Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Daily Caller)   By the way, we won the Iraq war   (dailycaller.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, Iraq, Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq  
•       •       •

7385 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2013 at 1:42 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-09 11:40:54 AM  
Oh yeah, what did we win?  And at what cost did we win it?  Sure 1000 times the blood and treasure we expected based on the Republican leaderships promises, lies, and short sighted estimates.  And we put the same people in charge of Iraq that threw us out of Iran.  Mission accomplished
 
2013-04-09 11:43:50 AM  
We shouldn't have fought it in the first place.
 
2013-04-09 11:45:26 AM  
One more victory like that and we are surely lost.
 
2013-04-09 11:46:42 AM  
The guy who is now in charge of Iraq appreciates us helping him get there?  I. am. shocked.
 
2013-04-09 11:48:20 AM  
GWB is a hero, get over it.
 
2013-04-09 11:50:53 AM  
Here I thought it was the biggest mistake ever, by the most evil president ever. At least that's what I've been told again and again by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left.

Someone wanna tell this guy you can win a war or lose a war but that says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the war?
 
2013-04-09 11:59:44 AM  
"Despite all the problems of the past decade, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree that we're better off today than under Hussein's brutal dictatorship.
Iraqis will remain grateful for the U.S. role and for the losses sustained by military and civilian personnel that contributed in ending Hussein's rule. These losses pale by comparison, of course, to those sustained by the Iraqi people."

For truth.
 
2013-04-09 12:01:30 PM  
Yep.  We won.  Us, and Iran.
 
2013-04-09 12:02:43 PM  
so... nation building was the reason for the war? not mushroom clouds and 9/11? well, why didn't bush say so?

and when are we going to liberate syria, north korea, zimbabwe, and west virginia?
 
2013-04-09 12:04:37 PM  
I thought we were supposed to get some yellow cake after or something.

cache.boston.com
 
2013-04-09 12:10:50 PM  
Yes, just as I won that war with the canoe by punching a hole in it.

Sure, I got wet, but I won dammit!
 
2013-04-09 12:13:27 PM  
Wait, we were at war? When did this happen?
 
2013-04-09 12:22:12 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.


And has never made a mistake, and if you don't believe that, just ask him. Or Darth Cheney.
 
2013-04-09 12:23:31 PM  

FlashHarry: so... nation building was the reason for the war? not mushroom clouds and 9/11? well, why didn't bush say so?

and when are we going to liberate syria, north korea, zimbabwe, and west virginia?


And Cuba.
 
2013-04-09 12:25:11 PM  
By that logic, we should also preemptively invade Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea (this may happen), Venezuela, [insert rabble of African countries], and jam our freedom down their throats too!
 
2013-04-09 12:28:19 PM  

make me some tea: By that logic, we should also preemptively invade Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea (this may happen), Venezuela, [insert rabble of African countries], and jam our freedom down their throats too!


If I told you that over a decade from now the governments we installed in those countries would thank us wouldn't it be totally worth the expense and loss of life?

"LET'S ROLL!"
 
2013-04-09 12:34:54 PM  

James!: make me some tea: By that logic, we should also preemptively invade Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea (this may happen), Venezuela, [insert rabble of African countries], and jam our freedom down their throats too!

If I told you that over a decade from now the governments we installed in those countries would thank us wouldn't it be totally worth the expense and loss of life?

"LET'S ROLL!"


You mean the corrupt, oppressive governments we installed? F*CK YEAH MERICA
 
2013-04-09 12:35:34 PM  

make me some tea: James!: make me some tea: By that logic, we should also preemptively invade Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea (this may happen), Venezuela, [insert rabble of African countries], and jam our freedom down their throats too!

If I told you that over a decade from now the governments we installed in those countries would thank us wouldn't it be totally worth the expense and loss of life?

"LET'S ROLL!"

You mean the corrupt, oppressive governments we installed? F*CK YEAH MERICA


Who cares if they're corrupt if they greet us as liberators!? EAGLE FLAG BOOBS!
 
2013-04-09 12:40:42 PM  

netizencain: "Despite all the problems of the past decade, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree that we're better off today than under Hussein's brutal dictatorship.
Iraqis will remain grateful for the U.S. role and for the losses sustained by military and civilian personnel that contributed in ending Hussein's rule. These losses pale by comparison, of course, to those sustained by the Iraqi people."

For truth.


I wonder what the couple hundred thousand dead or displaced persons say to being better off than before.
 
2013-04-09 12:47:17 PM  

keiverarrow: Oh yeah, what did we win?


You aren't from America, are you?
 
2013-04-09 12:47:57 PM  
I just won the war with my cheese grater.

Sure, there's blood in my grated cheddar and I've lost most of a fingertip, BUT I WON DAMMIT!
 
2013-04-09 12:49:10 PM  
That cheese grater was a direct threat to the security of the cabinets.
 
2013-04-09 12:49:12 PM  

Rev.K: I just won the war with my cheese grater.

Sure, there's blood in my grated cheddar and I've lost most of a fingertip, BUT I WON DAMMIT!


At least at the end of that you have cheese.  What is the Iraq cheese?
 
2013-04-09 12:51:21 PM  
Sure doesn't feel like it.
 
2013-04-09 12:51:37 PM  
I can't wait for the tenth anniversary of this:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-09 12:53:55 PM  
To the winner goes the spoils six trillion dollar clean-up bill.
 
2013-04-09 12:55:39 PM  
Well, that's weird. That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?

Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?


We're seriously having a conversation about an opinion piece in the Daily Caller - like it matters?
 
2013-04-09 01:04:23 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.


Wandered by looking for Plutarch quoting Pyrrhus; thank you.
 
2013-04-09 01:07:37 PM  
I liked his subtle jab at Morrissey.
 
2013-04-09 01:09:11 PM  
Oh, and checking the piece.... the guy saying it is the current head of the teetering Iraqi state, who has a vested interest in pretending the results are a stable and secure government, and that people think the results are an improvement.

How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving....
 
2013-04-09 01:09:35 PM  
A recent headline:

20 killed, 54 wounded in suicide bombing in eastern Iraq Yeah, things have changed so much. The Iraqi government doesn't all hate us, so if that's the definition of victory, then we won. Why did we bother in the first place again? What threat did they pose to us apart from the one we found out was false? I would say that the Iraqi people probably hate us more than ever, since we utterly destroyed--and did not rebuild--their infrastructure.
 
2013-04-09 01:13:47 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.


Had the post-invasion strategy been more pragmatic, and taken less of a black and white perspective toward the Baathist bureaucracy, the whole thing would have been over 8 years and six trillion dollars ago and you would be a lot closer to being correct.

However blind arrogance, a lack of appreciation for nuance and realpolitick, and generalized gross incompetence in the Bush administration made that a complete impossibility.
 
2013-04-09 01:14:38 PM  
From a military standpoint, if we DIDN'T win a war against Iraq, that would be pretty farking pathetic,
 
2013-04-09 01:21:02 PM  

FlashHarry: and when are we going to liberate syria, north korea, zimbabwe, and west virginia?


change West Virginia to Kansas, and I'm in.
 
2013-04-09 01:27:26 PM  
Pyrrhic Victory
 
2013-04-09 01:32:24 PM  

vartian: Well, that's weird. That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?

Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?

We're seriously having a conversation about an opinion piece in the Daily Caller - like it matters?


I didn't click, so I don't know who the author is, but I imagine Tucker Carlson saying this, with his stupid smug face and little bow-tie, and it brings about unhealthy emotions.
 
2013-04-09 01:38:53 PM  
I'm not sure you can honestly say we won or lost that war.  It just happened.  We knocked down the regime, if that's the criteria for victory, what were we sticking around for a decade for?
 
2013-04-09 01:39:31 PM  
We seized all of Saddam's massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, caught Osama bin Laden hiding in Baghdad spooning with Saddam, U.S. troops were out in six weeks, and the war paid for itself.  Just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz promised.

SUCK IT, LIBS.
 
2013-04-09 01:41:00 PM  
Of COURSE we won. To admit otherwise is to acknowledge that we committed the most expensive and idiotic mistake in the history of the free world.
 
2013-04-09 01:41:26 PM  
Does he mention when exactly we won the war? We should know so we can have a day of remembrance, like V-E Day.
 
2013-04-09 01:44:13 PM  
so this is what freedom feels like
 
2013-04-09 01:45:11 PM  
Reagan won it right?
 
2013-04-09 01:46:46 PM  

keiverarrow: Oh yeah, what did we win?


A pair of brand new legs!

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-09 01:46:51 PM  

SilentStrider: FlashHarry: and when are we going to liberate syria, north korea, zimbabwe, and west virginia?

change West Virginia to Kansas, and I'm in.


i still think we should wall off kansas and check back in 50 years. think of the possibilities!
 
2013-04-09 01:46:58 PM  
What percentage of their oil reserves do we control? How much plunder did the troops return with?
 
2013-04-09 01:47:35 PM  
20 years from now they'll admit that Iraq was a mistake, but we "would have won if we stayed in longer".

/much like what they say about Vietnam from time to time.
 
2013-04-09 01:50:06 PM  
Dear Daily Caller:
No one, I think, disputes we "won" the Iraq war.  The dispute is over why we fought it and if we even should have fought it.  And, for that matter, how much it cost us.

I'll never understand the "conservative" mindset over "winning" everything, even the things that don't matter.
 
2013-04-09 01:50:32 PM  
I remember hearing that all the Iraqi soldiers kept 'melting away' (like the Wicked Witch of the West, I guess).

Turns out -- and this ended up being hilarious -- they had all just gone home with their weapons in order to be ready for the inevitable civil war. An inevitable civil war that our generals and our Secretary of Defense and our President (or even the guy in charge, our Vice President) didn't seem to have anticipated for even a second.

"Yay, we won!" I kept hearing. "Man, we're farked" is what I was thinking.
 
2013-04-09 01:51:11 PM  
I have not seen a signature on the surrender document yet. Oh wait, that is because it will never end. See Korea and Vietnam DMZ's for examples.
 
2013-04-09 01:52:22 PM  

themindiswatching: 20 years from now they'll admit that Iraq was a mistake, but we "would have won if we stayed in longer".

/much like what they say about Vietnam from time to time.


You give them far too much credit.  20 years from now, the Republicans will insist that Iraq was all Clinton's idea from the very beginning, and the failure of Iraq falls squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and Barak "Shaq and Mohammed" Fartbongo.
 
2013-04-09 01:52:24 PM  
Has the war paid for itself yet?
 
2013-04-09 01:52:44 PM  
                                  i812.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-09 01:54:42 PM  

Raharu: I thought we were supposed to get some yellow cake after or something.

[cache.boston.com image 410x303]


The cake is a lie.
 
2013-04-09 01:55:31 PM  

monoski: I have not seen a signature on the surrender document yet. Oh wait, that is because it will never end. See Korea and Vietnam DMZ's for examples.


www.lonelyplanet.com

I'm not seeing a DMZ. Perhaps you can point it out?
 
2013-04-09 01:55:49 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.


Now I'm certain you are just a troll.
 
2013-04-09 01:56:08 PM  
When a US citizen can book a direct flight from New York to Baghdad on a major carrier, I'll start to believe Iraq is anything other than a barely contained quagmire.
 
2013-04-09 01:56:29 PM  
Problem: Your mismanagement of the country from 2000 to 2008--exemplified in the public memory by your hubristic, fraudulent, and unbelievably costly invasion and occupation of Iraq--shattered public trust in your party and handed your opposition a simple and effective way to discredit your policies a full decade later.

Solution: Declare victory.
 
2013-04-09 01:56:45 PM  
What exactly did we win?

What agenda that was in the US interest did we actually accomplish.

The author says we have a better Iraq. Then does he also condone that we attack every country that we would consider we could make a better government? If so that's a lot of wars.

Pretending we attacked Iraq for the purpose to force Saddam Hussein out is rewriting history. We did not. That rational was created only because the previous rationals were all found to be lies.
 
2013-04-09 01:57:22 PM  
And by the way North Korea is acting, we're about to win the Indonesian war, too.
 
2013-04-09 01:57:48 PM  
When you're angry and/or scared, sometimes you say and/or do stupid shiat you regret later on. The Iraq war is a very good example of such stupid shiat.
 
2013-04-09 01:59:36 PM  

GardenWeasel: Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.

Now I'm certain you are just a troll.


It's not like I'm white knighting for Popcorn Johnny, but people on Fark as a whole have serious issues with sarcasm. Although he might be serious, who knows.
 
2013-04-09 02:00:41 PM  
What were the victory conditions that were set out during the run up to war and at the start of the war?

Did we achieve those victory conditions?
 
2013-04-09 02:00:42 PM  

Lost Thought 00: What percentage of their oil reserves do we control? How much plunder did the troops return with?


www.aljazeera.com

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

The US government didn't get the plunder, the US oil corporations did.
 
2013-04-09 02:00:45 PM  

Sgt Otter: caught Osama bin Laden hiding in Baghdad


Meanwhile, in the bizarro-universe where Republicans are right about everything:

online.wsj.com/article/SB122427514031845555.html
 
2013-04-09 02:01:24 PM  
Well, that's weird. That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?
Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?


Ugh.  You're such a twat.  This is why you can't keep a girlfriend.
 
2013-04-09 02:01:33 PM  

Notabunny: And by the way North Korea is acting, we're about to win the Indonesian war, too.


We will invade NK too, but Kim Jong * will live to become an old man in a nice villa in Beijing while we fruitlessly search the NK mountainside for him
 
2013-04-09 02:01:46 PM  
Iraq may have won, the Prime Minister is certainly doing better than he would have had Saddam still been in power, but what, exactly, did we win?
 
2013-04-09 02:03:24 PM  
(queue sound of weak, lamest-sounding, half-blown-into New Year's Eve noisemaker here)

Who wrote this article? Big Brother?
 
2013-04-09 02:03:31 PM  
Winning!

Iraq War Drives Advances in Prosthetic Limbs

Byline: Mark Roth Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The horrors of war have often led to medical benefits in peacetime.

The Civil War spread the use of anesthesia. World War II helped to start the antibiotics revolution.

And now, the Iraq war and its deadly roadside bombs are advancing the development of prosthetics for those who have lost limbs. So far, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left roughly 1,000 U.S. soldiers with amputations. The vast majority have lost feet and legs, but about 200 soldiers have lost fingers, hands and arms, said Ryan Blanck, upper-extremity specialist at the U.S. Armys Center for the Intrepid in San Antonio, a $65 million ...
 
2013-04-09 02:04:04 PM  

aaronx: I remember hearing that all the Iraqi soldiers kept 'melting away' (like the Wicked Witch of the West, I guess).

Turns out -- and this ended up being hilarious -- they had all just gone home with their weapons in order to be ready for the inevitable civil war. An inevitable civil war that our generals and our Secretary of Defense and our President (or even the guy in charge, our Vice President) didn't seem to have anticipated for even a second.

"Yay, we won!" I kept hearing. "Man, we're farked" is what I was thinking.


Actually, all those guys mentioned wrote a report 10 years previous during the first Bush administration predicting that all that would happen.   For the life of me, I don't understand why people didn't make more mention of that or why all those guys forgot about it themselves.  They, themselves, predicted it.

Did they just go retarded while they were out of office?  WHY would they screw up so badly?
 
2013-04-09 02:04:57 PM  
I'd just like to remind everyone that no one who orchestrated the fake war in Iraq has been punished for doing so.
 
2013-04-09 02:05:03 PM  
And all Iraqis agree with Nouri al-Maliki. Just like the daily caller agrees with everything their head of government says.
 
Ehh
2013-04-09 02:05:18 PM  
When my wife and I got divorced, the kids ended up hating me and refusing to speak to me, I lost more money than I had, my lawyer screwed me over, and she got the house and the dog, but it went on the record in open court that she did, in fact, sleep with my business partner. She finally admitted it! I won! Also, I got the DVD collection.
 
2013-04-09 02:05:20 PM  
0.tqn.com
 
2013-04-09 02:05:27 PM  

keiverarrow: Oh yeah, what did we win?


Corvus: What exactly did we win?


You're missing the point. It's not WHAT we won - America has lots of stuff.

It's THAT we won.

// USA CRYING FREEDOM EAGLE REAGAN F-150 HOLD MAH BEER
 
2013-04-09 02:06:33 PM  
The United States has not "lost" Iraq. Instead, in Iraq, the United States has found a partner for our shared strategic concerns and our common efforts on energy, economics and the promotion of peace and democracy.

So there is honour among thieves after all...
 
2013-04-09 02:07:06 PM  
Suck it evil doers
 
2013-04-09 02:08:59 PM  
I'd like to make a joke about how this sounds like it could have come from Baghdad Bob, but it turns out that farking guy was right.
 
2013-04-09 02:09:12 PM  

nekom: I'm not sure you can honestly say we won or lost that war.  It just happened.  We knocked down the regime, if that's the criteria for victory, what were we sticking around for a decade for?


Guilt?
 
2013-04-09 02:09:44 PM  

netizencain: "Despite all the problems of the past decade, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree that we're better off today than under Hussein's brutal dictatorship.
Iraqis will remain grateful for the U.S. role and for the losses sustained by military and civilian personnel that contributed in ending Hussein's rule. These losses pale by comparison, of course, to those sustained by the Iraqi people."

For truth.


What truth?
 
2013-04-09 02:10:26 PM  

Corvus: The US government didn't get the plunder, the US European oil corporations did.


Correction: British, Malaysia, China, French, Dutch, Russian and partly owned US Oil Corporations got the contracts.

Only Shell out of those is US:
Shell Oil Company is a 50/50 partner with the Saudi Arabian government-owned oil company Saudi Aramco in Motiva Enterprises, a refining and marketing joint venture which owns and operates three oil refineries on the Gulf Coast of the United States.

So, yeah, "we liberalized the Iraqi oil market, bringing it to the world marketplace... and effectively cutting out the Iraqis from their inherited natural resources".

But, we paid the cost of the war MUCH MORE than the governments of the companies that got those oil contracts.
We did the heavy lifting and then didn't get the spoils.

I recall before the Iraq war started it was said in front of Congress that the oil would pay for the war... how can that be if only ONE US company that is 50% Saudi owned got two of the smaller Iraqi oil field contracts?

We lost for us.
We won for worldwide oil.
 
2013-04-09 02:10:49 PM  

Arkanaut: Sgt Otter: caught Osama bin Laden hiding in Baghdad

Meanwhile, in the bizarro-universe where Republicans are right about everything:

online.wsj.com/article/SB122427514031845555.html


Do Peggy Noonan's masturbatory fantasies really need to be linked in Fark threads?
 
2013-04-09 02:11:08 PM  
If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply. Link
 
2013-04-09 02:11:23 PM  
I think a record of 0-0 would be preferable to any other war win-loss records.
 
2013-04-09 02:11:32 PM  
Ctrl-F, searched for "won" anywhere in the Iraqi Prime Minister's statement.

0 matches.
 
2013-04-09 02:11:46 PM  
Whether or not we "won" is merely a question of what the original goals were.  Did we attain our goals or not?

We went in to Iraq with the following conditions for victory:

1) Reason - Find and remove WMDs.  Donald Rumsefeld - "We know where they are."  "Those weapons will be found" - Tommy Franks.
2) Cost - Zero reconstruction cost, it will finance itself - Paul Wolfowitz.
3) Timeline - We will be done in weeks, not months - Dick Cheney.

So victory means we find and remove the WMDs, it costs us pretty much nothing and is only a few weeks.  Were we victorious?

Sure it cost a bit more and took a bit longer but everyone agrees, Iraq does not have WMDs.  So of course we were victorious.
 
2013-04-09 02:11:56 PM  
... So... vote Republican?
 
2013-04-09 02:11:57 PM  

keiverarrow: Oh yeah, what did we win...


"It's a major award."

prblog.typepad.com
 
2013-04-09 02:12:00 PM  

NostroZ: So, yeah, "we liberalized the Iraqi oil market, bringing it to the world marketplace... and effectively cutting out the Iraqis from their inherited natural resources".


That was pretty much my point.
 
2013-04-09 02:13:09 PM  
We won the war handily.  The occupation has been a disaster.
 
2013-04-09 02:13:33 PM  
"The only way to win, is not to play."
 
2013-04-09 02:13:42 PM  

vartian: Well, that's weird. That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?

Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?

We're seriously having a conversation about an opinion piece in the Daily Caller - like it matters?


By Treacher - one of the worst and most shameless of their contributors.

He doesn't care about any issue.  He just likes to rile liberals.  So I'm with you -- if you know that's his only goal, anything resembling an actual opinion or argument can be safely (and wisely) disregarded.
 
2013-04-09 02:16:22 PM  

JerseyTim: I'd like to make a joke about how this sounds like it could have come from Baghdad Bob, but it turns out that farking guy was right.

As a 2012 CIA study concluded definitively, Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Nor did Iraq have 18 mobile laboratories for making anthrax and botulism, as Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed before the United Nations in February 2003, nor had Saddam Hussein recently tried to buy large quantities of uranium from Africa, as President Bush asserted in his 2003 State of the Union address. A decade of war was based on things that had never taken place.


No matter how many times I read that, or think about it, it still is depressing as fark.
 
2013-04-09 02:17:15 PM  
Neat-o
 
2013-04-09 02:17:23 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Arkanaut: Sgt Otter: caught Osama bin Laden hiding in Baghdad

Meanwhile, in the bizarro-universe where Republicans are right about everything:

online.wsj.com/article/SB122427514031845555.html

Do Peggy Noonan's masturbatory fantasies really need to be linked in Fark threads?


"Jim Treacher"'s masturbatory fantasy got greenlit, so I figured why not?
 
2013-04-09 02:20:02 PM  
Well, I guess we won, in the same way a bear "wins" against a bear trap by chewing off it's own leg.
 
2013-04-09 02:20:09 PM  
Yeah, and you also totally won in Vietnam!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-09 02:21:19 PM  
Yea, remember on 9-12-01 when Bush said we need to invade Iraq to free those wonderful brown people? YEa, neither do i
 
2013-04-09 02:22:01 PM  

ApeShaft: Yeah, and you also totally won in Vietnam!

[i.imgur.com image 600x387]


bestuff.com
It was a tie
 
2013-04-09 02:22:36 PM  
 I don't think i'll ever be over macho grande.
 
2013-04-09 02:22:45 PM  
When does Judith Miller get her medal?
 
2013-04-09 02:24:05 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-09 02:24:54 PM  

Corvus: Lost Thought 00: What percentage of their oil reserves do we control? How much plunder did the troops return with?

[www.aljazeera.com image 680x450]

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

The US government didn't get the plunder, the US oil corporations did.


We should slap a lien on their profits.
 
2013-04-09 02:25:49 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: When does Judith Miller get her medal?


Anchor around her neck in the middle of the ocean count?  I'd gladly bestow that honor upon her.
 
2013-04-09 02:26:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply. Link


Great. Now I'm even more depressed about this.
 
2013-04-09 02:27:30 PM  

Car_Ramrod: JerseyTim: I'd like to make a joke about how this sounds like it could have come from Baghdad Bob, but it turns out that farking guy was right.

As a 2012 CIA study concluded definitively, Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Nor did Iraq have 18 mobile laboratories for making anthrax and botulism, as Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed before the United Nations in February 2003, nor had Saddam Hussein recently tried to buy large quantities of uranium from Africa, as President Bush asserted in his 2003 State of the Union address. A decade of war was based on things that had never taken place.

No matter how many times I read that, or think about it, it still is depressing as fark.


Yup.  Depressing... but... we're good at it and without practice how would we sharpen our skills?
Where would our military corporation be testing their weapons?
Where would the intelligence community learn what works and does not?
Where would we get the large amount of disabled veterans that need advanced prosthetic limbs?

War is depressing... but we're good at it.
We now have much better technology than other countries and can use it or sell it.
 
2013-04-09 02:28:19 PM  
Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009?

Nobody remembers that because it didn't happen.  More selective memory by Republican shills.

Nobody is doubting that we "won" in Iraq.  What people are looking at are what did we win?

--An "ally" that might be increasingly unstable and less reliable as time goes on.
--Trillions of dollars piled onto our national debt.
--Higher gas prices.
--And, most importantly, thousands of dead military personnel with thousands and thousands more permanently disfigured (which we will be continuing to pay for for decades -- so billions of dollars more piled onto the nation debt).
--Egg on our faces when we didn't find these massive stockpiles of WMDs coupled with international anger for pursuing this war in the first place.

Saddam Hussein and his evil minions and sons are all gone.  This is a good thing.  Hooray us.  We won.  But the cost may not have been worth it.  THAT is the point people have been trying to make.
 
2013-04-09 02:31:03 PM  
I guess this guy think that if your name came up in Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, you were also, by definition, a winner.
 
2013-04-09 02:31:06 PM  
So you Republicans don't mind raising taxes to pay for it, right?

[crickets]
 
2013-04-09 02:31:41 PM  
Oh did we now?
 
2013-04-09 02:31:49 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
We may not have WON... but we scared the shyat out of the rest of the world.
THIS
IS
SPARTA!
 
2013-04-09 02:32:34 PM  
The United States has not "lost" Iraq. Instead, in Iraq, the United States has found a partner for our shared strategic concerns and our common efforts on energy, economics and the promotion of peace and democracy.

Which is, funnily enough, almost exactly the same relationship we had with Saddam when he came into power thirty some odd years ago.  I, for one, do not look forward to thirty years from now, when my son goes to fight a war in a land that's already soaked up the blood of two generations of my family.
 
2013-04-09 02:33:37 PM  

NostroZ: We may not have WON... but we scared the shyat out of the rest of the world.
THIS
IS
SPARTA!


In the sense that the most expensive military in the world can get bogged down in it's own rules of engagement simply by mounting an underground guerrilla defense?  That is kinda scary when you think about it.
 
2013-04-09 02:35:27 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply. Link


Wind and solar replace domestic coal and domestic natural gas.  Oil is basically not used for power generation in the continental United States.

Now, I agree that the money spent on the war in Iraq was flushed down the drain, but you could have used it for health care or infrastructure repairs or even lower taxes.
 
2013-04-09 02:38:23 PM  

Mercutio74: NostroZ: We may not have WON... but we scared the shyat out of the rest of the world.
THIS
IS
SPARTA!

In the sense that the most expensive military in the world can get bogged down in it's own rules of engagement simply by mounting an underground guerrilla defense?  That is kinda scary when you think about it.


What do you mean?
Are you talking about the difficulty of distinguishing between a combatant and a civilian?
That based on current rules of engagement our military cannot punish collaborators?
 
2013-04-09 02:39:20 PM  
I give absolutely no farks at all what this guy thinks, it still wasn't worth it.  Removing Saddam wasn't worth one American life.
 
2013-04-09 02:39:49 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: From a military standpoint, if we DIDN'T win a war against Iraq, that would be pretty farking pathetic,


True.  The military won the war in Iraq.  It was the politicians like Pelosi, Reid and Obama who lost the peace.
 
2013-04-09 02:40:14 PM  

make me some tea: Dusk-You-n-Me: If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply. Link

Great. Now I'm even more depressed about this.


I had just moved to the US in 1999. So I had been here for about 2 years (slightly less), and was infuriated that all I heard on the news was how there was no money for good education.

Then BAM. War time. Money appeared like a farking geyser in the desert. Now there's still no money for education.

So don't feel too depressed. The US would have NEVER spent that money on something useful.
 
2013-04-09 02:41:05 PM  

macadamnut: The United States has not "lost" Iraq. Instead, in Iraq, the United States has found a partner for our shared strategic concerns and our common efforts on energy, economics and the promotion of peace and democracy.

So there is honour among thieves after all...


That there is textbook newspeak, what you'd expect to hear from a puppet state.  Let's see if there's any difference:


www.opinion-maker.org

The Soviet Union has not "lost" Afghanistan. Instead, in Afghanistan , the Soviet Union has found a partner for our shared strategic concerns and our common efforts on energy, economics and the promotion of peace and prosperity.

 
2013-04-09 02:41:06 PM  
By the way, Subby, we lost 4,486 KIA. Well, we know where most of them are.

www.arlingtoncemetery.net

Now, Subby, if you want to talk about wounded...amputees, PTSD, brain damage...you can look up the numbers. They're frightening.

Oh, and here's some truly frightening statistics. The BBC reported April 17, 2009, "According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed."

And here's a pic of the one building the Coalition protected when we entered Baghdad.

1.bp.blogspot.com

The Ministry of Oil building.

Those volunteers you see standing around? Many of them volunteered to go to Afghanistan and kill Al Qaeda

Victory for a few. Death, wounds, mental illness, rape and lots of other stuff for many.
 
2013-04-09 02:41:49 PM  
I wonder if Jon Stewart loads up The Daily Caller and questions his decision to kill Crossfire.
 
2013-04-09 02:42:21 PM  
A few more victories like that and the US will get to follow the Soviet Union into history.
 
2013-04-09 02:42:31 PM  

abb3w: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Wandered by looking for Plutarch quoting Pyrrhus; thank you.


Well you know what they say.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
2013-04-09 02:44:54 PM  

Mercutio74: In the sense that the most expensive military in the world can get bogged down in it's own rules of engagement simply by mounting an underground guerrilla defense?


No, I think he means "we will invade your country to enrich our elites if we feel like it, endanger our own economy and lie to our own people to get it accomplished" kind of thing coming from the most overpowered military on the planet.
 
2013-04-09 02:45:30 PM  

Diogenes: By Treacher - one of the worst and most shameless of their contributors.

He doesn't care about any issue. He just likes to rile liberals. So I'm with you -- if you know that's his only goal, anything resembling an actual opinion or argument can be safely (and wisely) disregarded.


This.  I have had multiple engagements with Treacher on blogs and on Facebook.  The last time ended with him spamming "OBAMA ATE DOG!" about 100 times.  Since I stopped engaging after that he "won".
 
2013-04-09 02:45:36 PM  
Pyrrhic victory at best.
 
2013-04-09 02:45:45 PM  
Someone should write a  gravelly folk song heralding the benefits of war.

/Got absolutely nothing.
 
2013-04-09 02:46:55 PM  
That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?

I've never really heard anyone seriously suggest that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule wasn't the right thing to do. The issue is that toppling Saddam wasn't the reason for invading Iraq. It wasn't the reason the public was sold and it wasn't the real reason. It's the best positive spin that can be placed on the whole affair, so of course it's going to be emphasized. The fact that we should have done it ten years prior during the H.W. Bush years will not be emphasized.
 
2013-04-09 02:48:31 PM  

regindyn: I wonder if Jon Stewart loads up The Daily Caller and questions his decision to kill Crossfire.


I think relegating Tucker to a substandard Breitbart clone is less influential than being on  what was (at the time) a highly influential cable channel.
 
2013-04-09 02:49:53 PM  
The problem with the Iraq war is that it lowered the line for military conflict to such a low level you could apply it to just about anywhere.
According to the Bush administrations own standards we should be invading and occupying North Korea right now.

It also might come to a shock to a lot of conservative war hawks in this country, but most Americans don't believe it's our financial responsibility
to fix every countries thousand year old tribal conflicts with our military.
 
2013-04-09 02:51:18 PM  

NostroZ: What do you mean?
Are you talking about the difficulty of distinguishing between a combatant and a civilian?
That based on current rules of engagement our military cannot punish collaborators?


All of those.

The problem with what the US set out to do in Iraq was not that the war was based on false pretenses (it was) nor that seemingly no thought was given to what would happen in the power vacuum that deposing a strong dictator creates.  It was that you cannot ever win a war easily unless you set off to wipe the offending country off the map.

Now, because this war was created to funnel money into the right pockets, you can't do that with destroying the nation you're invading.  That means you need very, very "good guy" rules of engagement (and rightfully so, these civilians didn't do anything to anyone and don't deserve to be part of the great Iraqi glass parking lot).

This war was never winnable in the sense that the US is stronger or safer coming out of it.  And though it seems obvious in hindsight, actually displaying this to the world was a bad idea.  Just as one example, do you think Iran fears the US army more or less than pre-Iraq occupation?
 
2013-04-09 02:53:17 PM  
www.pbs.org
It sure feels like victory doesn't it?

Or should we perhaps ask the mutated children of fallujah if they feel more free?
 
2013-04-09 02:55:17 PM  

Mercutio74: In the sense that the most expensive military in the world can get bogged down in it's own rules of engagement simply by mounting an underground

guerilla defense? That is kinda scary when you think about it.

I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous.  What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.
 
2013-04-09 02:55:17 PM  

asmodeus224: Yea, remember on 9-12-01 when Bush said we need to invade Iraq to free those wonderful brown people? YEa, neither do i


He was thinking about it a long time before 9/11

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
 
2013-04-09 02:58:29 PM  
As a somewhat right leaning person, I don't understand why anyone says we won/lost.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WINNING IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

Once we got there, there was no going back. You carry it out, whether it takes 2 weeks or 20 years. Politics are out the window. You can't pull out because you'll look weak as a nation. Take it on the chin. Tough learned lesson.
 
2013-04-09 02:58:42 PM  
The future I want for humanity is that one day all human beings can live as free men and women in countries which respect their human rights and have strong protections for civil liberties. From that perspective, I'm hard pressed to be anything but grateful when we as a species can topple yet one more dictator or oppressive/dysfunctional regime.

The details of HOW we got there are another story though. We should have FUNDED the farking war. We should have committed more manpower and resources up front so we could have handled the immediate aftermath better. We should have handled the nation-building phase better. We should have handled the new constitution post-WW2 Japanese style. We shoulda, we shoulda, we shoulda......

So many wasted opportunities. So much needless suffering and death because of our own leadership's failures to properly plan and lead. So much of it was because we foolishly believed we could wage a WAR and yet not sacrifice much. If you're not willing to pay you shouldn't be playing.
 
2013-04-09 03:00:07 PM  
Whew. That was a close one.

Good thing we got Saddam before I had to use the duck tape and plastic on the windows to keep out the chemical weapons.

We bombed Baghdad without provocation and killed hundreds of innocent men, women, and children.

We showed the world that we're willing to destroy anyone weaker than us if they have something we want.

Victory!
 
2013-04-09 03:00:29 PM  
If by "we" you mean "Halliburton etc" then yes, I guess 'we' did.
 
2013-04-09 03:00:40 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: As a somewhat right leaning person, I don't understand why anyone says we won/lost.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WINNING IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

Once we got there, there was no going back. You carry it out, whether it takes 2 weeks or 20 years. Politics are out the window. You can't pull out because you'll look weak as a nation. Take it on the chin. Tough learned lesson.


I cannot possibly imagine any person with even just a passing familiarity with US history thinks we actually learned any lessons here whatsoever.
 
2013-04-09 03:01:09 PM  

Wyalt Derp: If by "we" you mean "Halliburton etc" then yes, I guess 'we' did.


When big corporations win, we win. Know your place and serve your betters.
 
2013-04-09 03:01:27 PM  

Mercutio74: This war was never winnable in the sense that the US is stronger or safer coming out of it. And though it seems obvious in hindsight, actually displaying this to the world was a bad idea. Just as one example, do you think Iran fears the US army more or less than pre-Iraq occupation?


Not only that, but Iran now has a strong foothold in Iraq.

George Bush Senior knew that with Iraq you can conquer it within six days... occupying it is the quagmire.

Why don't we just bomb places and leave like we used to?
 
2013-04-09 03:01:41 PM  

geek_mars: I've never really heard anyone seriously suggest that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule wasn't the right thing to do


The Sunni dictator has been replaced with a shiate dictator and the Kurdish separatists are up north running wild.

What an improvement!
 
2013-04-09 03:01:48 PM  

Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.


Hmmmm... seemed to have slipped by the Bush administration, the mainstream media (including and especially Fox) and congress pretty easily.

But that's the thing.  Anyone who knew history on even a basic level knew that occupying a foreign nation filled with potential militants is a really bad idea.  But after Iraq, even the people who didn't know history learned that.
 
2013-04-09 03:02:46 PM  
If by "winning" you mean throwing a few trillion dollars down the shiatter and killing anywhere from 300,000 to a million Iraqis et al, you would be still full of shiat, neocons.
 
2013-04-09 03:02:53 PM  

lennavan: SkeletorUpInHere: As a somewhat right leaning person, I don't understand why anyone says we won/lost.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WINNING IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

Once we got there, there was no going back. You carry it out, whether it takes 2 weeks or 20 years. Politics are out the window. You can't pull out because you'll look weak as a nation. Take it on the chin. Tough learned lesson.

I cannot possibly imagine any person with even just a passing familiarity with US history thinks we actually learned any lessons here whatsoever.


Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some people who learned some pretty solid lessons from Iraq, "the government will be led by the nose to go to war and sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others for the purpose of pouring trillions of dollars of taxpayer money directly into rich peoples' pants, and even the people against it won't put up more than a token fight."
 
2013-04-09 03:05:10 PM  
"We agree.  We DID win the war in Iraq!" -- Al Qaeda, Iran and China
 
2013-04-09 03:06:14 PM  

Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.


Boer War. Philippine Insurrection. Malaya.
 
2013-04-09 03:07:42 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some people who learned some pretty solid lessons from Iraq, "the government will be led by the nose to go to war and sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others for the purpose of pouring trillions of dollars of taxpayer money directly into rich peoples' pants, and even the people against it won't put up more than a token fight.


To be fair, how do you fight a trillion dollars worth of political will?  How do you fight Colin Powell, a man previously identified by both the right and the left as being a man with high integrity, selling poorly forged bill of goods to the UN and the world?  How do you fight the post 9/11 hysteria of the US public?  That's a big order when you're outnumbered, outspent and you don't have fevered ideology on your side.
 
2013-04-09 03:08:05 PM  

Mercutio74: Hmmmm... seemed to have slipped by the Bush administration, the mainstream media (including and especially Fox) and congress pretty easily.


I think a lot of people in the administration and Congress knew the most probable outcome.  They were marginalized and silences.  Of course, "we'll be greeted as liberators", yet no reason was given for why we would.    If you disagreed then you were out of a job.
 
2013-04-09 03:09:11 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lennavan: SkeletorUpInHere: As a somewhat right leaning person, I don't understand why anyone says we won/lost.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WINNING IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

Once we got there, there was no going back. You carry it out, whether it takes 2 weeks or 20 years. Politics are out the window. You can't pull out because you'll look weak as a nation. Take it on the chin. Tough learned lesson.

I cannot possibly imagine any person with even just a passing familiarity with US history thinks we actually learned any lessons here whatsoever.

Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some people who learned some pretty solid lessons from Iraq, "the government will be led by the nose to go to war and sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others for the purpose of pouring trillions of dollars of taxpayer money directly into rich peoples' pants, and even the people against it won't put up more than a token fight."



Those people already knew from previous administrations/wars that we'll be led around by fear, warmongering for the purpose of political gain.  It's not a far leap to oil/money.
 
2013-04-09 03:10:56 PM  

aaronx: I remember hearing that all the Iraqi soldiers kept 'melting away' (like the Wicked Witch of the West, I guess).

Turns out -- and this ended up being hilarious -- they had all just gone home with their weapons in order to be ready for the inevitable civil war. An inevitable civil war that our generals and our Secretary of Defense and our President (or even the guy in charge, our Vice President) didn't seem to have anticipated for even a second.


ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF Shinseki--a soldier who served two combat tours in Vietnam and lost half his foot to a landmine--told everyone it would require several hundred thousand troops to take and hold Iraq.

We sent 1.5 million military personnel into Iraq.

Our government knew EXACTLY what it was getting into and wanted the oil so bad, it was willing to throw away our soldiers lives and the lives of Iraqis.
 
2013-04-09 03:13:28 PM  
A few of them being grateful to us does not a winner make.
 
2013-04-09 03:13:45 PM  
When I GIS Iraq War, I get pages and pages of dead children, bloody victims, body bags and destruction. You'll have to pardon me for passing on your celebration, Subby.
 
2013-04-09 03:13:56 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some people who learned some pretty solid lessons from Iraq, "the government will be led by the nose to go to war and sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others for the purpose of pouring trillions of dollars of taxpayer money directly into rich peoples' pants, and even the people against it won't put up more than a token fight."


Wrong.

The Iraq war was the MOST heavily protested war BEFORE it started.  Not that it helped...
 
2013-04-09 03:14:21 PM  
Muta:
I think a lot of people in the administration and Congress knew the most probable outcome.  They were marginalized and

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that
 Dick Cheney 1991

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.
Dick Cheney 1992

Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing is casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had, but for the 146 Americans killed in action and for the families it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right.

Dick Cheney 1994
 
2013-04-09 03:14:27 PM  

Geotpf: Oil is basically not used for power generation in the continental United States.


I don't think I claimed it was.
 
2013-04-09 03:18:14 PM  

lennavan: A Dark Evil Omen: lennavan: SkeletorUpInHere: As a somewhat right leaning person, I don't understand why anyone says we won/lost.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WINNING IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

Once we got there, there was no going back. You carry it out, whether it takes 2 weeks or 20 years. Politics are out the window. You can't pull out because you'll look weak as a nation. Take it on the chin. Tough learned lesson.

I cannot possibly imagine any person with even just a passing familiarity with US history thinks we actually learned any lessons here whatsoever.

Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some people who learned some pretty solid lessons from Iraq, "the government will be led by the nose to go to war and sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others for the purpose of pouring trillions of dollars of taxpayer money directly into rich peoples' pants, and even the people against it won't put up more than a token fight."

Those people already knew from previous administrations/wars that we'll be led around by fear, warmongering for the purpose of political gain.  It's not a far leap to oil/money.



This has nothing to do with politics. It goes back waaaay before Sept 11th. Sorry to say, but as a nation, we were pretty much begging to be attacked over the 80's and 90's.

Desert Storm. Supplying weapons to Taliban soldiers. Training them as a fighting force. Basically a big middle finger to the Middle East. It was an oil grab. But oil has nothing to do with it once we declared a war on terror.

You have to see it out till the end once you make the move.
 
2013-04-09 03:20:38 PM  

NostroZ: A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some people who learned some pretty solid lessons from Iraq, "the government will be led by the nose to go to war and sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others for the purpose of pouring trillions of dollars of taxpayer money directly into rich peoples' pants, and even the people against it won't put up more than a token fight."

Wrong.

The Iraq war was the MOST heavily protested war BEFORE it started.  Not that it helped...


Democratic politicians that stood for it saw no political repercussions. There was no effort made to interfere with military recruiting efforts. There was a lot of noise and no meat behind it.
 
2013-04-09 03:21:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Boer War.


I didn't see anything about the type of support the Boers had outside the two provinces of that war.I'll give you this one.
Philippine  Insurrection. Malaya.

From Wiki:

Estimates of the Filipino forces vary between 100,000 to 1,000,000, with tens of thousands of auxiliaries. Lack of weapons and ammunition was a significant impediment to the Filipinos, so most of the forces were only armed with bolo knives, bows and arrows, spears and other primitive weapons that, in practice, proved vastly inferior to U.S. firepower.

The guerillas weren't well armed in the Philippines.  Being well armed was one of my conditions.
 
2013-04-09 03:24:28 PM  

GAT_00: netizencain: "Despite all the problems of the past decade, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree that we're better off today than under Hussein's brutal dictatorship.
Iraqis will remain grateful for the U.S. role and for the losses sustained by military and civilian personnel that contributed in ending Hussein's rule. These losses pale by comparison, of course, to those sustained by the Iraqi people."

For truth.

I wonder what the couple hundred thousand dead or displaced persons say to being better off than before.


The dead know only one thing: it is better to be alive. -Pvt Joker
 
2013-04-09 03:26:49 PM  

Muta: Mercutio74: In the sense that the most expensive military in the world can get bogged down in it's own rules of engagement simply by mounting an underground guerilla defense? That is kinda scary when you think about it.

I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous.  What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.


Oh you can definitely win in that scenario, of course it requires genocide, but hey it is possible.  In order to win you just have to be willing to kill everyone.
 
2013-04-09 03:27:40 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Democratic politicians that stood for it saw no political repercussions.


What are you going to do, vote Republican?  Incumbents rarely get primaried no matter what they do (with the notable exception of Republicans with the audacity not be teatarded).
 
2013-04-09 03:28:15 PM  
just wait till we win against North Korea, i wonder how much that will cost... probably a buck-o-five
 
2013-04-09 03:29:43 PM  
Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-09 03:29:52 PM  
I hear that they have electricity for several hours per day in some parts of Iraq.  That is what they mean by win right?

  I think that all that voted to allow that "win" should be removed from office and jailed.
 
2013-04-09 03:29:53 PM  

Mercutio74: A Dark Evil Omen: Democratic politicians that stood for it saw no political repercussions.

What are you going to do, vote Republican?  Incumbents rarely get primaried no matter what they do (with the notable exception of Republicans with the audacity not be teatarded).


Yeah, well, there you are, aren't you? If politicians are immune to even the slightest of consequences it doesn't matter how big your rod puppets are, does it?
 
2013-04-09 03:30:23 PM  
So a baseball goes through a guy's window. He ignores the group of boys running away and instead knocks on his neighbor's door. He's had a strained relationship with his neighbor for years, and despite a lack of evidence, he knows his neighbor is behind the broken window. He demands that his neighbor hand over his son and all the sports equipment on the premises. The neighbor claims that he has neither a son nor sports equipment. The man proceeds to beat the neighbor to death and trashes his house in the process. He spends so much time over the next few years scouring the remains for the alleged son and sports equipment that he loses his job and his wife leaves him. Eventually he gives up his search and returns home for good. Then a street gang turns the blighted property next door into a meth lab.

With his lip quivering, the man whispers to himself, "Victory."
 
2013-04-09 03:30:37 PM  
I could challenge a 3 year old to a cage match.  I would win, but it doesn't mean I should do it.
 
2013-04-09 03:30:38 PM  
Why don't we just redirect Fark to Treacher's site and just be done with it?  Seems as though the mods like to greenlight his every brainfart.
 
2013-04-09 03:31:48 PM  
If Iraq (and presumably) Afghanistan are no longer threats, does that mean we can get rid of the TSA, now?
 
2013-04-09 03:32:01 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Yeah, well, there you are, aren't you? If politicians are immune to even the slightest of consequences it doesn't matter how big your rod puppets are, does it?


I think US politics would be so different if there was even just one extra viable party.
 
2013-04-09 03:32:31 PM  

SkeletorUpInHere: This has nothing to do with politics. It goes back waaaay before Sept 11th. Sorry to say, but as a nation, we were pretty much begging to be attacked over the 80's and 90's.


I never said it did.  All I said was there's no way anyone with knowledge of history thinks we learned any lesson.  The obvious implication I was making was everything that happened in Iraq/Afghanistan shouldn't have been a shock since it has all happened before.  The original post was about guerrilla warfare.  We should have learned that one in Vietnam, if not elsewhere.  A follow-up reply was about leading the government around at the expense of lives for personal gain (money).  We could have learned that one from Saint Reagan leading the government around, warmongering, at the expense of lives, for personal gain (political).

I don't think we learned a damn thing from the wars.  I think this country is going to keep doing the same shiat over and over and over again throughout the rest of my lifetime.
 
2013-04-09 03:32:39 PM  

Raharu: I thought we were supposed to get some yellow cake after or something.


The `cake is a lie.

This is not:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-09 03:34:42 PM  
With wins like that, who needs losses?
 
2013-04-09 03:34:48 PM  

Mercutio74: A Dark Evil Omen: Yeah, well, there you are, aren't you? If politicians are immune to even the slightest of consequences it doesn't matter how big your rod puppets are, does it?

I think US politics would be so different if there was even just one extra viable party.


Not mathematically possible.
 
2013-04-09 03:36:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Mercutio74: A Dark Evil Omen: Yeah, well, there you are, aren't you? If politicians are immune to even the slightest of consequences it doesn't matter how big your rod puppets are, does it?

I think US politics would be so different if there was even just one extra viable party.

Not mathematically possible.


Well, the grid locked status quo couldn't continue, that's for sure.
 
2013-04-09 03:36:33 PM  

lennavan: I don't think we learned a damn thing from the wars.  I think this country is going to keep doing the same shiat over and over and over again throughout the rest of my lifetime.


If you think the US can keep throwing trillions and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives (millions if you count the, y'know, victims) away for the next fifty years with no change or consequences you have a much more optimistic view than me.
 
2013-04-09 03:37:26 PM  

Great_Milenko: When a US citizen can book a direct flight from New York to Baghdad on a major carrier, I'll start to believe Iraq is anything other than a barely contained quagmire.


I use the same metric about Lubbock, TX.
 
2013-04-09 03:37:40 PM  
We won?
www.linkognito.com
Well shiat, load the next one already.
 
2013-04-09 03:38:48 PM  

Mercutio74: A Dark Evil Omen: Mercutio74: A Dark Evil Omen: Yeah, well, there you are, aren't you? If politicians are immune to even the slightest of consequences it doesn't matter how big your rod puppets are, does it?

I think US politics would be so different if there was even just one extra viable party.

Not mathematically possible.

Well, the grid locked status quo couldn't continue, that's for sure.


Sure, but it's not possible with the US electoral system structured as it is. The only hope for any change on that front is for one of the parties to collapse and make space for a new coalition to arise and form a new "top two" party. This is, ultimately, why I don't feel that there's much value in throwing a ton of energy into electoral politics.
 
2013-04-09 03:40:17 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: We won?
[www.linkognito.com image 500x630]
Well shiat, load the next one already.


Dude this is not a rate your gf thread. GTFO.
 
2013-04-09 03:41:44 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Sure, but it's not possible with the US electoral system structured as it is. The only hope for any change on that front is for one of the parties to collapse and make space for a new coalition to arise and form a new "top two" party. This is, ultimately, why I don't feel that there's much value in throwing a ton of energy into electoral politics.


Who knows, if the GOP continues thinking that the only problem they have is putting a prettier bow on their message, we might see it in less than a decade.
 
2013-04-09 03:45:25 PM  

Wyalt Derp: If by "we" you mean "Halliburton etc" then yes, I guess 'we' did.


Up 300% in the last ten years of war
 
2013-04-09 03:47:45 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-04-09 03:50:32 PM  
The only people who will believe this bullshiat story no questions asked are the same ones that have fallen for the propaganda the right wing noise machine has been pushing for the past 12 years.  And I'm sorry, but there have been no right wingers that I can call anything other than propagandists or collaborators.  Fox News and those who work for them being the most obvious.

We farked up Afghanistan by putting it all on the back burner and farking up capturing OBL when we possibly could have, all to take Iraq for it's sweet, sweet oil.  Now, after all of this time, it's more closely aligned with Iran, and we have nothing to show for it other than thousands of war dead, and probably even more who are maimed, both in body & spirit.  If that's 'winning', we need to stop it right away.
 
2013-04-09 03:56:14 PM  
I can't wait for when my kids are telling me, "Aw, shut up about Iraq already!" the way we tell boomers to f*ck off about Vietnam.
 
2013-04-09 03:58:33 PM  

Dog Welder: Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009?


If you've ever watched PBS Newshour, they periodically show in silence, at the end of the broadcast, the names and faces of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's really sad. I'm so glad they still are doing that, because no one else in broadcast media does.
 
2013-04-09 04:02:27 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lennavan: I don't think we learned a damn thing from the wars.  I think this country is going to keep doing the same shiat over and over and over again throughout the rest of my lifetime.

If you think the US can keep throwing trillions and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives (millions if you count the, y'know, victims) away for the next fifty years with no change or consequences you have a much more optimistic view than me.


Well, I never said there would be no consequences.  But yes, I do think over the next 50 years we will keep throwing away trillions and trillions of dollars and millions of lives on the same pattern of unnecessary wars.  I think that makes you the optimist.
 
2013-04-09 04:02:47 PM  

Aidan: I had just moved to the US in 1999. So I had been here for about 2 years (slightly less), and was infuriated that all I heard on the news was how there was no money for good education.

Then BAM. War time. Money appeared like a farking geyser in the desert. Now there's still no money for education.

So don't feel too depressed. The US would have NEVER spent that money on something useful.


Yup. We suffer to pay those awful unionized teachers way too much to educate our children for their own futures, but HEY LOOK SOME DOUCHEBAG ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET SAID HE HATES AMERICA SO LET'S ROLL OVER HIS COUNTRY FOR FREEDOM. SPARE NO EXPENSE!! WE WILL PREVAIL!!!
 
Bf+
2013-04-09 04:02:51 PM  

Raharu: I thought we were supposed to get some yellow cake after or something.

[cache.boston.com image 410x303]


www.moviequotesandmore.com
I was told there'd be cake...
 
2013-04-09 04:08:07 PM  

Diogenes: Brian Ryanberger: When does Judith Miller get her medal?

Anchor around her neck in the middle of the ocean count?  I'd gladly bestow that honor upon her.


In her defense, she is a patriot and a hero to her country, just not the USA.
 
2013-04-09 04:12:09 PM  
If you accidentally click a link but close it before it loads all the way does that count as a click for them?

/ashamed
 
2013-04-09 04:12:40 PM  
FTA: "...by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left".

Well, he did get that part right.
 
2013-04-09 04:17:11 PM  

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.

[i.imgur.com image 300x278]



riotandfrolic.typepad.com
 
2013-04-09 04:20:11 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.


Don't you have some illegal immigrants to shoot?
 
2013-04-09 04:29:01 PM  

Thats_Not_My_Baby: If you accidentally click a link but close it before it loads all the way does that count as a click for them?

/ashamed


I'm sure it gets more $$ for Drew than it does for DailyCaller.
 
2013-04-09 04:38:13 PM  
Now that we WON the Iraq war and Afghanistan is drawing down... what's our NEXT war?

Anyone?  Bueller?

Yemen's a hot contender

Syria's been begging for an intervention.

We can't have ALL that military equipment sitting around... and hell... it's ALREADY over there... why not use it?
 
2013-04-09 04:49:29 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-09 04:50:27 PM  

NostroZ: Now that we WON the Iraq war and Afghanistan is drawing down... what's our NEXT war?

Anyone?  Bueller?

Yemen's a hot contender

Syria's been begging for an intervention.

We can't have ALL that military equipment sitting around... and hell... it's ALREADY over there... why not use it?


Yemen to that.
We can't just let these people practice their backwards religious freedoms on their own, oil rich soil.
Why if we let them continue this, they'll be no better than Texas.
 
2013-04-09 04:56:05 PM  

NostroZ: Mercutio74: This war was never winnable in the sense that the US is stronger or safer coming out of it. And though it seems obvious in hindsight, actually displaying this to the world was a bad idea. Just as one example, do you think Iran fears the US army more or less than pre-Iraq occupation?

Not only that, but Iran now has a strong foothold in Iraq.

George Bush Senior knew that with Iraq you can conquer it within six days... occupying it is the quagmire.

Why don't we just bomb places and leave like we used to?


And Bush Sr. went in with a much bigger army than Bush Jr. did -- a quick check of Wikipedia shows that the 1991 coalition was nearly 1 million soldiers, while the 2003 invasion was done with 300K soldiers, only about half of whom stayed for the occupation.
 
2013-04-09 04:56:50 PM  
Seriously, you other countries out there. You don't want ot be invaded?
Knock of the silly shiat.
Do something constructive.
Come up with a great song and dance number.
You don't see us invading Macarena and Gamham style countries, now, do you?
You don't see us goign after the people who wrote the farking Limbo and even the folks who brought us the hip 50's dance the Watusi are pretty much forgotton.
You want to stay the fark off our radar?
Invent a great cheesy new dance and give it to us.
That... or... a shubbery.
 
2013-04-09 05:04:44 PM  

Arkanaut: And Bush Sr. went in with a much bigger army than Bush Jr. did -- a quick check of Wikipedia shows that the 1991 coalition was nearly 1 million soldiers, while the 2003 invasion was done with 300K soldiers, only about half of whom stayed for the occupation.


Shock and Awe.

It only works if you don't also try to "win the hearts and minds" of the people you're at the same time trying to "shock and awe" into submission.
 
2013-04-09 05:05:12 PM  

whidbey: Ego edo infantia cattus: We won?
[www.linkognito.com image 500x630]
Well shiat, load the next one already.

Dude this is not a rate your gf thread. GTFO.


This is Fark. Eye bleach and big boy pants sold separately.
 
2013-04-09 05:05:58 PM  
This reminds me of that scene from "Antz" where the main character's in a parade, being the only survivor of a war with the termites, and one of the cheering crowd has a sign saying "1 to 0. We win!"
 
2013-04-09 05:09:05 PM  
The shiate majority thanks the US while aligning themselves with Iran.
 
2013-04-09 05:11:09 PM  
By the way, we won the Iraq war

Good joke, good joke. Now do one about Vietnam.
 
2013-04-09 05:13:06 PM  
and it only cost 6 Trillion bucks and how many lives and how many soldiers with brain damage and lost limbs and health ruined.


we *won* i guess.
 
2013-04-09 05:13:42 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.



he's a Punk born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a Triple.
 
2013-04-09 05:15:02 PM  

Aarontology: We shouldn't have fought it in the first place.



you mean 'accidently' killing 2 to 700,000 iraqi civilians (nobody knows exact number) is a problem?
 
2013-04-09 05:15:21 PM  

Linux_Yes: Popcorn Johnny: GWB is a hero, get over it.


he's a Punk born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a Triple.


Wow, that's generous of you. My description tends to involve a firing squad.
 
2013-04-09 05:15:54 PM  

SilentStrider: FlashHarry: and when are we going to liberate syria, north korea, zimbabwe, and west virginia?

change West Virginia to Kansas, and I'm in.


As a resident in the only part of the state not owned by the T party by now...yes we would greet you as liberators.
 
2013-04-09 05:15:57 PM  

PreMortem: Wait, we were at war? When did this happen?



while george bush jr was handing out tax cuts to big business and the wealthy.
 
2013-04-09 05:16:36 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: keiverarrow: Oh yeah, what did we win?

You aren't from America, are you?



i am . what did we 'win'?
 
2013-04-09 05:16:58 PM  

Linux_Yes: GWB is a hero, get over it.


he's a Punk born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a Triple.


www.silverspoonbabyplanners.com
Laughed so hard, that I spat out the silver spoon.
 
2013-04-09 05:18:00 PM  

oldfarthenry: To the winner goes the spoils six trillion dollar clean-up bill.



lol    those punk republicans don't know anything about the 6 Trillion dollar cost (and dead/wounded soldiers and dead iraqi civilians).   fark you, Republicans.
 
2013-04-09 05:19:35 PM  

DeltaPunch: Of COURSE we won. To admit otherwise is to acknowledge that we committed the most expensive and idiotic mistake in the history of the free world.



America never loses.   even when we lose, we 'win',  thanks to the best Propaganda big business "news" machine in the World.
 
2013-04-09 05:20:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: keiverarrow: Oh yeah, what did we win?

A pair of brand new legs!

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 600x531]


there's a 'winner'!!!
 
2013-04-09 05:20:55 PM  

Straight to doom: Reagan won it right?



Ronnie's taking his Dirt Nap.   shhhh.  don't want to wake him.
 
2013-04-09 05:23:09 PM  

Geotpf: So you Republicans don't mind raising taxes to pay for it, right?

[crickets]



lol


dead silence.   welcome to Republicanville.  Where Reality is whatever we want to believe.
 
2013-04-09 05:27:44 PM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


You call Iraq a war?  We knew we'd smash their military in weeks, and we did.

Unfortunately we also smashed their political infrastructure to pieces, causing complete chaos and requiring us occupy that hellhole for a decade.

Now we have a nice Iran backed dictatorship taking over.  USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-04-09 05:29:04 PM  
What did you get, Charlie Brown?

I got Iraq.
 
2013-04-09 05:30:48 PM  
Iraq sucks and it sucks more now after the U.S. went in there and made it suck.
 
2013-04-09 05:31:19 PM  

Linux_Yes: Straight to doom: Reagan won it right?


Ronnie's taking his Dirt Nap.   shhhh.  don't want to wake him.


I want to wake him. I've got so many questions to ask him.
 
2013-04-09 05:33:43 PM  
So happy Iraqis are better off now than they were under Hussein. Because it was totally worth it. Now let's go liberate the Norks, because you know, they're suffering and everything.

/F*ck GWB. F*ck Neocons. F*ck Republicans.
 
2013-04-09 05:34:04 PM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


And how did you serve your country, Mr. ITG?

\have you farkied as Iraqitard for a good reason, I see.
 
2013-04-09 05:39:21 PM  

Maud Dib: weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]

And how did you serve your country, Mr. ITG?

\have you farkied as Iraqitard for a good reason, I see.


And that cartoon was from when Bush announced Mission Accomplished.
 
2013-04-09 05:39:34 PM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


Surely there must be another panel to that cartoon...  something like the father saying that he could not support a war that was based on funnelling money to private corporations and needless loss of life.
 
2013-04-09 05:41:59 PM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


Jesus... What year was that published?
 
2013-04-09 05:52:30 PM  

Sgt Otter: We seized all of Saddam's massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, caught Osama bin Laden hiding in Baghdad spooning with Saddam, U.S. troops were out in six weeks, and the war paid for itself.  Just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz promised.

SUCK IT, LIBS.


I thought we caught OBL and Saddam during a Wal-Mart raid...

i915.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-09 05:53:09 PM  
Congratulations! We won!

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

USA! USA!
 
2013-04-09 06:04:05 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-09 06:19:16 PM  

Jesterling: [www.charlock.org image 640x480]


That's a photoshop - Bush would never use a teleprompter.
 
2013-04-09 06:21:17 PM  

Wyalt Derp: If by "we" you mean "Halliburton etc" then yes, I guess 'we' did.


Good point. Who are "we" anyway?

I would argue that the Republicans started the war and they lost it. But their enemy is the Democrats, not the Iraqis. Those hundreds of thousand of Iraqi corpses were just props in the great drama of American politics.
 
2013-04-09 06:21:56 PM  
Here I thought it was the biggest mistake ever, by the most evil president ever. At least that's what I've been told again and again by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left.

Stopped reading here. Nothing of value can come after this. Though my eyes did drift down to where the guy who wound up in charge of Iraq is very glad he wound up in charge of Iraq. Good to have an unbiased cross-section of the Iraqi people tell us that.

On the other hand, I do appreciate that he acknowledges that I am his moral, ethical, and intellectual superior.
 
2013-04-09 06:22:44 PM  
Aaaargh, forgot to make my point. As a Democrat, I'd say we won.
 
2013-04-09 06:23:34 PM  

lennavan: SkeletorUpInHere: As a somewhat right leaning person, I don't understand why anyone says we won/lost.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WINNING IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

Once we got there, there was no going back. You carry it out, whether it takes 2 weeks or 20 years. Politics are out the window. You can't pull out because you'll look weak as a nation. Take it on the chin. Tough learned lesson.

I cannot possibly imagine any person with even just a passing familiarity with US history thinks we actually learned any lessons here whatsoever.


If we'd learned any lessons from US history, we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.
 
2013-04-09 06:25:47 PM  
The comments on TFA have gotten amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.

Now that the link has gotten outside of the echo chamber, the ACTUAL AUTHOR is reduced to "b-b-b-but WE WON!" to every negative comment.
 
2013-04-09 06:58:52 PM  
The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.
 
2013-04-09 06:59:08 PM  
Team Americaaaa....fark Yeah!
 
2013-04-09 07:13:03 PM  

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


Not our problem he was in power, or his sons. Never was. Mad?
 
2013-04-09 07:13:44 PM  
Technically we won Vietnam too.  We never lost a battle.  It worked out well for us didnt it?
 
2013-04-09 07:19:14 PM  
F*ck anyone who tries to justify that black mark on our history. F*ck 'em straight to hell.
 
2013-04-09 07:20:48 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: ApeShaft: Yeah, and you also totally won in Vietnam!

[i.imgur.com image 600x387]

[bestuff.com image 210x118]
It was a tie


Came for this, leaving satisfied.
 
2013-04-09 07:34:25 PM  
I am not a violent woman, by nature, but I really want to cockpunch the guy who wrote that article.
 
2013-04-09 07:57:02 PM  
We're Iran?

because that's who "won."
 
2013-04-09 08:10:53 PM  
Well, it has been a while since we've seen a new justification for Bush's Crusade. I thought we'd stopped seeing them altogether.

Expect to see this one a lot more. The last one "well, we overthrew a dictator! Why do you love dictators so much?" stopped working.
 
2013-04-09 08:19:09 PM  
The puppet we installed likes his masters... good
 
2013-04-09 08:21:55 PM  
What did we win, a free coffin?
 
2013-04-09 08:35:04 PM  
TFAuthor sounds pretty damn butthurt.
 
2013-04-09 08:39:47 PM  
This one time I beat up a retarded kid and I was really proud of myself.  Put that one in the win column.  Although I don't understand why everyone around me found it repulsive.. Me #1!!
 
2013-04-09 08:58:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.

Boer War. Philippine Insurrection. Malaya.


Northern Ireland.

Heck, the United States - the natives started with Metacom's war and never did manage to dislodge the invaders.
 
2013-04-09 09:08:20 PM  

whidbey: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

Not our problem he was in power, or his sons. Never was. Mad?


No. Weak troll.
 
2013-04-09 09:11:36 PM  
We won the battle against Saddam and his forces.  Beyond that, we won't know what has really been gained, if anything, from this whole debacle for decades.  However, we sure as fark know what we've lost so far and it's a metric shiatload of lives, money, ethical standing, etc, etc.
 
2013-04-09 09:51:22 PM  
 
2013-04-09 09:58:10 PM  

MisterRonbo: Philip Francis Queeg: Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.

Boer War. Philippine Insurrection. Malaya.

Northern Ireland.

Heck, the United States - the natives started with Metacom's war and never did manage to dislodge the invaders.


The invaders had the benefit of primitive biological and chemical warfare...

/Who needs missiles when you have blankets and bottles?
 
2013-04-09 10:10:56 PM  

James!: The guy who is now in charge of Iraq appreciates us helping him get there?  I. am. shocked.

 
2013-04-09 10:29:53 PM  
cdn-media.hollywood.com
Ta-da...
 
2013-04-09 10:39:51 PM  

reimanr06: MisterRonbo: Philip Francis Queeg: Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. 

Heck, the United States - the natives started with Metacom's war and never did manage to dislodge the invaders.

The invaders had the benefit of primitive biological and chemical warfare...

/Who needs missiles when you have blankets and bottles?


On the one hand, that is a brilliant observation.

On the other, somewhere Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith or Richard Perle is reading this and saying, "Of course, that's it! Now I know our occupation of Iran will only last perhaps six weeks, certainly less than six months..."

/ let's start up PNNAC and sell 'em the idea
 
2013-04-09 10:44:20 PM  
 Here I thought it was the biggest mistake ever, by the most evil president ever. At least that's what I've been told again and again by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left.

Christ, I can see his sneer and flashing eyes through the Internet.

What is it that makes these guys such stupid, giant assholes?

They'll take any "proof" that their side is correct, no matter how rediculous, and trumpet it.

"The guy who's in power due to our actions thinks they were a good idea!  SO IN YOUR FACE, LIBS!  WOOOOOO!"

Well, obviously, he would, you stupid, giant asshole.

Likewise, these guys take any mistake anyone on the left makes and scream it from the rooftops.  Or, sometimes they'll just make stuff up.

It's like the only thing that matters to them is putting down libs, and they're not even good at that.
 
2013-04-09 10:46:14 PM  
And thus, Fark headlines abandoned all pretense of not being straight-up audience trolling.
 
2013-04-09 11:01:36 PM  

Muta: Mercutio74: Hmmmm... seemed to have slipped by the Bush administration, the mainstream media (including and especially Fox) and congress pretty easily.

I think a lot of people in the administration and Congress knew the most probable outcome.  They were marginalized and silences.  Of course, "we'll be greeted as liberators", yet no reason was given for why we would.    If you disagreed then you were out of a job.


Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
 
2013-04-09 11:02:31 PM  

mrexcess: And thus, Fark headlines abandoned all pretense of not being straight-up audience trolling.


That was the Daily Caller's headline.
 
2013-04-09 11:10:12 PM  
sendtodave
That was the Daily Caller's headline.

And if Tucker Carlson put on his Hero tag bow-tie and jumped off a bridge, would you?
 
2013-04-09 11:14:46 PM  

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.
 
2013-04-09 11:30:09 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.


NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.
 
2013-04-09 11:38:26 PM  
For such a small, shiatty, hack of a website, the DC sure gets a lot of greens on Fark
 
2013-04-09 11:45:02 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.

NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.


Imagine how we could have transformed our own country with the money spent on Iraq.  Instead of school closures and teacher layoffs everywhere we could have smaller class sizes and full funding of needed supplies.  Plus, free college for everyone.  Plus, free healthcare.  Plus, increased national infrastructure spending.  And on and on.  And we'd still have the most formidable military on the planet.  But no.  Instead, we'll spend probably 6 trillion or more on Bush's misguided disaster which destroyed countless lives instead.  Yeah.
 
2013-04-09 11:49:30 PM  
Militarily? Yeah. We stomped the shiat out of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard.

Every other way? We lost. Horrifically. In more ways than just conflict.

Why did I waste a click reading this trash.
 
2013-04-09 11:52:00 PM  

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


Okay, so the end justifies the means? If the only goal was to oust Saddam and his (admittedly) psychopathic sons, wouldn't an extrajudicial assassination been cheaper and easier, not to mention more plausibly deniable?
 
2013-04-10 12:02:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

Okay, so the end justifies the means? If the only goal was to oust Saddam and his (admittedly) psychopathic sons, wouldn't an extrajudicial assassination been cheaper and easier, not to mention more plausibly deniable?


But then Bush couldn't have been a bad-ass wartime preznit and Cheney would have had a sad.  (I'm not sure how you tell when Cheney has a sad, but that's beside the point.)
 
2013-04-10 12:24:57 AM  

vrax: A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.

NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.

Imagine how we could have transformed our own country with the money spent on Iraq.  Instead of school closures and teacher layoffs everywhere we could have smaller class sizes and full funding of needed supplies.  Plus, free college for everyone.  Plus, free healthcare.  Plus, increased national infrastructure spending.  And on and on.  And we'd still have the most formidable military on the planet.  But no.  Instead, we'll spend probably 6 trillion or more on Bush's misguided disaster which destroyed countless lives instead.  Yeah.


We couldn't afford Iraq.  Ergo, we can't afford feel-good entitlements for poor people like public schools.

The difference, of course, is that War is a necessary expenditure.  Everyone can agree that the government exists for war.  Not everyone agrees that it exists to help poors.  So, we could afford Iraq.

Even though we couldn't, of course.  So stop playing "What if?" with money we didn't ever have!
 
2013-04-10 01:07:49 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.


Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.
 
2013-04-10 01:17:06 AM  

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.

[i.imgur.com image 300x278]


i178.photobucket.com
i931.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-10 01:25:14 AM  

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


Citation needed.
 
2013-04-10 01:25:20 AM  
I once got stung by a hornet, so I punched a wasp nest as hard as I could. Man, was that a messed up nest when I was done. I really showed them what a boss I am.

Sure, I got stung a few hundred times, but I think the wasps agree that I ultimately won the fight against their nest.

Anyhow, it was best to fight the wasps over there, so I wouldn't have to fight them over here.
 
2013-04-10 01:31:48 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.


Can't tell if trolling.
 
2013-04-10 01:35:01 AM  

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


It's so cute that you think history will side with you.
 
2013-04-10 01:35:21 AM  
Nobody wins a war, one side loses less, but there are no gains to be had when we squander our blood and treasure on tilting at windmills.
 
2013-04-10 01:38:24 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.


Sure. In another six or eight wars, we should have the whole thing ironed out completely!
 
2013-04-10 01:59:27 AM  

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.


ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2013-04-10 02:00:44 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.


o_O
 
2013-04-10 02:01:40 AM  

sendtodave: vrax: A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.

NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.

Imagine how we could have transformed our own country with the money spent on Iraq.  Instead of school closures and teacher layoffs everywhere we could have smaller class sizes and full funding of needed supplies.  Plus, free college for everyone.  Plus, free healthcare.  Plus, increased national infrastructure spending.  And on and on.  And we'd still have the most formidable military on the planet.  But no.  Instead, we'll spend probably 6 trillion or more on Bush's misguided disaster which destroyed countless lives instead.  Yeah.

We couldn't afford Iraq.  Ergo, we can't afford feel-good entitlements for poor people like public schools.

The difference, of course, is that War is a necessary expenditure.  Everyone can agree that the government exists for war.  Not everyone agrees that it exists to help poors.  So, we could afford Iraq.

Even though we couldn't, of course.  So stop playing "What if?" with money we didn't ever have!


But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.  Ergo, and alternatively, we could have afforded to do all the rest.

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.  Therefor our government is just as justified in spending that money on improving our country.

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.  We are in pretty sad shape because of it.  We're already way too far along the road to having a military that is far too large protecting a citizenry of imbeciles.
 
2013-04-10 02:24:23 AM  

vrax: But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.


Well, sure, but we need to shut down NPR to pay for it.  Thanks, Obama!

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.

But once a war is started, it is necessary to fund it.  If we shouldn't pay for unnecessary war, and any war we start we need to pay for, it must mean that any war we start, once started, is necessary!  By your own logic!

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.  Destroying other countries makes ours better!  At least, for the ones that profit from the destruction.  The ones who matter.
 
2013-04-10 02:29:35 AM  

sendtodave: vrax: But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.

Well, sure, but we need to shut down NPR to pay for it.  Thanks, Obama!

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.

But once a war is started, it is necessary to fund it.  If we shouldn't pay for unnecessary war, and any war we start we need to pay for, it must mean that any war we start, once started, is necessary!  By your own logic!

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.  Destroying other countries makes ours better!  At least, for the ones that profit from the destruction.  The ones who matter.


Our own logic, is, by any standard, flawed.

Destroying other countries sure seems to make some of our country feel better at least.  Mostly the GOP and the deranged, but I repeat myself.
 
2013-04-10 02:50:39 AM  

Corvus: Lost Thought 00: What percentage of their oil reserves do we control? How much plunder did the troops return with?

www.aljazeera.com

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

The US government didn't get the plunder, the US oil corporations did.


Not sure how the pie is split, but there you have:

670 Iraq Iraq
? Iraq
3 China Malaysia France
75 US Malaysia
350  US US Russia Norway
227 Italy Korea Iraq US Iraq
1400 China UK Iraq
2725 total

If shares in each region are split evenly (a silly idea, but we'll go with it), you have the US companies getting only about 10% of the total.
 
2013-04-10 03:25:34 AM  

sendtodave: If shares in each region are split evenly (a silly idea, but we'll go with it), you have the US companies getting only about 10% of the total.


Don't ruin a good conspiracy theory by saying that the US is the world's third biggest producer of oil by barrels per day at 9.5 Million.

If we were interested in invading a country to steal their oil, we'd have hit Saudi Arabia, who produce 10.5 Million Barrels per day.
 
2013-04-10 03:53:05 AM  

sendtodave: vrax: But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.

Well, sure, but we need to shut down NPR to pay for it.  Thanks, Obama!

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.

But once a war is started, it is necessary to fund it.  If we shouldn't pay for unnecessary war, and any war we start we need to pay for, it must mean that any war we start, once started, is necessary!  By your own logic!

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.  Destroying other countries makes ours better!  At least, for the ones that profit from the destruction.  The ones who matter.


Dude, by definition, any war we start MUST be necessary...because we started it. We are America; we are The Good Guys; we don't start wars that are unnecessary, because that would be Bad, and the Good Guys don't start Bad wars. If we started a war, it therefore is a Good War, and hence necessary. Therefore, no war expense is an unnecessary expense. And therefore we can afford it, because it is necessary.

Even if later on it seems as if a war was Bad (cf. Vietnam), the rationale for the war AT THE TIME will never be questioned. You'll always see it viewed in light of "well, at the time," or "if we'd known then what we know now", or making it the fault of a small cadre of small-minded or short-sighted individuals. NEVER is the idea mooted that perhaps the whole thing was a Bad Idea from the outset and it would have been better if we'd never gone in at all and we as a nation were collectively wrong.
 
2013-04-10 05:25:14 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Really? Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history. We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.


1. You're mistaking "casualty" for death.  36,395 is the casualty total for the Iraq occupation and it is the highest casualty rate since Vietnam.  The reason only 4,500 of those are dead is because of technology, not the Bush administration's nimble strategy prowess and clarity of vision.

2.  "Probably about as low as any war in history" is a completely nonsensical term.

3. "We," kemosabe?

4.  What objectives?

5.  The Iraqis that don't hate us are the ones that tersely demanded that the we get the f*ck out of their country, as we have f*cked it up enough already.
 
2013-04-10 06:12:00 AM  
When are we going to stop winning the war in Iraq?
 
2013-04-10 06:19:38 AM  
I just wish that Bush had said that we were going to go in and topple an oppressive dicatator because he was practicing genocide on them instead of screaming WMD.  I at least would have respected him for his decison.  Instead I am once again disappointed that he pulled the same crap it seems LBJ pulled because he wanted to go into Vietnam.
 
2013-04-10 07:16:42 AM  
As a conservative, I never approved of invading Iraq and still don't. I don't care frankly that Iraqis are grateful, or that Saddam was a bastard. We don't send our soldiers to die in foreign adventures where our national security isn't threatened.

As much as I disapprove though, ppl tend to forget that it did have some side benefits and probably made war in Iran and NK less likely.

I just don't think I could explain adequately the benefits to parents and spouses of the dead.
 
2013-04-10 09:00:59 AM  

regindyn: I wonder if Jon Stewart loads up The Daily Caller and questions his decision to kill Crossfire.


Ten gyars ago, when the 24 hour news cycle was dominated by cable TV shows that were just two jackasses braying at each other for an hour, I honestly believed that the level of discourse could not possibly get worse.

Now the news cycle is dominated by websites that each have a stable full of jackasses, all competing with each other to see who can bray the loudest.

It is horrifying.
 
2013-04-10 09:02:39 AM  

Gunny Walker: When are we going to stop winning the war in Iraq?


December 18, 2011.
 
2013-04-10 09:33:18 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Well, that's weird. That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?
Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?

Ugh.  You're such a twat.  This is why you can't keep a girlfriend.


The death count watch on the news networks did stop, so that's a valid point.
 
2013-04-10 12:10:13 PM  

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War Contracts
 
2013-04-10 01:40:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Dude, by definition, any war we start MUST be necessary...because we started it. We are America; we are The Good Guys; we don't start wars that are unnecessary, because that would be Bad, and the Good Guys don't start Bad wars. If we started a war, it therefore is a Good War, and hence necessary. Therefore, no war expense is an unnecessary expense. And therefore we can afford it, because it is necessary.

Even if later on it seems as if a war was Bad (cf. Vietnam), the rationale for the war AT THE TIME will never be questioned. You'll always see it viewed in light of "well, at the time," or "if we'd known then what we know now", or making it the fault of a small cadre of small-minded or short-sighted individuals. NEVER is the idea mooted that perhaps the whole thing was a Bad Idea from the outset and it would have been better if we'd never gone in at all and we as a nation were collectively wrong.


You almost sound reluctant, as if you entertain the idea that the US was, is, or could be wrong?

Don't let the libs poison your mind.
 
2013-04-10 01:42:55 PM  

Animatronik: As a conservative, I never approved of invading Iraq and still don't. I don't care frankly that Iraqis are grateful, or that Saddam was a bastard. We don't send our soldiers to die in foreign adventures where our national security isn't threatened.

As much as I disapprove though, ppl tend to forget that it did have some side benefits and probably made war in Iran and NK less likely.

I just don't think I could explain adequately the benefits to parents and spouses of the dead.


I've upgraded you from grey 2 to grey 4.
 
2013-04-10 02:24:21 PM  
OK. A couple things buggin' me. This was ultimately about oil supply and protection of the flow of same. Possibly with some hopes for a "Muslim World" buffer zone if it went really well.

Removing Saddam was a noble and justifiable goal in itself and did not require the manufacturing of "evidence" and the humiliation of General Powell at the UN Security Council to make the case. The farker was crazy and gettin' worse, posing active danger to US citizens by "rewarding" the families of suicide bombers who took out innocents in Israel and all over the world. He was not a Muslim, so no case can be made for that. He simply needed to go because he was dangerous to his region and his country. Aside from the oil, which we probably correctly suspect was at least a secondary aim, if not the primary one. Iraq and the world is a better place without him. I have always wondered why they needed additional justification to do it. The popular support which existed at the start of the war would have been there regardless and the aims could have been sold to the masses as a noble enterprise. I know "regime change" is touchy on the world stage, but not too many other countries lined up to protest loudly against the invasion and they probably had mostly the same intel.

He was a destabilizing presence in the region which is why there was not a lot of loud opposition to the invasion from surrounding countries. His time to leave had come. Everyone knew it. So far this could have still been sold at least as effectively as the WMD story which was pure fiction.

The problem and greatest tragedy, since US military victory was never doubted and came swiftly, was that nobody thought of  step 2. Saddam is gone, US has more or less secured things, and they squandered the opportunity to win hearts and minds at this point by assuming (almost insisting) that the Iraqi people would be on their knees thanking their "LIBERATORS" from the great tyrant.

Nobody seems to have given much thought to what they might actually be thinking, which was "ok, thanks for getting him out, now what?" If I lived in Iraq I wouldn't have minded knowing what sorts of things they had in mind since military victory was quick mostly and now farking what? YOU DON'T KNOW? YOU DID THIS WITHOUT A PLAN FOR WHAT CAME NEXT? What the fark idiots?

You knew you were going to be successful in removing him, there was no doubt on that front at all. Your grand plan was that the Iraqi people would have this awesome opportunity to become a democratic nation without the slightest inkling of what that even meant let alone how to accomplish it. They had only experienced dictatorship rule for most of their living memories. The did not know what the hell to do. And the US certainly did not lay much of a roadmap. "OK kid, we got the bad guy out of the Mustang 5.0, I know you have no driver's license, and have only driven bicycles to this point, but here are the keys, hop in and drive, it will be awesome, I promise. Most likely outcome: wrapped around a tree at the first serious corner. Which is kind of what happened.

Which required that the US then send more troops just to beat back the folks who might have had a valid point about being abandoned to their unknown and uncharted fate. Beat them into submission, or at least drive them into Iran and Syria and get the fark out of dodge.

A glorious "win" indeed. It was a golden opportunity squandered by a nation that got cold feet about "regime change" when the time came to do part 2 of "regime change" which is to help establish something in its place. They got nothing, they don't understand democracy because nobody really understood them and their cultural history enough to explain it in terms they could understand and possibly begin to desire that kind of thing for themselves and their future generations. It was a military win and a social and humanitarian disaster, because nobody bothered to consult them and frame things in terms they could get behind. It's like a high handed form of ignorance and laziness at the same time.

I am not suggesting it would have worked, the thing about people is that they have their own minds and will do what they feel is best for them. I think it had a better likelihood of a more favourable result. I am saying we will never know because the US failed to predict the obvious consequences of its actions (again, removing Saddam = good idea) and did not succeed at articulating the alternative in a way that worked in the context and culture they were involved with. It was more like "we are a democracy, and you are gonna be one too, because we say it is the best way for you to go." I would probably lead the charge of "fark YOU" if that happened to me.

Leading a horse to water, but finding it will not drink. This is similar, but the horse went to the water at gunpoint, and even though it wasn't thirsty it had a firehose shot down its throat.  A missed opportunity.

BTW I am kind of liberal in most things. I am not a bleeding heart type but I understand the use of force has its place in the world even if I do not like that.

I don't like the idea of war, but I do believe that sometimes there are no alternatives and it has to happen. But if you commit to killing the other side and sending your own citizens out to be killed or maimed in the name of your objective you better make farking sure you finish the job. That includes some very ugly things like no mercy for terrorists on the other side, and ensuring you do by force all the unpleasant things that we don;t like to think about. There are no half measures in a war you have committed to, and it better end with a goddamn positive result of some kind.

Right now, military victory (foregone conclusion) does not overcome the failures of not having a "step 2."  That is unforgivable and the true waste of the blood and treasure expended. These sacrifices borne by the military personnel and American taxpayer have accomplished no lasting good. Leaving the country creates the conditions for civil war and renders the last 10 years of sacrifices worthless. No greater aims were accomplished.

TL;DR Saddam out = good, Fail to plan step 2 is a disaster of depressing proportions, leaving the country in the situation it is in nullifies the sacrifices made and is setting the stage for collapse into civil war. they should have just killed the bastard and left it at that.
 
Displayed 298 of 298 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report