If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   2,000   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 200
    More: Sad, Afghan National Security Forces, Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force, Wardak provinces, soldier killed, I'm Mad  
•       •       •

26971 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2012 at 8:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-30 03:36:29 AM  
And even when we "leave" in 2014, we won't actually be gone. :(

/we've always been at war with Eastasia
 
2012-09-30 03:51:12 AM  
In a row?
 
2012-09-30 04:14:31 AM  
After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.
 
2012-09-30 04:17:28 AM  
Fighting them over there, so we dont have to fight them here.

\I still dont really understand this directive
 
2012-09-30 04:39:27 AM  

Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive


Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...
 
2012-09-30 05:09:21 AM  

doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...


That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.
 
2012-09-30 07:49:37 AM  
2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)
 
2012-09-30 08:07:24 AM  

doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...


Yes, because that's what would be happening in the US if we didn't occupy Afganistan.

o_O
 
2012-09-30 08:21:02 AM  
Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.
 
2012-09-30 08:22:48 AM  

Mugato: Yes, because that's what would be happening in the US if we didn't occupy Afganistan.


Obviously.

Have you ever seen the Canadians? They're jealous of our quality beer, classy TV celebrities, and our superior national sport of football. They'd be over that border in a year if we didn't pound some foreign place's capitol into the ground every few years.
 
2012-09-30 08:25:54 AM  
Would you like to know more?
 
2012-09-30 08:26:18 AM  
I must have missed the countdown like the media did for Bush in Iraq. Liberal bias in its most obvious form.
 
2012-09-30 08:26:20 AM  

crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.


I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.
 
2012-09-30 08:26:27 AM  
Remember when pointing out casualty figures was a form of treason? Good times!
 
2012-09-30 08:27:32 AM  

stirfrybry: I must have missed the countdown like the media did for Bush in Iraq. Liberal bias in its most obvious form.


Perfect. You just can't farking see it, can you?

Asshole.
 
2012-09-30 08:30:42 AM  

wedun: crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.


Weak.
 
2012-09-30 08:32:35 AM  
He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.
 
2012-09-30 08:32:44 AM  

wedun: I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.


You need to work on your trolling.
 
2012-09-30 08:32:47 AM  
Sad, yes.

But wow... from 2001?

Had this been 30-40 years ago that number would be x20 + in an 11 yr period.
 
2012-09-30 08:33:03 AM  
The music of the time tells me that Vietnam losses were like this an hour, so everything's fine.
 
2012-09-30 08:33:14 AM  
I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**
 
2012-09-30 08:34:13 AM  
Jesus, did this thread hit potato fast...
 
2012-09-30 08:35:01 AM  

GORDON: He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


He promised a lot more that he has broken when he ran
 
2012-09-30 08:35:26 AM  

GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.



Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.
 
2012-09-30 08:35:35 AM  

Bungles: The music of the time tells me that Vietnam losses were like this an hour, so everything's fine.


And officially they never got around to calling it a war.
 
2012-09-30 08:37:09 AM  
So, that's, what, a 1/50 US Military to Afghan civilian ratio?
 
2012-09-30 08:38:00 AM  

MFAWG: Remember when pointing out casualty figures was a form of treason? Good times!


Maybe that's why the link was to the BBC and not CNN.
 
2012-09-30 08:38:03 AM  
Cue the people whose political smugness outweighs their human decency.

/Much respect to those who gave their lives for it.
 
2012-09-30 08:40:29 AM  

Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.


Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.
 
2012-09-30 08:41:04 AM  
Would not fill up one panel on the Vietnam memorial
 
2012-09-30 08:41:26 AM  

Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.


The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.
 
2012-09-30 08:42:30 AM  
Clinton had 8 years to prevent this. Bush only had 8 months. Or something.

/Golden Oldie
 
2012-09-30 08:43:47 AM  
Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.
 
2012-09-30 08:46:26 AM  

GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.


Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.
 
2012-09-30 08:47:51 AM  

pippi longstocking: Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.


When your enemy hides among civilians, uses them as shields, and has no compunction about killing them with their car bombs and ieds and suicide bombers...what are you supposed to do? How is it, again, we're responsible for the enemy's tactics?
 
2012-09-30 08:48:48 AM  

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Considering that we've only attacked one out of the 3 'Axes of Evil', and hold hands and buss cheeks with the country that actually funded and organized 9/11, I'd call it a wash.
 
2012-09-30 08:49:40 AM  

Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.


I saw a story last week where some dumbass GOPPER Congressman was hanging on to this talking point for dear life, right up until he got a letter from an actual troop in the field.
 
2012-09-30 08:50:15 AM  

LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.


Actually, every supermax prison that wanted to house the prisoners, or was willing to, got shouted down by the NIMBYs near said prisons who were deathly afraid that they might become targets.

So, when you wind up with no place to put the inmates, what do you do?
 
2012-09-30 08:50:42 AM  

Kit Fister: The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.


How do you know this? Oh, you don't.

GORDON: He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.


Sigh.

Obama was always in favor of Afghanistan. As for Gitmo, congress shot down funding to close it. This is all well documented.
 
2012-09-30 08:51:30 AM  
1973 just called. It said to tell you that wars of occupation suck, and cannot be won.
Kthnxby.
 
2012-09-30 08:52:45 AM  

MFAWG: Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.

I saw a story last week where some dumbass GOPPER Congressman was hanging on to this talking point for dear life, right up until he got a letter from an actual troop in the field.


Hey, so far they blew up the wtc twice. Not so much anything else since we started fighting them on their own soil. Only terrorists we've dealt with here are some asian dude at virginia tech and two mentally unstable white guys in az and co
 
2012-09-30 08:52:47 AM  
2,000 American lives ...

What did we win? How many do we need save up to get another Pocket Dictator?
 
2012-09-30 08:53:07 AM  
Political insight set aside.

Thank you young men and women. While many do not agree with this war, you have volunteered to take part in it.

Thank you
 
2012-09-30 08:53:18 AM  

LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.




Originally it less that Mooslimms have secret super powers (although that's what the main defense has apparently morphed into over 10 years), but rather that if it's not on US soil, slicing off nipples and making inmates urinate on each other apparently isn't torture and maltreatment..

Oh, and apparently habeas corpus is some sort of actual physical field that only covers the continental US.

KEEP THE MOOSLIMMS OUT OF THE HABEAS CORPUS FIELD! THEY WILL ESCAPE!
 
2012-09-30 08:53:32 AM  

Kit Fister: LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.

Actually, every supermax prison that wanted to house the prisoners, or was willing to, got shouted down by the NIMBY panty pissing scared 'Conservatives's near said prison everywhere who were deathly afraid that they might become targets of pretty much everything..

So, when you wind up with no place to put the inmates, what do you do?


FTFY.
 
2012-09-30 08:54:52 AM  

Mugato: Kit Fister: The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

How do you know this? Oh, you don't.

GORDON: He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Sigh.

Obama was always in favor of Afghanistan. As for Gitmo, congress shot down funding to close it. This is all well documented.


Right, you mean other than the two attempts to destroy the WTC and the few other arrests for attempting to acquire bombs and such?

Oh I'm sorry, we shouldn't use historical attempts to attack here as indications of intent. I forgot.
 
2012-09-30 08:56:01 AM  
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

Ah, memories...
 
2012-09-30 08:57:52 AM  

Bungles: LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.



Originally it less that Mooslimms have secret super powers (although that's what the main defense has apparently morphed into over 10 years), but rather that if it's not on US soil, slicing off nipples and making inmates urinate on each other apparently isn't torture and maltreatment..

Oh, and apparently habeas corpus is some sort of actual physical field that only covers the continental US.

KEEP THE MOOSLIMMS OUT OF THE HABEAS CORPUS FIELD! THEY WILL ESCAPE!


Since when did habeas corpus apply to enemy combatants being detained?
 
2012-09-30 08:58:38 AM  

Gleeman: Considering that we've only attacked one out of the 3 'Axes of Evil', and hold hands and buss cheeks with the country that actually funded and organized 9/11, I'd call it a wash.


I'll add that to my list
 
2012-09-30 08:59:22 AM  

Kit Fister: Right, you mean other than the two attempts to destroy the WTC and the few other arrests for attempting to acquire bombs and such?


And you're saying that the reason there haven't been any other attacks similar to the one committed by a bunch of Saudis is because we invaded Afghanistan? Do you have a rock that keeps tigers away by any chance?
 
2012-09-30 09:00:25 AM  

Kit Fister: Bungles: LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.



Originally it less that Mooslimms have secret super powers (although that's what the main defense has apparently morphed into over 10 years), but rather that if it's not on US soil, slicing off nipples and making inmates urinate on each other apparently isn't torture and maltreatment..

Oh, and apparently habeas corpus is some sort of actual physical field that only covers the continental US.

KEEP THE MOOSLIMMS OUT OF THE HABEAS CORPUS FIELD! THEY WILL ESCAPE!

Since when did habeas corpus apply to enemy combatants being detained?


Since always. You do know POWs get a hearing in the field, right?
 
2012-09-30 09:01:36 AM  
um, i thought the US hit 2000 a looong time ago. like 3 years ago. i swear. well, thats like 1000 civilians for every solider! great work guys!`

Im not joking.
 
2012-09-30 09:04:05 AM  
So did the 2000th get a prize, like the millionth customer at a grocery store?
 
2012-09-30 09:05:24 AM  

Kit Fister: Bungles: LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.



Originally it less that Mooslimms have secret super powers (although that's what the main defense has apparently morphed into over 10 years), but rather that if it's not on US soil, slicing off nipples and making inmates urinate on each other apparently isn't torture and maltreatment..

Oh, and apparently habeas corpus is some sort of actual physical field that only covers the continental US.

KEEP THE MOOSLIMMS OUT OF THE HABEAS CORPUS FIELD! THEY WILL ESCAPE!

Since when did habeas corpus apply to enemy combatants being detained?




Since when is a person kidnapped on a connecting flight in Europe and then rendered an "enemy combatant"?

"Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".
 
2012-09-30 09:06:09 AM  

Mugato: So did the 2000th get a prize, like the millionth customer at a grocery store?


i think he got a free funeral. lolol
 
2012-09-30 09:08:58 AM  

Bungles: "Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".


That's why called it the war on terror, which makes about as much sense as the war on the color blue. But it means they can treat anyone like a POW.
 
2012-09-30 09:09:06 AM  

F22raptom: Mugato: So did the 2000th get a prize, like the millionth customer at a grocery store?

i think he got a free funeral. lolol


Actually, he made us pay for it.

/Damn 47%er
//DERP
 
2012-09-30 09:09:16 AM  

Kyle Butler: Would not fill up one panel on the Vietnam memorial


Well then, at least we're not going backwards. Too bad we're not moving forward, either.
 
2012-09-30 09:09:31 AM  

Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)


This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.
 
2012-09-30 09:11:46 AM  

Mugato: Bungles: "Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".

That's why called it the war on terror, which makes about as much sense as the war on the color blue. But it means they can treat anyone like a POW.


Hey congress signed the bill approving a state of war on organizations connected to terrorism. So, yeah, it was just the bush administration.
 
2012-09-30 09:13:17 AM  

06Wahoo: Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)

This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.


We will if there is a clearly articulated strategical goal. Hanging around for ever shifting definitions of 'Success' isn't cutting it.
 
2012-09-30 09:13:58 AM  

Kit Fister: Mugato: Bungles: "Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".

That's why called it the war on terror, which makes about as much sense as the war on the color blue. But it means they can treat anyone like a POW.

Hey congress signed the bill approving a state of war on organizations connected to terrorism. So, yeah, it was just the bush administration.


Show me.
 
2012-09-30 09:14:55 AM  
Not a peep from the non-biased, mainstream media. What would the reaction be if it were George Bush or Mitt Romney in the White House? What would be the reaction if George Bush had released a prisoner from Gitmo and they were involved in a terrorist attack?

Drink the Kool-Aid...
 
2012-09-30 09:17:04 AM  

Mean Daddy: Not a peep from the non-biased, mainstream media. What would the reaction be if it were George Bush or Mitt Romney in the White House? What would be the reaction if George Bush had released a prisoner from Gitmo and they were involved in a terrorist attack?

Drink the Kool-Aid...


Bullshiat. Lead story on CNN's website when I went to bed last night.
 
2012-09-30 09:17:09 AM  

doglover: After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.


You're right occupying anything is dumb, or is this a good occupy? Everyone in this pic is as scraggly as an insurgent its hard to tell anymore
i946.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-30 09:19:37 AM  
their's is not to wonder why
their's is but to do and die.

i still don't understand why people mourn the death of people who signed up to die, and ignore the deaths of the million people who got bombed / shot / 'sploded / raped n killed / torn limb from limb at the hand of the hired killers.
 
2012-09-30 09:21:18 AM  

Mean Daddy: Not a peep from the non-biased, mainstream media. What would the reaction be if it were George Bush or Mitt Romney in the White House? What would be the reaction if George Bush had released a prisoner from Gitmo and they were involved in a terrorist attack?

Drink the Kool-Aid...


I really don't think people are buying that "liberal media" crap much anymore.
 
2012-09-30 09:22:06 AM  

GORDON: He promised to get us out when he ran.


[citation needed]
 
2012-09-30 09:22:40 AM  

MFAWG: Kit Fister: Mugato: Bungles: "Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".

That's why called it the war on terror, which makes about as much sense as the war on the color blue. But it means they can treat anyone like a POW.

Hey congress signed the bill approving a state of war on organizations connected to terrorism. So, yeah, it was just the bush administration.

Show me.


http://peaceispatriotic.org/bills/WarTerror.html
http://peaceispatriotic.org/bills/WarTerror.html#houseVote
http://peaceispatriotic.org/bills/WarTerror.html#senateVote

That's the first hit off of google...
 
2012-09-30 09:22:48 AM  
Well, almost 25,000 civilians have been killed, so we're like way ahead, or something.
 
2012-09-30 09:23:10 AM  
news.bbcimg.co.uk


also, big hoorays for gays openly in the military! kill us some good ones, bois!
 
2012-09-30 09:23:11 AM  

Kit Fister: Actually, every supermax prison that wanted to house the prisoners, or was willing to, got shouted down by the NIMBYs near said prisons who were deathly afraid that they might become targets.


i560.photobucket.com

So, when you wind up with no place to put the inmates, what do you do?

You tell the cowards that if you don't get to put the suspects (have any been found guilty yet? in an actual trial?) in the local supermax, you'll have to let them go home. Maybe that'll change some minds.
 
2012-09-30 09:27:53 AM  
This makes my heart heavy.

Stay safe, my brothers and sisters.

/Witchy is a former Army Infantryman

5/87 INF - Just Cause
2/187th INF Desert Storm
 
2012-09-30 09:28:45 AM  

Onkel Buck: doglover: After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.

You're right occupying anything is dumb, or is this a good occupy? Everyone in this pic is as scraggly as an insurgent its hard to tell anymore
[i946.photobucket.com image 498x397]


I find it sad that Boomers are so quick to mock their own children's activism ... just like their parents did to them. The generation has become the embodiment of hypocrisy.

I guess you do become your (dad/mom). Scientists call it "Age Related Dementia".
 
2012-09-30 09:29:49 AM  

Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)


If I had my way, I'd force all of the people that voted for this crap ( some D's, lots of R's) and most of the talking heads ( Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage) to go over there and fight. Granted, it would be like the Children's Crusade back in the 13th century, but it would teach us to stay far away from that part of the world.
 
2012-09-30 09:31:21 AM  

Uncle Tractor:

You tell the cowards that if you don't get to put the suspects (have any been found guilty yet? in an actual trial?) in the local supermax, you'll have to let them go home. Maybe that'll change some minds.


Okay, and while I admit i was wrong about POWs getting field hearings, that still doesn't mean much...
 
2012-09-30 09:35:41 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)

If I had my way, I'd force all of the people that voted for this crap ( some D's, lots of R's) and most of the talking heads ( Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage) to go over there and fight. Granted, it would be like the Children's Crusade back in the 13th century, but it would teach us to stay far away from that part of the world.


I have to echo the sentiment form upthread about whether or not our country would have the stones to fight another real war, or whether we'd be screaming about the deaths that came in fighting an organized military. Few hundred thousand on D-Day, another few hundred thou at the battle of the bulge...
 
2012-09-30 09:38:13 AM  

06Wahoo: This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.


Peoples attitudes would change if you had a real war situation.

Take the 1930s. People in Britain thought Churchill was a dangerous crank in the early 1930s because he'd read Mein Kampf and told people that this Hitler guy was a farking lunatic and should be dealt with. One piece of history that's often edited out about Chamberlain is that when he returned with his "piece of paper", he was presented at Buckingham Palace, on the balcony, in front of a cheering crowd as he had avoided war. No-one protested as bits of Versailles were ridden over roughshod, or the Jews in Germany were treated like shiat, or as politicians gave the Sudetenland to the Germans.

It was only when people realised that Hitler was going to come for them that they stopped being such nancies and fought, and people fought like crazy.
 
2012-09-30 09:38:57 AM  

Kit Fister:
I have to echo the sentiment form upthread about whether or not our country would have the stones to fight another real war, or whether we'd be screaming about the deaths that came in fighting an organized military. Few hundred thousand on D-Day, another few hundred thou at the battle of the bulge...


Yeah, it's really scary to think that we're coming to see lives as less disposable than we did previously.
 
2012-09-30 09:40:00 AM  

wedun: crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.


I'm liberal, and I support the troops 100%.
It's the government sending them there that I'm getting pissed at.
Let's declare victory and bring them all home NOW.
 
2012-09-30 09:42:43 AM  

modesto: Kit Fister:
I have to echo the sentiment form upthread about whether or not our country would have the stones to fight another real war, or whether we'd be screaming about the deaths that came in fighting an organized military. Few hundred thousand on D-Day, another few hundred thou at the battle of the bulge...

Yeah, it's really scary to think that we're coming to see lives as less disposable than we did previously.


...or that we're unwilling to fight for causes that are actually worth dying for. Do I think the middle east is worth it? Not really, beyond my general conviction that fighting tyrannical and oppressive regimes anywhere you find them is worth it, if it means we can stop the abuse of women and children, or needless suffering. However, if we actually have to fight a war against an organized enemy, then I just hope that we're willing to stand up and fight against them.
 
2012-09-30 09:49:18 AM  

ka1axy: wedun: crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.

I'm liberal, and I support the troops 100%.
It's the government sending them there that I'm getting pissed at.
Let's declare victory and bring them all home NOW.


This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.

How do you defeat an enemy that is fanatical and refuses to understand reason. Unfortunately, today, tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade...we're going to have to deal with these people, just like we have over the last 40+ years. It ain't going to end overnight.
 
2012-09-30 09:51:59 AM  

Kit Fister: How do you defeat an enemy that is fanatical and refuses to understand reason.


I don't know. We could ask the rest of the world how they deal with America.
 
2012-09-30 09:54:42 AM  

Kit Fister: modesto: Kit Fister:
I have to echo the sentiment form upthread about whether or not our country would have the stones to fight another real war, or whether we'd be screaming about the deaths that came in fighting an organized military. Few hundred thousand on D-Day, another few hundred thou at the battle of the bulge...

Yeah, it's really scary to think that we're coming to see lives as less disposable than we did previously.

...or that we're unwilling to fight for causes that are actually worth dying for. Do I think the middle east is worth it? Not really, beyond my general conviction that fighting tyrannical and oppressive regimes anywhere you find them is worth it, if it means we can stop the abuse of women and children, or needless suffering. However, if we actually have to fight a war against an organized enemy, then I just hope that we're willing to stand up and fight against them.


Ahh, the militant humanitarian. I used to feel that way. Cheered when we rolled through kabul. I was an idiot. We have proven ourselves inept at this over and over again. To implement that doctrine we would need to invade Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Syria, Mali, Uganda, Zimbabwe....just to name a few. Can't think of one intervention of our many that could be called successful by your standards.

I for one am happy that we are probably unwilling to engage in mass-casualty warfare. We live in the era of mutually assured destruction, after all. Not sure at what point we will need to prepare for an invasion by China. Of course our aversion to casualties also results in the mass slaughter of civilians by drone. Yay freedom.
 
2012-09-30 09:55:00 AM  

nmemkha: Kit Fister: How do you defeat an enemy that is fanatical and refuses to understand reason.

I don't know. We could ask the rest of the world how they deal with America.


We could do that, but then we could also ask them what they would do if America wasn't there bearing the brunt of the NATO actions they want, and wasn't there haul their asses out of the fire when they couldn't handle it.

But yes, America is bad, horrible, terrible, and a terrorist nation. Let's go with that.

/puke
 
2012-09-30 09:58:31 AM  

modesto: Well, almost 25,000 civilians have been killed, so we're like way ahead, or something.


There would be a lot less if the Taliban wore uniforms and didn't place military units in civilian areas.
 
2012-09-30 10:00:55 AM  

farkeruk: modesto: Well, almost 25,000 civilians have been killed, so we're like way ahead, or something.

There would be a lot less if the Taliban wore uniforms and didn't place military units in civilian areas.


And likely even fewer if we just came home and didn't feel compelled to swing our dick across the entire planet.
 
2012-09-30 10:01:31 AM  
Stop starting wars you can't win, you'll die less.

Oh right... the middle east. You need their oil, they need your democracy.
 
2012-09-30 10:02:18 AM  

Kit Fister: nmemkha: Kit Fister: How do you defeat an enemy that is fanatical and refuses to understand reason.

I don't know. We could ask the rest of the world how they deal with America.

We could do that, but then we could also ask them what they would do if America wasn't there bearing the brunt of the NATO actions they want, and wasn't there haul their asses out of the fire when they couldn't handle it.

But yes, America is bad, horrible, terrible, and a terrorist nation. Let's go with that.

/puke


Ask anyone from a nation that America has "helped" in recent history and see what they say. We would do well to mind our own affairs rather than send our youth half a world away into the midst of the enemy to die all in the name "American Interests" (i.e. those of a few rich old men).
 
2012-09-30 10:03:00 AM  
Stop starting wars you can't win, you'll die less.

Oh right... it's the middle east and you need their oil, they need your democracy. 

How's that working out so far?
 
2012-09-30 10:04:00 AM  

GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.


GOP obstructionism, how does that work?
 
2012-09-30 10:04:19 AM  

Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.


It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.
 
2012-09-30 10:08:02 AM  

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


I'm not really "the opposition" but that's a strange question. What's wrong with the answer, "I would've told them their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries?"


GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.


"My first order as Commander in Chief will be to end the war in Iraq and refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and our broader security interests. ... the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ..." Link 

Obama promised to put more troops into Afghanistan so as to WIN the war there, but it would be completely disingenuous to suggest that he promised to "end" or "get us out of" Afghanistan in the same sense as withdrawing from Iraq.
 
2012-09-30 10:10:48 AM  

modesto: Ahh, the militant humanitarian. I used to feel that way. Cheered when we rolled through kabul. I was an idiot. We have proven ourselves inept at this over and over again. To implement that doctrine we would need to invade Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Syria, Mali, Uganda, Zimbabwe....just to name a few. Can't think of one intervention of our many that could be called successful by your standards.


How are you going to launch an attack on Zimbabwe without the support of South Africa? Where's your supply lines for your troops?
 
2012-09-30 10:10:53 AM  

doglover: After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.


Stupidest comment ever. I'll assume there's sarcasm at play here.
 
2012-09-30 10:11:41 AM  

Mugato: Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.

It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.


You assume that I'm scared of those asshats? Really? I'm not scared of them at all. However, realistically, they will likely keep on doing what they're doing, and people will keep on dying whether we're there or not.

Now, can we discuss things like adults without the insults?
 
2012-09-30 10:12:58 AM  

Kit Fister: Mugato: Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.

It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.

You assume that I'm scared of those asshats? Really? I'm not scared of them at all. However, realistically, they will likely keep on doing what they're doing, and people will keep on dying whether we're there or not.

Now, can we discuss things like adults without the insults?


Sure can. Go get mommy or daddy and tell them someone at Fark would like to speak with them. Okay, sweetpea?
 
2012-09-30 10:13:15 AM  

modesto: And likely even fewer if we just came home and didn't feel compelled to swing our dick across the entire planet.


I'm not a military strategist so can you tell me what happens after that, and whether you'd be happy with those outcomes?
 
2012-09-30 10:14:08 AM  

nmemkha: Kit Fister: Mugato: Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.

It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.

You assume that I'm scared of those asshats? Really? I'm not scared of them at all. However, realistically, they will likely keep on doing what they're doing, and people will keep on dying whether we're there or not.

Now, can we discuss things like adults without the insults?

Sure can. Go get mommy or daddy and tell them someone at Fark would like to speak with them. Okay, sweetpea?


How cute. It's almost like you can't have an honest conversation with someone that doesn't agree with your point of view and have to act like an asshat yourself. So, let's start again. Can we have a discussion like adults without the insults?
 
2012-09-30 10:16:07 AM  

farkeruk: modesto: And likely even fewer if we just came home and didn't feel compelled to swing our dick across the entire planet.

I'm not a military strategist so can you tell me what happens after that, and whether you'd be happy with those outcomes?


Probably the same thing that is happening in Iraq: sectarian war and more civilian casualties. No, I am not happy with it. But you are assuming that our presence makes things better. That there is a positive outcome to be had. I don't see it.
 
2012-09-30 10:17:03 AM  

nmemkha: 2,000 American lives ...

What did we win? How many do we need save up to get another Pocket Dictator?


Pocket Dictators are so 20th Century. The new paradigm is "keep the heathens slaughtering each other so that they won't have time to turn their guns on us".

Get with the program, man.
 
2012-09-30 10:17:05 AM  

Kit Fister: nmemkha: Kit Fister: Mugato: Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.

It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.

You assume that I'm scared of those asshats? Really? I'm not scared of them at all. However, realistically, they will likely keep on doing what they're doing, and people will keep on dying whether we're there or not.

Now, can we discuss things like adults without the insults?

Sure can. Go get mommy or daddy and tell them someone at Fark would like to speak with them. Okay, sweetpea?

How cute. It's almost like you can't have an honest conversation with someone that doesn't agree with your point of view and have to act like an asshat yourself. So, let's start again. Can we have a discussion like adults without the insults?


Sorry that's just how I t... roll. If you're looking for intelligent debate on Fark then you are looking in the wrong place, my delicious new chum.
 
2012-09-30 10:17:47 AM  
Are you still gonna vote for Republicans or Democrats?
 
2012-09-30 10:18:07 AM  

Kit Fister: nmemkha: Kit Fister: Mugato: Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.

It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.

You assume that I'm scared of those asshats? Really? I'm not scared of them at all. However, realistically, they will likely keep on doing what they're doing, and people will keep on dying whether we're there or not.


Exactly....
 
2012-09-30 10:18:29 AM  

Mouser: nmemkha: 2,000 American lives ...

What did we win? How many do we need save up to get another Pocket Dictator?

Pocket Dictators are so 20th Century. The new paradigm is "keep the heathens slaughtering each other so that they won't have time to turn their guns on us".

Get with the program, man.


Sorry, I ditched class to smoke pot with the hottie art teacher.
 
2012-09-30 10:19:13 AM  

modesto: farkeruk: modesto: And likely even fewer if we just came home and didn't feel compelled to swing our dick across the entire planet.

I'm not a military strategist so can you tell me what happens after that, and whether you'd be happy with those outcomes?

Probably the same thing that is happening in Iraq: sectarian war and more civilian casualties. No, I am not happy with it. But you are assuming that our presence makes things better. That there is a positive outcome to be had. I don't see it.


I agree with you. Unfortunately western democracy, morality, and sensibilities mean nothing to them, and don't apply to their way of doing things. The only way they'll find peace is if they find a way to do it themselves.

I'm all for letting them hash it out amongst themselves. We could always invest our dollars in Russian oil and just get the fark out of the middle east.
 
2012-09-30 10:24:06 AM  

doglover: After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.


I somehow think the families of those who died might disagree.

Also, we passed that mark a while ago. The real number is 2126 for US troops and 3191 for all coalition forces.
And nobody really knows the number of civilian casualties.
 
2012-09-30 10:24:12 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I'm not really "the opposition" but that's a strange question. What's wrong with the answer, "I would've told them their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries?"


what, and that's going to stop them or anyone else taking a potshot at you?
 
2012-09-30 10:25:02 AM  

Wyalt Derp: GORDON: He promised to get us out when he ran.

[citation needed]


Here's 65 lies and broken promises... I think it is in 1-65
 
2012-09-30 10:26:48 AM  

farkeruk: modesto: Ahh, the militant humanitarian. I used to feel that way. Cheered when we rolled through kabul. I was an idiot. We have proven ourselves inept at this over and over again. To implement that doctrine we would need to invade Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Syria, Mali, Uganda, Zimbabwe....just to name a few. Can't think of one intervention of our many that could be called successful by your standards.

How are you going to launch an attack on Zimbabwe without the support of South Africa? Where's your supply lines for your troops?


First stage is naval assault on Madagascar. Duh. Why do you hate freedom?
 
2012-09-30 10:29:11 AM  

modesto: farkeruk: modesto: Ahh, the militant humanitarian. I used to feel that way. Cheered when we rolled through kabul. I was an idiot. We have proven ourselves inept at this over and over again. To implement that doctrine we would need to invade Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Syria, Mali, Uganda, Zimbabwe....just to name a few. Can't think of one intervention of our many that could be called successful by your standards.

How are you going to launch an attack on Zimbabwe without the support of South Africa? Where's your supply lines for your troops?

First stage is naval assault on Madagascar. Duh. Why do you hate freedom?


But they just shut down everything...
 
2012-09-30 10:31:12 AM  

Kit Fister: modesto: farkeruk: modesto: Ahh, the militant humanitarian. I used to feel that way. Cheered when we rolled through kabul. I was an idiot. We have proven ourselves inept at this over and over again. To implement that doctrine we would need to invade Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Syria, Mali, Uganda, Zimbabwe....just to name a few. Can't think of one intervention of our many that could be called successful by your standards.

How are you going to launch an attack on Zimbabwe without the support of South Africa? Where's your supply lines for your troops?

First stage is naval assault on Madagascar. Duh. Why do you hate freedom?

But they just shut down everything...


Word on the street is that is all started with some dude in Brazil falling ill.

Its a global conspiracy man.
 
2012-09-30 10:34:15 AM  
>2000

Which, coincidentally, is also the number of golf holes Obama has played as President. So there's that.
 
2012-09-30 10:36:15 AM  
I am said for this article.

But I kind of want to play some BF3 now.
 
2012-09-30 10:42:53 AM  

farkeruk: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I'm not really "the opposition" but that's a strange question. What's wrong with the answer, "I would've told them their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries?"

what, and that's going to stop them or anyone else taking a potshot at you?


There is no practical course of action that is "going to stop them or anyone else taking a potshot at" me.

However, the farking Taliban taking a potshot at me ranks only very slightly above armored velociraptors on my list of things to worry about.
 
2012-09-30 10:44:20 AM  

Pantubo: >2000

Which, coincidentally, is also the number of golf holes Obama has played as President. So there's that.


Still fewer holes than Boehner has logged on GHIN in his time as the third most powerful man in Washington..

YARLY!
 
2012-09-30 10:44:20 AM  

06Wahoo: Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)

This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.


Personally, I think the issue is that spending lives and money on an opponent that isn't really a threat is an issue.

Besides, WWIII is not something I'm worried about winning. If WWIII occurs, we (as in everyone) is so completely farked that I think we could declare mankind to have failed.
 
2012-09-30 10:54:37 AM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x303]

[i.imgur.com image 504x351]

Ah, memories...


www.greatdreams.com

I'll bite
 
2012-09-30 11:08:12 AM  

Kit Fister: MFAWG: Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.

I saw a story last week where some dumbass GOPPER Congressman was hanging on to this talking point for dear life, right up until he got a letter from an actual troop in the field.

Hey, so far they blew up the wtc twice. Not so much anything else since we started fighting them on their own soil. Only terrorists we've dealt with here are some asian dude at virginia tech and two mentally unstable white guys in az and co


I have a magic rock I'd like to sell to you...

/bet you voted for Bush in 04 because he kept America safe, right?
 
2012-09-30 11:22:43 AM  

doglover: Mugato: Yes, because that's what would be happening in the US if we didn't occupy Afganistan.

Obviously.

Have you ever seen the Canadians? They're jealous of our quality beer, classy TV celebrities, and our superior national sport of football. They'd be over that border in a year if we didn't pound some foreign place's capitol into the ground every few years.


You think they're not?

One of my friends is Canadian. Apparently, nobody knew this. He said "Yes, I'm taking your jobs, your women, and your land!"

/he fits in well
 
2012-09-30 11:26:49 AM  

Kit Fister:

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.


So, what you're saying is, you're against cheap illegal-immigrant labor displacing Real American labor?

/think of all of the unemployed domestic terrorists
 
2012-09-30 11:30:21 AM  

Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.


Or typed it.
 
2012-09-30 11:31:13 AM  
Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.
 
2012-09-30 11:32:17 AM  

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that than Afghanistan.


FTFM

/too early to proof read
 
2012-09-30 11:35:05 AM  

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that than Afghanistan.

FTFM

/too early to proof read


That's kinda funny (not like, "ha ha" funny...like 10,000 spoons funny), given your handle there.
 
2012-09-30 11:43:49 AM  

MFAWG: stirfrybry: I must have missed the countdown like the media did for Bush in Iraq. Liberal bias in its most obvious form.

Perfect. You just can't farking see it, can you?

Asshole.


Actually, you really didn't address his point. Just handwaved a superior attitude and called a name.
 
2012-09-30 11:44:34 AM  

GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Yep.
 
2012-09-30 11:45:01 AM  

stirfrybry: I must have missed the countdown like the media did for Bush in Iraq. Liberal bias in its most obvious form.

F*ck you....

wedun:
crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.

F*ck you....


Frederick:
doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

and finally, F*ck you....

Spoken like a true neocon chickenhawk....now STFU and go back to looking for the 'birth certificate'...

 
2012-09-30 11:45:34 AM  

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Yep.
 
2012-09-30 11:48:56 AM  

Shadowtag: Cue the people whose political smugness outweighs their human decency.

/Much respect to those who gave their lives for it.


It must be great being a liberal! You get to talk out of all four sides of your mouth, as needed, without the least twinge of guilt or even embarrassment.
 
2012-09-30 11:53:01 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.


I, personally, would have done precisely fark all about the Taliban, because the Taliban wasn't our f*cking problem. And until you advocate invading every third-world hellhole to teach the Savages the Glory of Democracy, I'll maintain that you, and every other chickenhawk neocon, are full of shiat when you talk about wanting to liberate the poor oppressed Afghanis and Iraqis.
 
2012-09-30 11:54:58 AM  

jso2897: 1973 just called. It said to tell you that wars of occupation suck, and cannot be won by democracies where the leaders running the war are ultimately accountable to things other that their own sociopathic desires. If you simply kill everything that moves and send in your own people to seize the land, then successful occupation is a snap.
Kthnxby.

 
2012-09-30 11:55:40 AM  
In Afghanistan now. Launching a half dozen ICBMs at this place would only improve it. The people don't want to fix their own country. I used to be one of those people that said we should stay until it's done, now... Let's get the FARK out of here. Nothing here but a bunch of backwards people who don't want westernized things. If China want the minerals from the mountains so bad let them come in here and convert the place to a communist country it would work better for everyone.
 
2012-09-30 11:57:00 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.


It's truly not all that complex. You treat people who attempt to do us harm as the criminals they are. You get your shiat together so that a bunch of dudes (saudi, as has been been mentioned) who were living within miles of the NSA can't fly under the radar, as it were. You react proportionally to the threat. You don't bankrupt the country and sell out our core values and the rule of law because of the scawy bearded guys.

What is YOUR solution to elements in Yemen, Saudi, Pakistan (which we have actually payed to kill us to make this entire debacle possible), who would do us harm? Should we be ineffectively trying to run those countries too?
 
2012-09-30 12:06:46 PM  
Can we GTFO now?
 
2012-09-30 12:12:19 PM  
Freedom!
z.about.com

/vet
 
2012-09-30 12:12:49 PM  
This will be zero comfort to any of the family members of the poor 2000 unfortunate soldiers who died there, but to put things in perspective the US lost over 50,000 troops in Viet Nam. In 1968 alone (the worst year for casualties) they exceeded 16,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#United_States_arm e d_forces
 
2012-09-30 12:15:54 PM  

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.


I love statements like this. So devoid of any meaning at all.
 
2012-09-30 12:25:29 PM  

crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.


This
 
2012-09-30 12:27:14 PM  

kim jong-un: 06Wahoo: Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)

This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.

Personally, I think the issue is that spending lives and money on an opponent that isn't really a threat is an issue.

Besides, WWIII is not something I'm worried about winning. If WWIII occurs, we (as in everyone) is so completely farked that I think we could declare mankind to have failed.


It has already begun to occur (IMO). It's inevitable as the continuation of WWII, in the same way that was a continuation of WWI. We have always been at war, in a loose sense.
 
2012-09-30 12:34:29 PM  
Two thousand reasons to vote for Gary Johnson for president.
 
2012-09-30 12:38:10 PM  

gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.

I love statements like this. So devoid of any meaning at all.


It's an interesting statistic and I think the meaning is "Detroit is more dangerous than Afghanistan"
 
2012-09-30 12:40:54 PM  

Electrify: Kit Fister: MFAWG: Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.

I saw a story last week where some dumbass GOPPER Congressman was hanging on to this talking point for dear life, right up until he got a letter from an actual troop in the field.

Hey, so far they blew up the wtc twice. Not so much anything else since we started fighting them on their own soil. Only terrorists we've dealt with here are some asian dude at virginia tech and two mentally unstable white guys in az and co

I have a magic rock I'd like to sell to you...

/bet you voted for Bush in 04 because he kept America safe, right?


Actually, no, I voted third party
 
2012-09-30 12:47:59 PM  

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.

I love statements like this. So devoid of any meaning at all.

It's an interesting statistic and I think the meaning is "Detroit is more dangerous than Afghanistan"


For US citizens, maybe.
 
2012-09-30 12:53:52 PM  

LordJiro: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.

I, personally, would have done precisely fark all about the Taliban, because the Taliban wasn't our f*cking problem. And until you advocate invading every third-world hellhole to teach the Savages the Glory of Democracy, I'll maintain that you, and every other chickenhawk neocon, are full of shiat when you talk about wanting to liberate the poor oppressed Afghanis and Iraqis.


The Taliban - the "legitimate" (i.e.: whatever gang of thugs controls things) government of Afghanistan - hosted OBL and AQ training/operations inside their country. That kind of shiat has to be discouraged. You do that by invading, kicking out the current government, and killing as many of them as possible. That leaves a smoking example for the next group of thugs somewhere else to ponder.
 
2012-09-30 12:58:31 PM  

lenfromak: Two thousand reasons to vote for Gary Johnson for president.


Sounds to me like he's just anti war/big government. Easy stance to take. When he taxes capital gains as income, and executes an exorbitant inheritance tax, I'll give him a shot.

/Former NM resident and current NM land owner.
 
2012-09-30 01:03:53 PM  

modesto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.

It's truly not all that complex. You treat people who attempt to do us harm as the criminals they are. You get your shiat together so that a bunch of dudes (saudi, as has been been mentioned) who were living within miles of the NSA can't fly under the radar, as it were. You react proportionally to the threat. You don't bankrupt the country and sell out our core values and the rule of law because of the scawy bearded guys.

What is YOUR solution to elements in Yemen, Saudi, Pakistan (which we have actually payed to kill us to make this entire debacle possible), who would do us harm? Should we be ineffectively trying to run those countries too?


Hlaf of the populations of those countries are essentially slaves. Send in fleets of B-52 bombers loaded with megatons of.... women's lib articles written in Arabic, small easily-hidden knives, small easily-hidden loaded guns, female contraceptives, and anything else which the subversive female elements (there are a few) there can effectively use. Blanket those countries with all this shiat parachuted down.

Oh, and pics like this:

transition.usaid.gov 

The problems will then solve themselves.
 
2012-09-30 01:16:08 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LordJiro: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.

I, personally, would have done precisely fark all about the Taliban, because the Taliban wasn't our f*cking problem. And until you advocate invading every third-world hellhole to teach the Savages the Glory of Democracy, I'll maintain that you, and every other chickenhawk neocon, are full of shiat when you talk about wanting to liberate the poor oppressed Afghanis and Iraqis.

The Taliban - the "legitimate" (i.e.: whatever gang of thugs controls things) government of Afghanistan - hosted OBL and AQ training/operations inside their country. That kind of shiat has to be discouraged. You do that by invading, kicking out the current government, and killing as many of them as possible. That leaves a smoking example for the next group of thugs somewhere else to ponder.


Yes, cause that's worked fantastically with our buddies the Pakistanis.
 
2012-09-30 01:25:17 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: modesto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: Hlaf of the populations of those countries are essentially slaves. Send in fleets of B-52 bombers loaded with megatons of.... women's lib articles written in Arabic, small easily-hidden knives, small easily-hidden loaded guns, female contraceptives, and anything else which the subversive female elements (there are a few) there can effectively use. Blanket those countries with all this shiat parachuted down.

Oh, and pics like this:

[transition.usaid.gov image 250x297] 

The problems will then solve themselves.


Put that in terms that are actually capable of occurring in the real world, and i totally agree with you. There are plenty of local and international groups working on education, livelihoods, gender issues, contraception, health care and democracy building. Donate your time or money to them. Unfortunately that side of American Exceptionalism (tm) is displayed far less then the "blow something up" kind.
 
2012-09-30 01:35:49 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LordJiro: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.

I, personally, would have done precisely fark all about the Taliban, because the Taliban wasn't our f*cking problem. And until you advocate invading every third-world hellhole to teach the Savages the Glory of Democracy, I'll maintain that you, and every other chickenhawk neocon, are full of shiat when you talk about wanting to liberate the poor oppressed Afghanis and Iraqis.

The Taliban - the "legitimate" (i.e.: whatever gang of thugs controls things) government of Afghanistan - hosted OBL and AQ training/operations inside their country. That kind of shiat has to be discouraged. You do that by invading, kicking out the current government, and killing as many of them as possible. That leaves a smoking example for the next group of thugs somewhere else to ponder.


Yep. And the Khyber Pass had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-09-30 01:40:07 PM  
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
 
2012-09-30 01:41:28 PM  
Okay, now what's the toll for civilian casualties by American fire out there?
 
2012-09-30 01:42:55 PM  

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Not pissed them off to the point where they feel their only option is to get other people to fly planes into buildings.
 
2012-09-30 01:44:22 PM  

Kit Fister: pippi longstocking: Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.

When your enemy hides among civilians, uses them as shields, and has no compunction about killing them with their car bombs and ieds and suicide bombers...what are you supposed to do? How is it, again, we're responsible for the enemy's tactics?


Who do you think pushed them into that corner?
 
2012-09-30 02:00:53 PM  

vudukungfu: Would you like to know more?


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: modesto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.

It's truly not all that complex. You treat people who attempt to do us harm as the criminals they are. You get your shiat together so that a bunch of dudes (saudi, as has been been mentioned) who were living within miles of the NSA can't fly under the radar, as it were. You react proportionally to the threat. You don't bankrupt the country and sell out our core values and the rule of law because of the scawy bearded guys.

What is YOUR solution to elements in Yemen, Saudi, Pakistan (which we have actually payed to kill us to make this entire debacle possible), who would do us harm? Should we be ineffectively trying to run those countries too?

Hlaf of the populations of those countries are essentially slaves. Send in fleets of B-52 bombers loaded with megatons of.... women's lib articles written in Arabic, small easily-hidden knives, small easily-hidden loaded guns, female contraceptives, and anything else which the subversive female elements (there are a few) there can effectively use. Blanket those countries with all this shiat parachuted down.

Oh, and pics like this:

[transition.usaid.gov image 250x297] 

The problems will then solve themselves.


I think I clicked the wrong button - I wanted to know more about snarky Satire, and I clicked the link for darkly amusing naivete.

/Subversive female elements would find themselves betrayed by the pious and terrified elements in short order
//Need a much better plan than relying on the women to do it themselves in a type of society that believes that murdering their own women is done in the name of Allah
 
2012-09-30 02:01:53 PM  
Interesting how not invading someplace a world away and mismanaging a trillion dollars is dubbed a liberal cause. "Balance the budget! GINORMOUS MILITARY!"

Conservative, indeed.
 
2012-09-30 02:11:11 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Not pissed them off to the point where they feel their only option is to get other people to fly planes into buildings.


Exactly. Because we invaded the Middle East so many times from the end of Desert Storm in February 1991 thru September 2001...oh, wait....

/yes I know we were containing Saddam
//been there, done that
 
2012-09-30 02:37:55 PM  

GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Good point. Every other politician lived up to all their campaign promises before now, dammit.
 
2012-09-30 02:42:11 PM  

KrispyKritter: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.

Good point. Every other politician lived up to all their campaign promises before now, dammit.


Nice false equivalency.

/enjoying your change?
 
2012-09-30 02:55:19 PM  
Everybody Jihaf BBQ!

We dont just drop bombs on random houses, we have the marines blow up any house that is remotely suspected of engaging in terrorism. All it takes is a neighbor to say something.
 
2012-09-30 03:27:03 PM  

doglover: After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.


Ho Chi Minh: "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."
 
2012-09-30 03:31:14 PM  

Mugato: Bungles: "Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".

That's why called it the war on terror, which makes about as much sense as the war on the color blue. But it means they can treat anyone like a POW.


Don't be silly. POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention. These are Enemy Combatants(TM)
 
2012-09-30 03:44:10 PM  

Techhell: vudukungfu: Would you like to know more?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: modesto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.

It's truly not all that complex. You treat people who attempt to do us harm as the criminals they are. You get your shiat together so that a bunch of dudes (saudi, as has been been mentioned) who were living within miles of the NSA can't fly under the radar, as it were. You react proportionally to the threat. You don't bankrupt the country and sell out our core values and the rule of law because of the scawy bearded guys.

What is YOUR solution to elements in Yemen, Saudi, Pakistan (which we have actually payed to kill us to make this entire debacle possible), who would do us harm? Should we be ineffectively trying to run those countries too?

Hlaf of the populations of those countries are essentially slaves. Send in fleets of B-52 bombers loaded with megatons of.... women's lib articles written in Arabic, small easily-hidden knives, small easily-hidden loaded guns, female contraceptives, and anything else which the subversive female elements (there are a few) there can effectively use. Blanket those countries with all this shiat parachuted down.

Oh, and pics like this:

[transition.usaid.gov image 250x297] 

The problems will then solve themselves.

I think I clicked the wrong button - I wanted to know more about snarky Satire, and I clicked the link for darkly amusing naivete.

/Subversive female elements would find themselves betrayed by the pious and terrified elements in short order
//Need a much better plan than relying on the women to do it themselves in a type of society that believes that murdering their own women is done in the name of Allah


OH NOESSSSSS.... There is obviously no solution.

You grossly underestimate the sneakily murderous power of women when they get riled up enough and have even the smallest tools.

As for betrayal, hey, it's called revolution and changing things in thug-run nations often costs a lot of blood and sacrifice.

And, of course, these women are all stupid and naive, and would never be able to evaluate potential recruits as to trustworthiness.....
 
2012-09-30 03:54:57 PM  

vegasj: Wyalt Derp: GORDON: He promised to get us out when he ran.

[citation needed]

Here's 65 lies and broken promises... I think it is in 1-65



i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-09-30 03:58:13 PM  
Not surprising this is a BBC link, the rest I blathered on the other day:

While Afghanistan is another Vietman of sorts, its also the opposite in other regards. It seemed not a day went by back in those Vietnam days when dead USA boys, blown up stuff, dead villagers, napalmed kids, all kinds of atrocity was on our nightly news. And thanks to what made it on TV and into the papers, the american public got damn sick of it, young people took up against the government, and made them get us out of that terrible war. And amazingly enough, the viet cong, or communists as they were monikered, didn't take over the world after we basically dumped our stuff and ran out on our 'democratic' ally South Vietnam. And the slaughter of our boys - and thier boys, stopped. Not so much these days, our 'transparent' government hiding the gore from us. Good luck finding any pictures of the Bastion battle and the blown up jump jets and the blown up fueling stations and the dead Marines and dead Al Qaida sappers. Our new 'embedded reporters' are either in bed all the time, or more likely their media bosses in bed with the government. The failures at Benghazi are only making the news now because the government and US news media is forced into it by the Libyans and thier picture phones proving to us what really happened. If not for them, our government and our 'news' media would have been done with it all weeks ago, and all news back to Romney's taxes or Kim Kardasian's not so great ass. And the slaughter of our boys and thier boys continues in afghanistan - not on the news. I say the hell with the embedded reporters and back to the old days with real reporters keeping the government honest with their pictures of the daily gore that continues in afghanistan. In Iraq, at least the media reminded everyday of the body count. Not so much anymore. 25 this month, 261 this year - just the USA ones. Mostly just boys, if you were to see thier faces. No big deal. Back to your comedy channel news now everyone.
 
2012-09-30 04:16:21 PM  

Kit Fister: pippi longstocking: Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.

When your enemy hides among civilians, uses them as shields, and has no compunction about killing them with their car bombs and ieds and suicide bombers...what are you supposed to do? How is it, again, we're responsible for the enemy's tactics?


I think pippie longstocking was referring to our tactic of bombing civilian neighborhoods because we think a suspected terrorist is there.

/Just because they do it doesn't mean we have to
 
2012-09-30 04:31:32 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Kit Fister: pippi longstocking: Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.

When your enemy hides among civilians, uses them as shields, and has no compunction about killing them with their car bombs and ieds and suicide bombers...what are you supposed to do? How is it, again, we're responsible for the enemy's tactics?

Who do you think pushed them into that corner?


You mean besides the massive inequity of forces? The fact that they, the chihuahua of the military world, walked up to the pit bull of the military world, and peed on his face, then took to biting at its ankles and going for anything low-hanging because they don't have the might or size to go head to head?

You'll forgive me if I don't look at the long list of attacks the radical jihadis have carried out against America and other western nations and suddenly feel sorry for the underdog that chose to attack other nations with woefully inadequate means to conduct war.

You seem to think that we should somehow not consider taking the fight to them after they stopped hijacking airlines, blowing up air planes, and making laughably small attempts to take down the WTC, bucked up, and found a way to inflict a pretty goddamn big hit on us, much less their history of trying to make a dent against us, and instead scale our forces and response as though this was a couple of teenagers that just held up a federal bank.

I'm sorry, but you blow up a car in time's square, maybe you get treated like a criminal. You attack an embassy over there, well, that's the cost of doing business and we assist the locals in rounding your asses up. But you fly a jet liner, much less multiple jet liners, into highly populated buildings, causing a death toll that remains one of the highest in a single terrorist attack in history, and you're damn right that we're going to stop looking at this like a bunch of petty criminals running around to a laugh track and yakkity sax and instead look at them as this collection of violent, radical organizations that continuously commit acts of violence against anyone who doesn't follow their particular radical version of the religion.

Quoting west wing, These assholes are to Islam what the Klan is to Christianity. I happen to agree with that. I also happen to agree with the assessment that this is not just a scattered band of rugged individualists throwing of the imperial opressor. I happen to believe that this is a network of groups that coordinate to run a ground war and disrupt attempts by many nations to either ally with the west, or move beyond the brand of islam they believe they should have.

To that end, I believe that we are right and justified in treating them as enemy combatants and not petty criminals, and meeting force with overwhelming force of our own. I also believe that it's right that we support any nation that wants to throw off groups that support these assholes, whether or not they end up ultimately being our bestest buddies. It's the right thing to do because the only way we put these guys out of business is to keep them back on their heels. And the only way we show that region of the world that people actually give a shiat about their wellbeing regardless of their religion is to support their desire to be free, without strings.

If we weren't afraid of pissing off China and Russia, we'd probably have stepped up in Syria like we did in Libya. And Libya, by the way, is a nice example of a people that have stood up and said "we're done with this shiat, thank you for helping, we don't tolerate this shiat any more than you do."

The only way that a kid learns that a hot stove is hot, sometimes, is to stick his hand on the hot stove. Likewise, sometimes kids just need to stick the fork in the electrical socket to figure out you don't do that. And sometimes it takes one kid standing up to the bully on the playground, maybe getting his ass kicked, maybe not, to show the rest of the kids that that bully isn't omnipotent and all powerful.

And, before you ask, I did step up to serve my country, and I would gladly lay down my own life if it meant that we did something to stop this in its tracks and told the world that we don't accept bigotry and hatred in any form, whether it's done by Nazis, by Islamic fanatics, by crusading christian fundies, etc.

The saddest part of the middle east, unfortunately, is that while many understand and want to change, many more are comfortable living like slaves and mice, and don't WANT to stand on their own. Those are the ones you can't teach, and simply have to let them stick their hand on the hot stove for themselves.
 
2012-09-30 04:32:43 PM  

PsiChick: Kit Fister: pippi longstocking: Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.

When your enemy hides among civilians, uses them as shields, and has no compunction about killing them with their car bombs and ieds and suicide bombers...what are you supposed to do? How is it, again, we're responsible for the enemy's tactics?

I think pippie longstocking was referring to our tactic of bombing civilian neighborhoods because we think a suspected terrorist is there.

/Just because they do it doesn't mean we have to


Nope. I've long been an advocate of spending the time, energy, and manpower to put boots on the ground to handle the roach infestation, rather than carpetbombing from orbit.
 
2012-09-30 04:55:19 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: KrispyKritter: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.

Good point. Every other politician lived up to all their campaign promises before now, dammit.

Nice false equivalency.

/enjoying your change?


Actually yes. Yes I am. Plenty of things to biatch about, no question. Am I 100% satisfied with my 2008 vote? Of course not, who the hell would be?

But see, a reasonable person says "that's about as good as can be expected, and a cubic f*ckton better than the alternative."

I'm not going to list the positive things that have happened since 2008. If you can't see that things are a lot better than they could have been, you're beyond reason. If you can't see how bad things were, you're ignorant. Of course it's easy to say how good things could be. So whine some more, then take your ball and go home.

Keep voting party before country, you're really helping your fellow citizens.
 
2012-09-30 05:32:43 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The Taliban - the "legitimate" (i.e.: whatever gang of thugs controls things) government of Afghanistan - hosted OBL and AQ training/operations inside their country. That kind of shiat has to be discouraged. You do that by invading, kicking out the current government, and killing as many of them as possible. That leaves a smoking example for the next group of thugs somewhere else to ponder.


One handed typing detected
 
2012-09-30 06:53:52 PM  

Mugato: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The Taliban - the "legitimate" (i.e.: whatever gang of thugs controls things) government of Afghanistan - hosted OBL and AQ training/operations inside their country. That kind of shiat has to be discouraged. You do that by invading, kicking out the current government, and killing as many of them as possible. That leaves a smoking example for the next group of thugs somewhere else to ponder.

One handed typing detected


Project much?
 
2012-09-30 07:59:27 PM  
They don't have to die. Just bring 'em home.
 
2012-09-30 08:17:36 PM  
Since 2001, more than 2000 people have been murdered in D.C. That isn't even counting surrounding areas like NOVA. I would say for a war that has lasted this long, that causalty toll is remarkably low.
 
2012-09-30 08:43:06 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Since 2001, more than 2000 people have been murdered in D.C. That isn't even counting surrounding areas like NOVA. I would say for a war that has lasted this long, that causalty toll is remarkably low.


So Afghanistan is marginally safer than DC? Color me surprised.
 
2012-09-30 08:49:00 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Since 2001, more than 2000 people have been murdered in D.C. That isn't even counting surrounding areas like NOVA. I would say for a war that has lasted this long, that causalty toll is remarkably low.


Yes it is. If you're a douchebag and only factor in your own casualties.
 
2012-09-30 09:23:51 PM  

Mugato: As for Gitmo, congress shot down funding to close it.


As president Obama has never wanted to close Gitmo, that was just a political position he had to adopt to win in 08. He played Congress into being the fall guys for keeping it open so the more gullible of his supporters would act as if he'd fulfilled his campaign promise and a potentially radioactive issue would drop off the radar.

You only have to contrast Gitmo with the amount of effort and political capital he spent on HCR to see the difference between Obama wanting to achieve an actual substantive change and him being perfectly content with the status quo provided he appeared to be on the right side of the issue
 
2012-09-30 09:30:03 PM  

Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.


I dont think you have the capacity to think through your scenarios. You see those things you are worried about simply arent happening at a rate any greater than any other crime in our country. So to engage American troops in a foreign land against foreign people is counter-productive to discouraging what you are trying to prevent.

If America truly had an enemy to fight, I'd rather make them come here and do it. Part of the problem is in redefining crime as terrorism. We are not fighting countries, we're fighting criminals. America cannot wipe out crime. Crime will always occur. Do not be afraid. Land of the brave -act like it.
 
2012-09-30 10:06:44 PM  

LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.


Well yeah, duh! Ever hear of The Bay of Pigs?

/well, I thought it was funny
 
2012-09-30 10:51:11 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I think I clicked the wrong button - I wanted to know more about snarky Satire, and I clicked the link for darkly amusing naivete.

/Subversive female elements would find themselves betrayed by the pious and terrified elements in short order
//Need a much better plan than relying on the women to do it themselves in a type of society that believes that murdering their own women is done in the name of Allah

OH NOESSSSSS.... There is obviously no solution.

You grossly underestimate the sneakily murderous power of women when they get riled up enough and have even the smallest tools.

As for betrayal, hey, it's called revolution and changing things in thug-run nations often costs a lot of blood and sacrifice.

And, of course, these women are all stupid and naive, and would never be able to evaluate potential recruits as to trustworthiness.....


Point 1: Sneakily murderous power of upset women.
a) They have all the tools they need to kill the men in their lives.
b) They have had all the tools they need for that since before Islam arrived on the scene, and they will continue to have all the tools they need.
c) Who the fark do you think cooks all the farking meals for these farking oppressive men, you farking idiot? The camels?

Point 2: Costs a lot in blood and sacrifice.
a) And women in particular tend to set the limit for blood and sacrifice quite a bit lower than men. Particularly when they are being asked to kill their fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, nephews, cousins and sons. Their own flesh and blood.
ai) The only males that most of these women can be in contact with... hmm. That's not going to be a problem is it?
b) Even menfolk have a wee bit of trouble killing their own flesh and blood. Kill the father of the guy who killed your brother? Not a problem. Kill your own brother and your own father? There's a bit of a problem there.

Point 3: Naivete and lack of intelligence in choosing conspirators.
a) It only takes one woman or girl to spill the beans, and the rest are dead.
b) All it takes is for one woman to decide that they know their male relative better than the other women who want her to kill him, to have compassion for a son she thinks she can guide to the "right" path, and for that woman to intentionally or unintentionally betray her plans and the whole thing is dead in the desert. Literally.
c) All it takes is one woman who is working for Allah (in her eyes, anyway) to protect her father the way he has always protected her to decide to sacrifice herself by joining one of these cells of murderous woman, find out all she can and then sacrifice her own life to have them killed, saving her father from being murdered and serving Allah as best she can.


Take your head out of your arse and stop looking at this with your own values and biases. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, that is what is going to have us leaving this mess with our tails between our legs, and what is going to ensure that 15 years from now Afghanistan is going to be functionally identical to the Afghanistan of 15 years ago. We ride in on our choppers and tanks, flashing our culture everywhere and expect that people are going to decide to follow our lead after they see how wonderful it is. And our reaction when we find out that most of them don't want to follow our lead? Just try harder?

/Yeah, NATO and the USA are going to be the butt of many jokes in Afghanistan for the next few generations.
 
2012-10-01 12:15:43 AM  
While it's a sad thing that these people are getting killed over there, it's not like anyone said the military was going to be a safe, cushy job.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-01 12:24:06 AM  

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Uh, isn't that kind of a relevant retort? I mean, if you didn't run for President or Prime Minister, you obviously don't think you're capable of coming up with a great plan, right? And isn't objecting to, say, the drone war that kills a bunch of civilians and targets rescue workers and funerals, an OK thing to do even if you don't think you're fit to be the chief executive, or able to design/engineer/produce a better drone or perfect IFF AI?

Besides, the Taliban just delivered the US' worst air power loss since the Tet Offensive, so I'm not sure how good we're really even doing with the current plan.
 
2012-10-01 12:59:26 AM  

Techhell: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I think I clicked the wrong button - I wanted to know more about snarky Satire, and I clicked the link for darkly amusing naivete.

/Subversive female elements would find themselves betrayed by the pious and terrified elements in short order
//Need a much better plan than relying on the women to do it themselves in a type of society that believes that murdering their own women is done in the name of Allah

OH NOESSSSSS.... There is obviously no solution.

You grossly underestimate the sneakily murderous power of women when they get riled up enough and have even the smallest tools.

As for betrayal, hey, it's called revolution and changing things in thug-run nations often costs a lot of blood and sacrifice.

And, of course, these women are all stupid and naive, and would never be able to evaluate potential recruits as to trustworthiness.....

Point 1: Sneakily murderous power of upset women.
a) They have all the tools they need to kill the men in their lives.
b) They have had all the tools they need for that since before Islam arrived on the scene, and they will continue to have all the tools they need.
c) Who the fark do you think cooks all the farking meals for these farking oppressive men, you farking idiot? The camels?

Point 2: Costs a lot in blood and sacrifice.
a) And women in particular tend to set the limit for blood and sacrifice quite a bit lower than men. Particularly when they are being asked to kill their fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, nephews, cousins and sons. Their own flesh and blood.
ai) The only males that most of these women can be in contact with... hmm. That's not going to be a problem is it?
b) Even menfolk have a wee bit of trouble killing their own flesh and blood. Kill the father of the guy who killed your brother? Not a problem. Kill your own brother and your own father? There's a bit of a problem there.

Point 3: Naivete and lack of intelligence in choosing conspirators.
a) It only takes one woman or gi ...


OK, you've got some very valid points.

So what's the answer? Glass parking lot? Everyone convert to Islam? What?

Your call....
 
2012-10-01 02:16:49 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: Since 2001, more than 2000 people have been murdered in D.C. That isn't even counting surrounding areas like NOVA. I would say for a war that has lasted this long, that causalty toll is remarkably low.


Except this "war" should have lasted about 18 months tops, but we got bogged down looking for invisible WMDs.
 
2012-10-01 02:22:35 AM  

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.

I love statements like this. So devoid of any meaning at all.

It's an interesting statistic and I think the meaning is "Detroit is more dangerous than Afghanistan"


It's not an interesting statistic. How many American citizens live in Detroit? How many American citizens are in Afghanistan? Compare the per-capita death rate for the two groups and you'll find that Afghanistan is indeed much more dangerous and thus your statistic about the the number of murders in Detroit is MEANINGLESS. Statements and "statistics" like the one you've championed are fodder for the emotional soapbox crowd who want to seem outraged/educated on a topic until they quietly retreat to the comforts of their living rooms and the latest garbage reality show, satisfied at having fulfilled their daily requirement to sound like a total dumbass.

fark.
 
2012-10-01 04:01:23 AM  
It's time to bring the boys back home...

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-01 07:28:01 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: OK, you've got some very valid points.

So what's the answer? Glass parking lot? Everyone convert to Islam? What?

Your call....


My answer is to let them work it out on their own. Show them what we have, keep the offer of aid on the table at all times but wait for them to come out individually. We can't impose anything on them unilaterally - it has to be their choice, when they choose it. It can't follow our timetables, which are tied to our election cycles and so if there isn't progress in 2 - 6 years, it's an utter failure and we need to do something different. We need to think in generational terms - we influence the mothers and young women of today, let them figure out how to work new freedoms into their culture and Islam on their own. Then they need to figure out how to best convince the men to allow the changes. Then we need to be there to help them make those changes. That's at least 2 generations, possibly three or four.

With no guarantee that they will choose something we like. And we need to accept that fact right now, at the beginning.
 
2012-10-01 09:21:14 AM  

Frederick: Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.

I dont think you have the capacity to think through your scenarios. You see those things you are worried about simply arent happening at a rate any greater than any other crime in our country. So to engage American troops in a foreign land against foreign people is counter-productive to discouraging what you are trying to prevent.

If America truly had an enemy to fight, I'd rather make them come here and do it. Part of the problem is in redefining crime as terrorism. We are not fighting countries, we're fighting criminals. America cannot wipe out crime. Crime will always occur. Do not be afraid. Land of the brave -act like it.


I more than have the capacity to think through my scenarios. I simply have a fundamentally different position than you: I don't see acts of terrorism as a crime, because as a crime, that would suggest it happened under american law. Attacks on military targets, or civilian targets, of the type that are happening both here AND overseas, are military attacks whether you believe that they are or not, and simply aren't covered under our law, because our laws don't apply to anyone who is not a US Citizen.

And, I'm not afraid. Not one Iota. as I have said before: I'll be first in line to go fight over there. I lined up before, and I will again. I will continue to agree that I'd rather fight these asshats and keep them busy outside of our borders so as to minimize damage and loss of life over here. Call me selfish, but I much prefer to make them kill their own and fight amongst their own homes than to come over here and make them do it amongst ours.
 
2012-10-01 09:22:25 AM  

Techhell: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: OK, you've got some very valid points.

So what's the answer? Glass parking lot? Everyone convert to Islam? What?

Your call....

My answer is to let them work it out on their own. Show them what we have, keep the offer of aid on the table at all times but wait for them to come out individually. We can't impose anything on them unilaterally - it has to be their choice, when they choose it. It can't follow our timetables, which are tied to our election cycles and so if there isn't progress in 2 - 6 years, it's an utter failure and we need to do something different. We need to think in generational terms - we influence the mothers and young women of today, let them figure out how to work new freedoms into their culture and Islam on their own. Then they need to figure out how to best convince the men to allow the changes. Then we need to be there to help them make those changes. That's at least 2 generations, possibly three or four.

With no guarantee that they will choose something we like. And we need to accept that fact right now, at the beginning.


The problem with that is we have to have some way of keeping them engaged in their own lands, which they are not content to do right now. Instead, they choose to leak out of their own lands and come fight here, or in France, or the UK, or any number of other places. That's unacceptable. If they were content to kill each other in their own region, I'd agree with you.
 
2012-10-01 10:41:28 AM  
Kit Fister: don't see acts of terrorism as a crime, because as a crime, that would suggest it happened under american law

Errrr...I'm pretty sure other countries have criminal law too. There is even an entire organization dedicated to helping law enforcement agencies cooperate across borders. Enforcement is the problem, but saying they aren't criminals because they aren't violating US specific law doesn't make sense.
 
2012-10-01 10:45:19 AM  

Kit Fister: \
The problem with that is we have to have some way of keeping them engaged in their own lands, which they are not content to do right now. Instead, they choose to leak out of their own lands and come fight here, or in France, or the UK, or any number of other places. That's unacceptable. If they were content to kill each other in their own region, I'd agree with you.


I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement coming from an american.

s7.postimage.org
 
2012-10-01 11:12:39 AM  

modesto: Kit Fister: \
The problem with that is we have to have some way of keeping them engaged in their own lands, which they are not content to do right now. Instead, they choose to leak out of their own lands and come fight here, or in France, or the UK, or any number of other places. That's unacceptable. If they were content to kill each other in their own region, I'd agree with you.

I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement coming from an american.

[s7.postimage.org image 650x500]


Really hard to say the same thing any better than you did, Modesto. And even with the violent aspect of them leaking over here and causing the sort of massive damage they did on 9/11, and the minor damage they did in England and Spain a few years later, the majority of their violence is done against one another in their home countries, and against the "invaders" (ie: Us. USA and NATO for the most part) who are stationed there.

And really, we don't want them to be isolated over there - we want them to be able to come here and see how we live. To see us in our everyday lives, warts and all. We want them to bring their large families over here and see how we treat our mothers, sisters and daughters, see that while we aren't perfect in any way, we can have a powerful and functional society that doesn't require the female half of our population to be under constant surveillance and threat of death. To show the women in those societies that women can have just as much of a public impact on a society as the men, to give them something to strive for. I'll take the small number of terrorists that come over (and really... since 9/11 how prevalent has terrorism been in the continental North America? Almost non-existent?) in order to bring over the moderate aspect.

You know, the aspect who is most likely to look at a woman like Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice and say "Their women can do that. Why can't ours?" and may actually start to push their own women to be better than their society says they should be?
 
2012-10-01 11:27:01 AM  

modesto: Kit Fister: don't see acts of terrorism as a crime, because as a crime, that would suggest it happened under american law

Errrr...I'm pretty sure other countries have criminal law too. There is even an entire organization dedicated to helping law enforcement agencies cooperate across borders. Enforcement is the problem, but saying they aren't criminals because they aren't violating US specific law doesn't make sense.


So, what, we treat them as common criminals and stop even making the atempt to stop them in their tracks?
 
2012-10-01 11:29:40 AM  

modesto: Kit Fister: \
The problem with that is we have to have some way of keeping them engaged in their own lands, which they are not content to do right now. Instead, they choose to leak out of their own lands and come fight here, or in France, or the UK, or any number of other places. That's unacceptable. If they were content to kill each other in their own region, I'd agree with you.

I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement coming from an american.


Right, because asking permission to station troops, or being asked to station troops under defense agreements, and simple having a base somewhere is totally the same thing, and we totally go around killing people outside of designated war zones (and I also believe its shameful to keep attacking inside places like pakistan without a formal declaration of war, but who knows, maybe we've been given permission privately in exchange for aid...)
 
2012-10-01 11:32:45 AM  

Techhell: modesto: Kit Fister: \
The problem with that is we have to have some way of keeping them engaged in their own lands, which they are not content to do right now. Instead, they choose to leak out of their own lands and come fight here, or in France, or the UK, or any number of other places. That's unacceptable. If they were content to kill each other in their own region, I'd agree with you.

I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement coming from an american.

[s7.postimage.org image 650x500]

Really hard to say the same thing any better than you did, Modesto. And even with the violent aspect of them leaking over here and causing the sort of massive damage they did on 9/11, and the minor damage they did in England and Spain a few years later, the majority of their violence is done against one another in their home countries, and against the "invaders" (ie: Us. USA and NATO for the most part) who are stationed there.

And really, we don't want them to be isolated over there - we want them to be able to come here and see how we live. To see us in our everyday lives, warts and all. We want them to bring their large families over here and see how we treat our mothers, sisters and daughters, see that while we aren't perfect in any way, we can have a powerful and functional society that doesn't require the female half of our population to be under constant surveillance and threat of death. To show the women in those societies that women can have just as much of a public impact on a society as the men, to give them something to strive for. I'll take the small number of terrorists that come over (and really... since 9/11 how prevalent has terrorism been in the continental North America? Almost non-existent?) in order to bring over the moderate aspect.

You know, the aspect who is most likely to look at a woman like Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice and say "Their women can do that. Why can't ours?" and may actually start to push their own women to be better than their society says they should be?


And you really think that happens? The women over there are even more vicious about it that the men
 
2012-10-01 11:34:07 AM  

gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.

I love statements like this. So devoid of any meaning at all.

It's an interesting statistic and I think the meaning is "Detroit is more dangerous than Afghanistan"

It's not an interesting statistic. How many American citizens live in Detroit? How many American citizens are in Afghanistan? Compare the per-capita death rate for the two groups and you'll find that Afghanistan is indeed much more dangerous and thus your statistic about the the number of murders in Detroit is MEANINGLESS. Statements and "statistics" like the one you've championed are fodder for the emotional soapbox crowd who want to seem outraged/educated on a topic until they quietly retreat to the comforts of their living rooms and the latest garbage reality show, satisfied at having fulfilled their daily requirement to sound like a total dumbass.

fark.
DERP


FTFY

So you're saying it's not dangerous to live in Detroit? Statistics like that champion the fact that there are real problems here at home. How is that a bad thing? Increasing awareness that it's a dangerous farking city and needs help by any means necessary is a good thing. Try moving out of your bubble up north to the real hood. Then see how much fun it is to ignore the problems.
 
2012-10-01 12:44:27 PM  

MFAWG: Remember when pointing out casualty figures was a form of treason? Good times!


So when is Gen. Westmoreland due to be hanged?
 
2012-10-01 12:49:59 PM  

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Launched the cruise missiles at bin Laden in the 1990s? But Qatari princes were visiting the camp then, and the Davos crowd stick together, so that was a no-go.

Shot down the Paki helicopters carrying bin Laden out of the Tora Bora in 2001? Oh wait the Bushes and the bin Ladens are buddies; same excuse applies.

There were no Afghan Taliban 2001 hijackers.
 
2012-10-01 05:11:52 PM  

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: gnarr: detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: Since the US invaded more US citizens have been killed in Detroit that Afghanistan.

I love statements like this. So devoid of any meaning at all.

It's an interesting statistic and I think the meaning is "Detroit is more dangerous than Afghanistan"

It's not an interesting statistic. How many American citizens live in Detroit? How many American citizens are in Afghanistan? Compare the per-capita death rate for the two groups and you'll find that Afghanistan is indeed much more dangerous and thus your statistic about the the number of murders in Detroit is MEANINGLESS. Statements and "statistics" like the one you've championed are fodder for the emotional soapbox crowd who want to seem outraged/educated on a topic until they quietly retreat to the comforts of their living rooms and the latest garbage reality show, satisfied at having fulfilled their daily requirement to sound like a total dumbass.

fark. DERP

FTFY

So you're saying it's not dangerous to live in Detroit? Statistics like that champion the fact that there are real problems here at home. How is that a bad thing? Increasing awareness that it's a dangerous farking city and needs help by any means necessary is a good thing. Try moving out of your bubble up north to the real hood. Then see how much fun it is to ignore the problems.


Used to live in Ferndale two blocks north of 8 mile. Think the problems stop at 8 mile? Guess again. I won't even get into some of the other communities I've lived in, such as Killeen, TX.

You are pretty farking hilarious to tell me to get out of my bubble when you hail from Grosse Pointe. The derp is particularly strong....with you.
 
2012-10-01 06:44:10 PM  

Kit Fister: Techhell: Really hard to say the same thing any better than you did, Modesto. And even with the violent aspect of them leaking over here and causing the sort of massive damage they did on 9/11, and the minor damage they did in England and Spain a few years later, the majority of their violence is done against one another in their home countries, and against the "invaders" (ie: Us. USA and NATO for the most part) who are stationed there.

And really, we don't want them to be isolated over there - we want them to be able to come here and see how we live. To see us in our everyday lives, warts and all. We want them to bring their large families over here and see how we treat our mothers, sisters and daughters, see that while we aren't perfect in any way, we can have a powerful and functional society that doesn't require the female half of our population to be under constant surveillance and threat of death. To show the women in those societies that women can have just as much of a public impact on a society as the men, to give them something to strive for. I'll take the small number of terrorists that come over (and really... since 9/11 how prevalent has terrorism been in the continental North America? Almost non-existent?) in order to bring over the moderate aspect.

You know, the aspect who is most likely to look at a woman like Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice and say "Their women can do that. Why can't ours?" and may actually start to push their own women to be better than their society says they should be?

And you really think that happens? The women over there are even more vicious about it that the men


Hence why I made the distinction between the terrorist/fanatic aspect and the moderate aspect. And I know it happens in a small segment of the population who leave Afghanistan or other Muslim countries and come to North America - I've worked with women who came with their husbands to Canada. They get here, they and their husbands find that one paycheque isn't enough for them to afford to live, so the wife has to get a job. (In the cases I know of personally, call centre jobs.) They start off wearing the hijab and staying far away from men in the call centre unless they absolutely need help. They fumble and bumble when they have to talk to a man over the phone. They are deferential and submissive towards any male in authority. They keep to themselves unless they absolutely need something from someone.

Then a few months down the line for some, it gets easier to talk to men over the phone. It gets easier to talk to the experienced agents who are men when they need help and a supervisor isn't available. They get more comfortable talking to the women in the call centre on more personal subjects. As they talk to people face to face their English improves and they get more confident. This is as far as many go - when i was working there, many would ask me for help if they couldn't go to a supervisor in a timely manner. Outside of that, they might smile politely to me as we walked by one another, but being a male who isn't a relative, I'm not someone they really want to be social with.

For a very, very small number - maybe 5 in my six years working in call centres (hence the handle "Tech Hell") - they removed the hijab completely. They would talk to me in the lunch room, or on the bus ride home if we rode the same bus. They would wish me a merry Christmas or happy Easter on the appropriate holidays. It may not sound like much, but when they started by trying to avoid me entirely, someone voluntarily saying "Merry Christmas" on a public bus is a hell of a step.

We can't simply isolate them and hope they change themselves to reach our standards. We need to allow them to come over here, to live among us and to experience our values and see them in action. They need to see that they don't have to choose to abandon their entire culture to embrace the best of ours - they can blend the two. That's something we can't do for them at all - they have to do that for themselves, if they want to. All we can do is to keep the door open and be the best role models we can be for them.
 
2012-10-01 07:06:35 PM  

Techhell: Kit Fister: Techhell: Really hard to say the same thing any better than you did, Modesto. And even with the violent aspect of them leaking over here and causing the sort of massive damage they did on 9/11, and the minor damage they did in England and Spain a few years later, the majority of their violence is done against one another in their home countries, and against the "invaders" (ie: Us. USA and NATO for the most part) who are stationed there.

And really, we don't want them to be isolated over there - we want them to be able to come here and see how we live. To see us in our everyday lives, warts and all. We want them to bring their large families over here and see how we treat our mothers, sisters and daughters, see that while we aren't perfect in any way, we can have a powerful and functional society that doesn't require the female half of our population to be under constant surveillance and threat of death. To show the women in those societies that women can have just as much of a public impact on a society as the men, to give them something to strive for. I'll take the small number of terrorists that come over (and really... since 9/11 how prevalent has terrorism been in the continental North America? Almost non-existent?) in order to bring over the moderate aspect.

You know, the aspect who is most likely to look at a woman like Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice and say "Their women can do that. Why can't ours?" and may actually start to push their own women to be better than their society says they should be?

And you really think that happens? The women over there are even more vicious about it that the men

Hence why I made the distinction between the terrorist/fanatic aspect and the moderate aspect. And I know it happens in a small segment of the population who leave Afghanistan or other Muslim countries and come to North America - I've worked with women who came with their husbands to Canada. They get here, they and their husbands find that one paycheque isn't enough for them to afford to live, so the wife has to get a job. (In the cases I know of personally, call centre jobs.) They start off wearing the hijab and staying far away from men in the call centre unless they absolutely need help. They fumble and bumble when they have to talk to a man over the phone. They are deferential and submissive towards any male in authority. They keep to themselves unless they absolutely need something from someone.

Then a few months down the line for some, it gets easier to talk to men over the phone. It gets easier to talk to the experienced agents who are men when they need help and a supervisor isn't available. They get more comfortable talking to the women in the call centre on more personal subjects. As they talk to people face to face their English improves and they get more confident. This is as far as many go - when i was working there, many would ask me for help if they couldn't go to a supervisor in a timely manner. Outside of that, they might smile politely to me as we walked by one another, but being a male who isn't a relative, I'm not someone they really want to be social with.

For a very, very small number - maybe 5 in my six years working in call centres (hence the handle "Tech Hell") - they removed the hijab completely. They would talk to me in the lunch room, or on the bus ride home if we rode the same bus. They would wish me a merry Christmas or happy Easter on the appropriate holidays. It may not sound like much, but when they started by trying to avoid me entirely, someone voluntarily saying "Merry Christmas" on a public bus is a hell of a step.

We can't simply isolate them and hope they change themselves to reach our standards. We need to allow them to come over here, to live among us and to experience our values and see them in action. They need to see that they don't have to choose to abandon their entire culture to embrace the best of ours - they can blend the two. That's something we can't do for them at all - they have to do that for themselves, if they want to. All we can do is to keep the door open and be the best role models we can be for them.


And, we can do our best with any means at our disposal to disappear the ones so fanatical that they would send people over after those women and kill them for what they've done. And that does happen.

You want to encoure that aspect, great. But don't expect it to happen without a fight
 
Displayed 200 of 200 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report