drubbing.

The fact is that there are a lot of us who are ashamed of the US's past imperialist leanings, and we don't suffer fools gladly who cheerlead the practice.

whidbey: Occam's Chainsaw: the rationale holds.

Maybe in the sense that a mold holds jello, but the philosophy is both infinitely f*cked and deserving of a good drubbing.

The fact is that there are a lot of us who are ashamed of the US's past imperialist leanings, and we don't suffer fools gladly who cheerlead the practice.

I get what you're saying, but man... the moral high ground you're talking about didn't really exist then. Just about every extant culture has gone through an empire-building stage. I'm content to recognize it's changed for the better and not spend a lot of time bemoaning the past.