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.

(CBS News)   Blackhawk down, six U.S. troops die in Afghanistan after coming under attack by insurgents   (cbsnews.com) divider line 91
    More: Sad, Afghanistan, United States, Blackhawks, aviation accidents and incidents, security agreement, insurgents, deputy governor, Martin Dempsey  
•       •       •

3694 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Dec 2013 at 4:49 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-17 04:50:19 PM
Thanks, Obama
 
2013-12-17 04:51:19 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Thanks, Obama


i25.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-17 04:51:29 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Thanks, Obama


But really, a leftist would've gotten us out of there by now.
 
2013-12-17 04:52:00 PM
A statement issued by the NATO international military coalition said the crash was under investigation and that there was no insurgent activity in the area.

Except for the insurgents that set upon them immediately after they landed, we mean.
 
2013-12-17 04:54:13 PM

ikanreed: Man On Pink Corner: Thanks, Obama

But really, a leftist would've gotten us out of there by now.


Unless he's more engaged in his golf game.
 
2013-12-17 04:54:43 PM
Karzai has also lashed out at the United States, accusing it of making threats.

Well, we better hurry up and leave so Mr. Karzai can have a BBQ with the nice, non-threatening Taliban.
 
2013-12-17 04:55:21 PM
Sad news.
 
2013-12-17 04:56:47 PM
Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);
 
2013-12-17 04:58:19 PM

SmackLT: A statement issued by the NATO international military coalition said the crash was under investigation and that there was no insurgent activity in the area.

Except for the insurgents that set upon them immediately after they landed, we mean.


Shush! It's always the insurgence fault, even when it's friendly fire.
 
2013-12-17 04:58:42 PM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: ikanreed: Man On Pink Corner: Thanks, Obama

But really, a leftist would've gotten us out of there by now.

Unless he's more engaged in his golf game.


He's on a secret Hodge to Medina. You know, to celebrate the Muslin holiday of Kreplach.
 
2013-12-17 04:59:14 PM
Thanks, Bush!
 
2013-12-17 05:00:21 PM
Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.
 
2013-12-17 05:02:32 PM

meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);


There is a good reason for that feeling, but it isn't just our generation (also born in 80).  I think there have been about 2 years since the country was founded that it hasn't been involved in armed conflict either with its self or somebody else.
 
2013-12-17 05:02:51 PM

phillydrifter: Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.


It's quite lovely this time of never.
 
2013-12-17 05:03:34 PM
They should get hardcore Republicans to fly these helicopters! They NEVER do anything wrong!
 
2013-12-17 05:04:17 PM

thisisarepeat: I think there have been about 2 years since the country was founded that it hasn't been involved in armed conflict either with its self or somebody else


Blame the hardliners. Every now and then we get a President that keeps them at arm's length, but they would nuke the Middle East, Russia and China if they had their way.
 
2013-12-17 05:04:43 PM
I blame Clinton.
 
2013-12-17 05:06:58 PM
Nobody sais Afghanistan would be safe.
 
2013-12-17 05:07:28 PM
Dammit, the article doesn't say whether Legolas is okay!
 
2013-12-17 05:07:47 PM

Lord_Baull: I blame Clinton.


Thanks, Wilson!
 
2013-12-17 05:08:17 PM

kdawg7736: Nobody sais Afghanistan would be safe.


*said*
 
2013-12-17 05:09:50 PM

meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);


Welcome to the world, partner. Apart from the big wars, we've been doing some kind of small-scale combat operations virtually every year since the Spanish-American war, mostly to stomp on murderous dictators and revolutionaries (pretty much the raison d'etre for the U.S. Marines). Benign (ish) global hegemon = less war for everybody.

For a little perspective, we lost a lot more than 100 guys a year in training accidents in the '80s. It's a professional military, and our job is to risk combat zones in order to protect the country and further its national priorities, mainly by imposing peace on shiatheads who don't like that answer. And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.
 
2013-12-17 05:10:22 PM

kdawg7736: kdawg7736: Nobody sais Afghanistan would be safe.

*said*



Well, thank you for that, because otherwise nobody would be able to understand what you were saising.
 
2013-12-17 05:10:28 PM
Q: Hey, what do you call a group of dead insurgents?

A: A wedding party.
 
2013-12-17 05:12:07 PM
Thanks Whigs!
 
2013-12-17 05:12:26 PM

cgraves67: phillydrifter: Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.

It's quite lovely this time of never.


I'm semi curious about visiting, and there are areas you can go to that are relatively safe. There's even a couple of small western based companies that will act as guides, if you're into that sort of thing.

On the topic of Afghan culture, I just read "A Fort of Nine Towers" (coming of age memoir by a carpet maker/seller based in Kabul). While the various wars and subsequent struggles are a constant in the book, I highly recommend it if you would like to understand cultural elements of Afghanistan beyond what you see on the news, and generally just enjoy a good read.
 
2013-12-17 05:12:30 PM

mbillips: And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.


Sounds like propaganda. It's one thing to encourage democracy in a country. Bombing the fark out of it to do it is quite another.
 
2013-12-17 05:19:07 PM
These are going to be some of the last soldiers to die in a bullshiat hobby war, what a shame. Keep farking that chicken Obama.
 
2013-12-17 05:19:20 PM

meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);


Read your Max Boot.  America has ALWAYS been "at war" somewhere.  Whether it's spending a century driving the Indians out of America, the Barbary Coast, the opening of Japan and China (culminating at  Peking), a half century of random interventions in South/Central America, the entire Cold War, Vietnam, the "I'm bored and have a large military" phase of the 1990's, or the War in Terror, there's NEVER been a period where the US wasn't engaged or about to be engaged somewhere overseas.
 
2013-12-17 05:19:55 PM

meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?
I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);


The United States is a martial country, founded through war and built through conquest.

It's not going to stop doing what got it started.
 
2013-12-17 05:20:20 PM

mbillips: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

Welcome to the world, partner. Apart from the big wars, we've been doing some kind of small-scale combat operations virtually every year since the Spanish-American war, mostly to stomp on murderous dictators and revolutionaries (pretty much the raison d'etre for the U.S. Marines). Benign (ish) global hegemon = less war for everybody.

For a little perspective, we lost a lot more than 100 guys a year in training accidents in the '80s. It's a professional military, and our job is to risk combat zones in order to protect the country and further its national priorities, mainly by imposing peace on shiatheads who don't like that answer. And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.


Thats nice.

We still have enough education problems here in the US, how about we fix those before we worry about Afghans.  And then, how about we still not worry about Afghans and fix other problems here.
 
2013-12-17 05:20:59 PM

whidbey: mbillips: And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.

Sounds like propaganda. It's one thing to encourage democracy in a country. Bombing the fark out of it to do it is quite another.


You actually have to have some knowledge before you dismiss someone else's reporting. Hell, just read "The Kite Runner" and you'd know a little more about the situation. We haven't bombed the fark out of Afghanistan. There's a big difference between shooting Hellfires at small groups of bad guys who have been identified from the ground (sometimes mistakenly), and Arc Light. The Afghans are all for us blowing up the Taliban; they just get mad when we miss. One reason that drones firing missiles have become so ubiquitous in Afghanistan is that they're a lot less likely to kill nearby civilians than satellite-guided, 2,000-pound bombs dropped from aircraft, which we basically quit using because of civilian deaths.
 
2013-12-17 05:22:28 PM
Media is back to mentioning Afghanistan? They took almost 2 years off. The disillusion for Obama continues to grow.
 
2013-12-17 05:22:50 PM

mcreadyblue: SmackLT: A statement issued by the NATO international military coalition said the crash was under investigation and that there was no insurgent activity in the area.

Except for the insurgents that set upon them immediately after they landed, we mean.

Shush! It's always the insurgence fault, even when it's friendly fire.


It could totally have been a Taliban Blackhawk.
 
2013-12-17 05:24:26 PM

MyRandomName: Media is back to mentioning Afghanistan? They took almost 2 years off. The disillusion for Obama continues to grow.


Can we please go back to calling Bush and Cheney war criminals? Something reality based.
 
2013-12-17 05:25:21 PM

95629: mbillips: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?


We still have enough education problems here in the US, how about we fix those before we worry about Afghans.  And then, how about we still not worry about Afghans and fix other problems here.


Selfish person says what? Don't worry, we're helping the Afghans out of pure enlightened self-interest. That's where bin Laden was training his anti-American suicide bombers before 2001. Also (although we only recently learned this), Afghanistan has a shiat ton of natural resources, so it's in our interest for them to be a stable country where we can buy stuff.

As for American education problems, do those include girls being murdered for having the audacity to go to school?
 
2013-12-17 05:25:32 PM
I'm always interested in the language used in these press releases.
'Insurgents'- Or, as they'd be called if this was the same war the same people fought against the Russians, 'Patriots'........

Because, let's face it, it's the Americans who are the 'insurgents'.
Not that I support the Afghans, I just can't see any really valid reason why we in the west have troops there. In all the years of fighting, have we rendered the country into safe, uncorrupt, and democratic self rule? Have we defeated the Taliban? Deposed all the local warlords? Stopped or significantly reduced the growing of opium poppies and the export of heroin?
So far, despite all the deaths, the answer to all these questions seems to be no.

Oh. And 'troops'. A troop is multiple. A trooper is a member of a troop.
 
2013-12-17 05:26:04 PM

mbillips: Welcome to the world, partner. Apart from the big wars, we've been doing some kind of small-scale combat operations virtually every year since the Spanish-American war, mostly to stomp on murderous dictators and revolutionaries make profits for US conglomerates


FTFY.

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-17 05:26:47 PM

mbillips: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

Welcome to the world, partner. Apart from the big wars, we've been doing some kind of small-scale combat operations virtually every year since the Spanish-American war, mostly to stomp on murderous dictators and revolutionaries (pretty much the raison d'etre for the U.S. Marines). Benign (ish) global hegemon = less war for everybody.

For a little perspective, we lost a lot more than 100 guys a year in training accidents in the '80s. It's a professional military, and our job is to risk combat zones in order to protect the country and further its national priorities, mainly by imposing peace on shiatheads who don't like that answer. And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Afghanistan

So they'll soon have it as good as under the Soviet Union.
 
2013-12-17 05:28:57 PM

Headso: These are going to be some of the last soldiers to die in a bullshiat hobby war, what a shame. Keep farking that chicken Obama.


We must stay the course until we've won the war. Otherwise the sacrifices of our military over the past 10 years will be for nothing.
 
2013-12-17 05:29:57 PM

Radak: Thanks Whigs!


F*cking Tories.
 
2013-12-17 05:30:35 PM

mbillips: We haven't bombed the fark out of Afghanistan.


Oh please.

You actually have to have some knowledge before you dismiss someone else's reporting.

It's still propaganda. Deal with it. So you're pro-police action? Good I'm not.

The fact is that the US made the region much more unstable, and it continues to be a foreign policy failure despite the billions (trillions?) we've pumped into it.

Take your realpolitik somewhere else.
 
2013-12-17 05:34:57 PM
Just WOW.
This first started as "Helicopter Crash, 6 NATO soldiers confirmed dead"
Later it was "6 US Soldiers Dead in Helicopter Crash due to Engine Failure"
Now, it's "Helicopter shot down, 6 Confirmed US Deaths"
 
2013-12-17 05:36:04 PM

spawn73: mbillips: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

Welcome to the world, partner. Apart from the big wars, we've been doing some kind of small-scale combat operations virtually every year since the Spanish-American war, mostly to stomp on murderous dictators and revolutionaries (pretty much the raison d'etre for the U.S. Marines). Benign (ish) global hegemon = less war for everybody.

For a little perspective, we lost a lot more than 100 guys a year in training accidents in the '80s. It's a professional military, and our job is to risk combat zones in order to protect the country and further its national priorities, mainly by imposing peace on shiatheads who don't like that answer. And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Afghanistan

So they'll soon have it as good as under the Soviet Union.


Hey, don't downgrade your commie when it comes to education and healthcare. You may have a secret police listening for the first hint of sedition, and gulags stuffed to the gills with anyone who dares question the regime, but by God, everybody goes to school and has easy access to a doctor. Fidel Castro was smart enough to make that his top priority, and Cuba is much better off because of it.

If you ask me, living under a strict, puritanical theocracy is worse than living under communism. But there are better alternatives to both.
 
2013-12-17 05:37:23 PM

Molavian: Radak: Thanks Whigs!

F*cking Tories.


If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a loyalist... or an unlocked footlocker. Can't remember right now.
 
2013-12-17 05:38:13 PM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: ikanreed: Man On Pink Corner: Thanks, Obama

But really, a leftist would've gotten us out of there by now.

Unless he's more engaged in his golf game.


While reading a telepromter in all 57 states no doubt.
 
2013-12-17 05:40:27 PM
In my lifetime: The Cold War. Korea. Various " military actions" in the Caribbean. Nicaragua, Bay o' Pigs. Viet Nam (participated in that one). More assorted 'military conflicts" world wide.  Grenada ( yeah the one where we invaded a Caribbean Island). . More actions in places like Panama, Lebanon, a former Soviet State or two, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,  only ceiling cat knows how many "covert military actions", and now we are excited about prospects in Iran, Syria. and maybe "Best Korea".  I am sure a left a couple out, it is hard to keep track. So Yes, we are a tad addicted to killing foreigners and getting our kids killed too. Good times, good times.
 
2013-12-17 05:41:10 PM

ikanreed: Man On Pink Corner: Thanks, Obama

But really, a leftist would've gotten us out of there by now.


Like the Soviets.
 
2013-12-17 05:42:10 PM

whidbey: mbillips: We haven't bombed the fark out of Afghanistan.

Oh please.

You actually have to have some knowledge before you dismiss someone else's reporting.

It's still propaganda. Deal with it. So you're pro-police action? Good I'm not.

The fact is that the US made the region much more unstable, and it continues to be a foreign policy failure despite the billions (trillions?) we've pumped into it.

Take your realpolitik somewhere else.


The Middle East Institute isn't a propaganda organ. So what would have been better? Leave the Taliban alone; let them harbor Al Qaeda and provide a safe haven for terrorist training and planning, while continuing to ruin the lives of millions of people with their insane, twisted version of an Islamist utopia? I'm not defending the way the Bushies fought the war in Afghanistan; that was completely dicked up, and Iraq was a complete waste of blood and money (mostly Iraqi blood and money). But Afghanistan was about as just a just war as you can get. If we'd stayed there and focused on the job, we'd have been back home by @ 2006, and both we and they would be better off.
 
2013-12-17 05:43:10 PM

meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);


A perpetual state of war is necessary to feed the military-industrial complex. Don't they have hippies where you live?
 
2013-12-17 05:44:42 PM

vernonFL: Sad news.


This. My thoughts are with the families left behind, and their buddies carrying on the mission.

Very sad.
 
2013-12-17 05:45:04 PM

mbillips: we'd have been back home by @ 2006


But then who would guard the poppy fields?
 
2013-12-17 05:46:15 PM

zamboni: Molavian: Radak: Thanks Whigs!

F*cking Tories.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a loyalist... or an unlocked footlocker. Can't remember right now.


Next thing you know you're discussing jelly donuts and pushups over the insurgency.
 
2013-12-17 05:47:59 PM
How many years has Obama had now to end this? Can he even spell responsibility?
 
2013-12-17 05:50:44 PM

SDRR: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

A perpetual state of war is necessary to feed the military-industrial complex. Don't they have hippies where you live?


The military-industrial complex is doing a shiat job then.

upload.wikimedia.org
/And keep in mind that the budget has fallen since then.
//Mostly because we shoved it all off on the states, but still.
 
2013-12-17 05:50:46 PM

Radak: Thanks Whigs!


Damn Federalist!
 
2013-12-17 05:52:16 PM

Mattoon: How many years has Obama had now to end this? Can he even spell responsibility?


What shocks me is that people are surprised about Obama and his stance on Afghanistan. He very clearly said he would surge into Afghanistan. And he did.

Had Bush done that instead of going into Iraq, who knows where Afghanistan and more importantly where the troops from the US and other countries would be.

But there was money to be made in Iraq. Still is. Only problem is it's BP and China National Petroleum Company making the oil money in Iraq now. They're operating Iraqi oil fields now. Good jerb, George.
 
2013-12-17 05:54:25 PM

mbillips: So what would have been better? Leave the Taliban alone; let them harbor Al Qaeda and provide a safe haven for terrorist training and planning, while continuing to ruin the lives of millions of people with their insane, twisted version of an Islamist utopia?


Chicken or the egg argument. We get it. You have a hard-on for imperialist military violence to teach those poor savages how to be more like Americans.

But Afghanistan was about as just a just war as you can get.

Bull shiat. The US ran in there with no justification, the same as Iraq. And I would wager that not invading would have saved us trillions of dollars, countless lives and nothing would have changed.

Now you sound like an alcoholic. Afghanistan was/is a failure. Admitting it is the first step.
 
2013-12-17 05:55:23 PM

SDRR: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

A perpetual state of war is necessary to feed the military-industrial complex. Don't they have hippies where you live?


The U.S. definitely gets involved in more foreign conflicts than we would if we had a smaller, less-capable military. But I very much doubt there would be less foreign conflict without us. You know what the U.S. Army did before they just flat-out began exterminating American Indians in the 1860s-1890? They tried to stop the Indians from fighting each other, because it jacked up trade and transport for white folks. War in Europe really dropped off after 1815, because the Royal Navy was so powerful that nobody wanted to test their desire to keep trade flowing. Things only got deadly after Germany challenged for the role of hegemon. The U.S. inherited that global hegemony in 1945, and the trend toward less and less war has continued on the macro scale, particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which funded Marxist revolutions around the world). Just look at the numbers; the entire butcher's bill in Iraq would be considered a fairly unsanguine morning's work in World War I. There was a large increase in "societal" war after WWII (e.g. the Namibian civil war and Rwanda), as former colonies sorted themselves out, and quite a lot of that was exacerbated by Cold War funding of factions by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Since then, things have been calming down considerably, with the USA as the only superpower. So it's tough to argue that America increases the amount of global conflict to benefit plutocrats (plutocrats make more money in peacetime).

www.systemicpeace.org
 
2013-12-17 05:57:41 PM

mbillips: So it's tough to argue that America increases the amount of global conflict to benefit plutocrats (plutocrats make more money in peacetime).


Is this a joke?
 
2013-12-17 06:07:29 PM

whidbey: mbillips: So what would have been better? Leave the Taliban alone; let them harbor Al Qaeda and provide a safe haven for terrorist training and planning, while continuing to ruin the lives of millions of people with their insane, twisted version of an Islamist utopia?

Chicken or the egg argument. We get it. You have a hard-on for imperialist military violence to teach those poor savages how to be more like Americans.

But Afghanistan was about as just a just war as you can get.

Bull shiat. The US ran in there with no justification, the same as Iraq. And I would wager that not invading would have saved us trillions of dollars, countless lives and nothing would have changed.

Now you sound like an alcoholic. Afghanistan was/is a failure. Admitting it is the first step.


Do you know any Afghans? Or anyone who's been to Afghanistan? I know a buttload of the latter. Afghanistan has a functioning national military and police, which it has pretty much NEVER had before. It's got a pledge of U.S. monetary support for the indefinite future (the lack of which was why it fell apart after the Soviets were kicked out). It has an unprecedented number of women being educated, and women serving in positions of power. How that's a failure, I fail to see. The fact that there's still an insurgency isn't much of a benchmark; do you know how long the Shining Path were active in Peru? Ever heard of the Malayan Emergency? The Khmer Rouge? Insurgencies generally take decades to put down, but most of them wind up being put down.
 
2013-12-17 06:07:41 PM
It seems to me that every person in this thread should watch the untold history of the united states.

you can draw your own conclusions from it. The main one I took from it was that if there is to be a war on terrorism, then the first thing that should be done is disband the cia.

Those farks truly are international super villians
 
2013-12-17 06:11:06 PM

mbillips: Do you know any Afghans? Or anyone who's been to Afghanistan? I know a buttload of the latter.


Dude, your anecdotal evidence means nothing. I'm pointing out reality that is easily backed up with 10 years of political and social analysis.

The fact that there's still an insurgency isn't much of a benchmark; do you know how long the Shining Path were active in Peru? Ever heard of the Malayan Emergency? The Khmer Rouge? Insurgencies generally take decades to put down, but most of them wind up being put down.

Yes, we know by now that you love to use fearmongering and what-if scenarios to make your points. What makes you think they aren't deserving of harsh criticism?
 
2013-12-17 06:14:25 PM

whidbey: mbillips: Do you know any Afghans? Or anyone who's been to Afghanistan? I know a buttload of the latter.

Dude, your anecdotal evidence means nothing. I'm pointing out reality that is easily backed up with 10 years of political and social analysis.

The fact that there's still an insurgency isn't much of a benchmark; do you know how long the Shining Path were active in Peru? Ever heard of the Malayan Emergency? The Khmer Rouge? Insurgencies generally take decades to put down, but most of them wind up being put down.

Yes, we know by now that you love to use fearmongering and what-if scenarios to make your points. What makes you think they aren't deserving of harsh criticism?


How about this?

Afghanistan is still mildly farked up.
Afghanistan is significantly LESS farked up than when we went in, and seems to be looking somewhat more stable and mildly Westernized/modern than it was before we went in.  We ALSO aren't treating them as an ongoing threat to us here in the United States.  And we managed to do all of that without having an American Elphinstone.

I'm calling that a (very) qualified win.  Ditto with Iraq.
 
2013-12-17 06:19:03 PM

whidbey: mbillips: Do you know any Afghans? Or anyone who's been to Afghanistan? I know a buttload of the latter.

Dude, your anecdotal evidence means nothing. I'm pointing out reality that is easily backed up with 10 years of political and social analysis.

The fact that there's still an insurgency isn't much of a benchmark; do you know how long the Shining Path were active in Peru? Ever heard of the Malayan Emergency? The Khmer Rouge? Insurgencies generally take decades to put down, but most of them wind up being put down.

Yes, we know by now that you love to use fearmongering and what-if scenarios to make your points. What makes you think they aren't deserving of harsh criticism?


You keep saying that, but I haven't seen a cite yet. Half-remembered bullshiat from Noam Chomsky don't count. Gimme some numbers saying Afghanistan is worse off than in 2001. Even casualty lists; at least that's something.
 
2013-12-17 06:23:11 PM

meyerkev: whidbey: mbillips: Do you know any Afghans? Or anyone who's been to Afghanistan? I know a buttload of the latter.

Dude, your anecdotal evidence means nothing. I'm pointing out reality that is easily backed up with 10 years of political and social analysis.

The fact that there's still an insurgency isn't much of a benchmark; do you know how long the Shining Path were active in Peru? Ever heard of the Malayan Emergency? The Khmer Rouge? Insurgencies generally take decades to put down, but most of them wind up being put down.

Yes, we know by now that you love to use fearmongering and what-if scenarios to make your points. What makes you think they aren't deserving of harsh criticism?

How about this?

Afghanistan is still mildly farked up.
Afghanistan is significantly LESS farked up than when we went in, and seems to be looking somewhat more stable and mildly Westernized/modern than it was before we went in.  We ALSO aren't treating them as an ongoing threat to us here in the United States.  And we managed to do all of that without having an American Elphinstone.

I'm calling that a (very) qualified win.  Ditto with Iraq.


Ehhhh, Iraq was unnecessary and cost too much. And was run by the most incompetent pack of dimwits this side of a Glenn Beck rally. The first thing that surprised me when I got to Iraq ijn 2006 was that senior military officers would openly call for Paul Bremer to be prosecuted for criminal negligence. He was the Michael Brown of Mesopotamia. We got out of there mostly intact, other than a few trillion dollars in the red, but sheesh, it should never have been done.
 
2013-12-17 06:23:56 PM

meyerkev: How about this?

Afghanistan is still mildly farked up.
Afghanistan is significantly LESS farked up than when we went in, and seems to be looking somewhat more stable and mildly Westernized/modern than it was before we went in.  We ALSO aren't treating them as an ongoing threat to us here in the United States.  And we managed to do all of that without having an American Elphinstone.

I'm calling that a (very) qualified win.  Ditto with Iraq


No, not considering the cost of keeping it "less farked up."

The truth is that Afghanistan was a scapegoat. You know as well as anyone that the hi-jackers weren't Afghans, but Saudis. You also know that the Taliban had offered to turn over Bin Laden to a 3rd party.

In hindsight, we could have spent the 10 years better through peaceful means, using the UN and other non-aggressive tactics. The results would have been much better than the total waste of lives and resources we chose to go with.

I honestly doubt I am going to change your mind, but to coin a phrase "The truth is out there." Afghanistan was bullshiat, and indicative of the failed hegemony the US has become.
 
2013-12-17 06:25:54 PM

mbillips: You keep saying that, but I haven't seen a cite yet. Half-remembered bullshiat from Noam Chomsky don't count. Gimme some numbers saying Afghanistan is worse off than in 2001. Even casualty lists; at least that's something.


Dude, I'm done with you. You honestly can't pretend the past 10 years didn't happen.

Bonus points for being a Chomsky hater. Did you use to be ZipSplat? This conversation is wonderfully familiar.
 
2013-12-17 06:35:38 PM

mbillips: spawn73: mbillips: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

Welcome to the world, partner. Apart from the big wars, we've been doing some kind of small-scale combat operations virtually every year since the Spanish-American war, mostly to stomp on murderous dictators and revolutionaries (pretty much the raison d'etre for the U.S. Marines). Benign (ish) global hegemon = less war for everybody.

For a little perspective, we lost a lot more than 100 guys a year in training accidents in the '80s. It's a professional military, and our job is to risk combat zones in order to protect the country and further its national priorities, mainly by imposing peace on shiatheads who don't like that answer. And if you don't think things in Afghanistan are far better than under the Taliban, you haven't been paying attention.

Key pull quote:

In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Afghanistan

So they'll soon have it as good as under the Soviet Union.

Hey, don't downgrade your commie when it comes to education and healthcare. You may have a secret police listening for the first hint of sedition, and gulags stuffed to the gills with anyone who dares question the regime, but by God, everybody goes to school and has easy access to a doctor. Fidel Castro was smart enough to make that his top priority, and Cuba is much better off because of it.

If you ask me, living under a strict, puritanical theocracy is worse than living under communism. But there are better alternatives to both.


That is kinda their thing. They call the girls Comrade as well.
 
2013-12-17 06:47:52 PM

meyerkev: SDRR: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

A perpetual state of war is necessary to feed the military-industrial complex. Don't they have hippies where you live?

The military-industrial complex is doing a shiat job then.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
/And keep in mind that the budget has fallen since then.
//Mostly because we shoved it all off on the states, but still.


Huge chunks of Iraq and Afghanistan were funded via emergency supplemental appropriations, which aren't calculated in budget costs.  It was a nice way for the Bush administration to hide how much this shiat was really costing.
 
2013-12-17 06:49:38 PM

mbillips: War in Europe really dropped off after 1815, because the Royal Navy was so powerful that nobody wanted to test their desire to keep trade flowing.


No, that's not the reason why. The reason was they just finished a continent-engulfing 20 year conflict that killed up to 10 million people, and the memory of that horror staved off the enthusiasm to have another one for several generations.

mbillips: The U.S. inherited that global hegemony in 1945, and the trend toward less and less war has continued on the macro scale,


The consequences of waging large-scale war has changed ever since we obtained the means to obliterate the entire planet. That wasn't a serious consideration in wars in the past. It has nothing to do with the United States role as global peacemaker (and when I say peacemaker, I mean warmaker-for-the-sake-of-American-interests).

mbillips: So it's tough to argue that America increases the amount of global conflict to benefit plutocrats (plutocrats make more money in peacetime).


Every war America has ever engaged in has been for profit. What the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-12-17 07:01:44 PM

whidbey: mbillips: You keep saying that, but I haven't seen a cite yet. Half-remembered bullshiat from Noam Chomsky don't count. Gimme some numbers saying Afghanistan is worse off than in 2001. Even casualty lists; at least that's something.

Dude, I'm done with you. You honestly can't pretend the past 10 years didn't happen.

Bonus points for being a Chomsky hater. Did you use to be ZipSplat? This conversation is wonderfully familiar.


Everyone with any sense over the age of 25 is a Chomsky hater. Dude should have stuck with linguistics; his political analysis is high-grade mule manure. And again, your argument seems to be "Duh, dude, obviously, everyone thinks this way." That's generally a sign of lack of education and experience.

If it helps you gain any perspective on where I'm coming from, I'm an old-timey, New Deal Democrat, of the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson-Clinton-Obama school of foreign policy. Basic tenets are 1) Nazis suck. 2) Commies suck, if not quite as bad as Nazis, because rich people kinda have it coming. 3) Fascists suck almost as hard as commies, but rarely engage in genocide, so there's that. 4) The purpose of the U.S. military is to knock the everlasting Christ out of groups 1-3, whenever it will lead to fewer deaths/less misery.

Now, we've certainly failed to follow the formula many times, mainly because of military incompetence (Vietnam) or civilian leadership idiocy (Iraq, the first eight years in Afghanistan). But it's also worked well in spots (the Balkans once Clinton got off the dime, Haiti, Libya, the Philippines in the past decade. The real trick to making it not be a shiatshow is to ensure international approval/participation, as in Afghanistan (which incidentally is a NATO show with full UN support, not simply a "coalition of the willing."
 
2013-12-17 07:07:24 PM

Ishkur: mbillips: War in Europe really dropped off after 1815, because the Royal Navy was so powerful that nobody wanted to test their desire to keep trade flowing.

No, that's not the reason why. The reason was they just finished a continent-engulfing 20 year conflict that killed up to 10 million people, and the memory of that horror staved off the enthusiasm to have another one for several generations.

mbillips: The U.S. inherited that global hegemony in 1945, and the trend toward less and less war has continued on the macro scale,

The consequences of waging large-scale war has changed ever since we obtained the means to obliterate the entire planet. That wasn't a serious consideration in wars in the past. It has nothing to do with the United States role as global peacemaker (and when I say peacemaker, I mean warmaker-for-the-sake-of-American-interests).

mbillips: So it's tough to argue that America increases the amount of global conflict to benefit plutocrats (plutocrats make more money in peacetime).

Every war America has ever engaged in has been for profit. What the hell are you talking about?


farking lazy-ass kids, read a history or economics book. Show me some farking numbers. Every U.S. war for the past 50 years has led to budget deficits, recessions and inflation. "Back and to the left," is also not a cogent argument. Corporations make money on trade. War farks up trade. The defense sector makes almost as much money in peacetime as during wars, except for the Christmas-tree stores like Halliburton. Defense companies account for barely more than 2 percent of the economy, anyway. With the exception of professional warmongers like Dick Cheney, nobody is going to war for General Dynamics.
 
2013-12-17 07:10:34 PM
Hagel spoke at his appointment hearings about how his Vietnam experience shaped him.    He said in interviews that Johnsons actions late in the war were 'criminal' because Johnson was not fast enough getting the troops out.    Soldiers died 'who didn't have to' according to Hagel.

Huh,  that kinds of sounds like today and Afghanistan.

He said it was a disservice that Americans would die without clear vision and directives.   That kind ofsound like what we have today also.   Not very clear objectives at all.

And I think he said he would be the guy to expedite and move up the timeline to get out of Afghanistan.   ?

He also bragged that he would cut spending on Defense.   But in 2013 and 2014 the Military will spend more than in 2010.

Sounds like he was all talk.   Little action.
 
2013-12-17 07:13:13 PM

mbillips: the country and its national priorities, mainly by imposing peace on shiatheads


This is the thinking that led to people crashing planes into our buildings. When you fark with people eventually they fark you back.

Answer me in simple words: if we're all about "imposing peace" (which sounds like a "freezer burn" to me) on shiatheads why are we not in half of Africa, North Korea, China, Iran, Israel, and everywhere else where good people are suffering?
 
2013-12-17 07:55:41 PM

phillydrifter: Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.


"Never say never, citizen."

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-17 07:58:38 PM

JungleBoogie: phillydrifter: Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.

"Never say never, citizen."

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


i always had trouble with that seatbelt for some reason.

/not in oef but in oif
 
2013-12-17 08:50:14 PM

mbillips: farking lazy-ass kids, read a history or economics book. Show me some farking numbers. Every U.S. war for the past 50 years has led to budget deficits, recessions and inflation. "Back and to the left," is also not a cogent argument. Corporations make money on trade. War farks up trade. The defense sector makes almost as much money in peacetime as during wars, except for the Christmas-tree stores like Halliburton. Defense companies account for barely more than 2 percent of the economy, anyway. With the exception of professional warmongers like Dick Cheney, nobody is going to war for General Dynamics.


All American wars are fought over economics but sold under the guise of ideology. Americans never get involved in war until it actually affects their prospects for making money. That's when they get mad.

The Revolutionary War was because the wealthy traders, merchants and landowners wanted economic autonomy and all the tariffs and taxes from Britain hampered their mercantile ambitions. The word they used was "Independence", and they were partly being truthful, though they weren't strictly speaking of political independence. They wanted freedom -- the freedom to make more money. The political freedom that the Declaration espoused did very little to actually change the lives of the average citizen (a sizable portion of whom were slaves).

The Mexican-American war was really a blockbuster real estate deal pretending to be a war. The Republic of Texas won independence from Mexico in 1835, then immediately sought voluntary annexation to the United States for protection. America rejected the proposal, naturally foreseeing that such a move would lead to war with Mexico. Thus begins a proud tradition in American warfare: Don't get involved in a war if there is no profit in it.

Back to Texas: America finally accepted annexation on the condition that it absorb all of "Greater" Texas' lands (which included parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma). This lead to war with Mexico in 1846. America was doing well, kicking ass, and by 1848 occupied Mexico City, when suddenly they decided to end it. Just like that. Instead of finishing the job, America offers to buy all the land from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean from Mexico for $15,000,000. Mexico, defeated and bankrupt, decides okay sure! Because they weren't doing anything with that land, and hey -- free money. And they were the losers in this war? Fine, take all that worthless desert, suckers.

The ink was barely dry on the treaty when America announced that there was lots of gold in newly-acquired California. This is another proud tradition in American warfare: Never let a war get in the way of making profit.

The Civil War was, to put it really simple, because the industrialized north wanted to sell farming equipment to the agrarian south. The south, seeing this as an attempt to control their economy ala the Revolutionary War, attempted to secede and seek their own form of economic autonomy.

Corollary: Remember that the South started the war, because from their perspective it was not a war of defense or survival, but a war of flexing their economic might. They figured they were better off without the north for they had King Cotton. This illustrates how even when America is in a war against itself, both sides are still after profit.

The Indian war was over Lebenschraum. It started with Polk, the territorial expansionist President who bought the land from Texas and the Mexican Cession. He also wanted the border with Canada to be 54'40". That's up near Prince Rupert. If that had happened, Canada would be a cold, almost completely empty country with only about 200,000 people. And America would like hockey more.

The Spanish-American war was over sugar. Cuba produced something like 80% of the world's sugar at the time, and Americans needed it for their newfangled Coca-cola drinks. Cuba was supposed to become a state before Hawaii or Alaska ever would. To this day, it is still regarded by Americans as the one that got away.

The First World War was because America (re: the Dupont family) was making a tidy profit selling weapons to both sides (but mostly the British), and so didn't see any reason why they should join but could give all sorts of reasons why it should continue. Then those mean ole Germans decided on a new policy: unrestricted submarine warfare, which trashed a lot of American merchant ships, killing their profit margins, and that's bad. So Uncle Sam went to war again, to teach those dastardly Krauts a lesson: Don't get in the way of the American zest for profit.

The Second World War was over East Asian interests, chiefly the Philippines. Sure, the trade boycott forced resource-poor Japan to attempt to neutralize the US pacific fleet, but that's because Japan was beating the living crap out of their economic partners. So when the shiat went down, America declared "How dare you try to thwart our economic interests in the Pacific basin by attacking a colonially-occupied, exploited and invaded American territorial non-state!" The funny thing with Hawaii was such a big stink was made over its invasion, and so much hype generated over what was considered on December 6, 1941 to be a mean-nothing, two-bit archipelago territory (of which there are dozens in the Pacific, a lot of them controlled by the US, and none of them given so much attention and fervor when the Japanese invaded), that afterwards granting statehood was really a rare display of honor and integrity that the US kind of regrets.

The truth is Hawaii was really supposed to be Cuba. But since the US practically manufactured the island as the excuse reason to go to war, to not throw it a bone afterward would've been a dick move. So Hawaii became a state in a grand showing of "Thanks for inviting us into the war." Guam, Wake Island, Bora Bora, Philippines, Samoa, Midway, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, the Marianna Islands and Puerto Rico can all become states too when they drag America into a World War.

The Korean war was because of the belief that the Americans, who had fought the Japanese almost single-handedly in WWII as opposed to the coalition of nations that fought Germany, should naturally get all the spoils of Imperial Japan when it surrendered. And rightfully so. Why should the Soviets get anything just because they declared war on August 7th? The first bomb was a message to Japan, the second bomb was a message to the Russkies, to keep their stupid commie pinko hands off Japanese holdings. And what do they do? Invade Japan-occupied Korea and Manchuria anyway. If the bombs were not dropped and the war had been dragged out, Japan would have likely been split into spheres of control like Germany was, and the profit-minded Americans were going to have none of that. They fought the damn island nation for four years, they deserve to reap the rewards. Sushi for baseball, and crappy transistor radios that will transmogrify into excellent cars and electronics within 30 years, that's what was going to happen.

So Korea got split in two because the Chinese invaded the peninsula. This is like having a friend show up late to your BYOB party with only a 6-pack of cheap beer, and he drinks everyone elses imports out of the fridge for the rest of the night. That wasn't fair. So a war was fought, and in the end, nothing changed the lines. Korea was still split in two. America is still bitter over that one.

That whole "make the world safe for Democracy" thing? uhhhh, yeah, Whatever.

Central America? Three words: United Fruit Company

Vietnam was over rubber and tin. Don't let anyone tell you different. The big problem with Vietnam was that, to use an analogy, America was playing a football game in which they were constantly on defense and the North Vietnamese had unlimited downs. And if there was a turnover, the US had to give the ball back. Sooner or later, the VC were going to punch the ball through the endzone. It didn't matter what was going to happen.

But Vietnam doesn't really count anyway, because it wasn't an actual war. It was a police action. At this point, America had developed a really great war economy called the Military-Industrial Complex, so it became really profitable for American military contractors to sell weapons to itself to fight its own wars, rather than sell weapons to other countries to fight foreign wars, as it had done in the past.

Iraq? Oil.

Not oil for America, mind you. America gets very little oil from the Middle East. Too expensive to transport halfway round the world like that. American crude mostly comes from Texas, Venezuela and Canada. Middle Eastern oil is destined to evaporate in European cars. By controlling Iraqi oil, America places its thumb on the economic oligarchy that is the European Union which is the biggest threat to American global hegemony right now (in the future, China). It doesn't take much tinkering to make an economic union into a political one (if it isn't already), and then by proxy, into a military one. America knows this, so most of its military moves since the end of the Cold War has been directly keyed towards thwarting or mandating European economic oligopoly.

That's the source of the next conflict. Because Europeans love to fight, and they've gone quite awhile since they've had a really big one.

America doesn't actually like to fight. But it loves to profit. And it will fight in order to make one.
 
2013-12-17 08:53:52 PM

mbillips: In 2002, the CIA estimated about 800,000 Afghan students enrolled in primary education, the vast majority of whom were boys. Today, there are over 8.2 million students enrolled in school, of whom almost 40% are girls.



for the cost of the war they could have given each of them a half a million bucks and let them just buy their education abroad and then have seed money for a business.
 
2013-12-17 10:02:39 PM

Headso: These are going to be some of the last soldiers to die in a bullshiat hobby war, what a shame. Keep farking that chicken Obama.


WTF??? Whats your point about? When is war a hobby and what do you mean about Obama? Oh, ok, its a hobby for _you_...a computer gamer veteran I see...
 
2013-12-17 10:36:33 PM

meyerkev: SDRR: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

A perpetual state of war is necessary to feed the military-industrial complex. Don't they have hippies where you live?

The military-industrial complex is doing a shiat job then.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
/And keep in mind that the budget has fallen since then.
//Mostly because we shoved it all off on the states, but still.


Notice your graph says Iraq and Afghanistan were excluded from the graph...
 
2013-12-18 01:50:44 AM

Ishkur: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?
I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

The United States is a martial country, founded through war and built through conquest.

It's not going to stop doing what got it started.


Sleep tight. Real tight. We'll be where you are soon...
 
2013-12-18 04:34:02 AM
Was the opium transport saved?
 
2013-12-18 05:44:36 AM

thehobbes: meyerkev: SDRR: meat0918: Can we please wrap up operations there, and elsewhere?

I'm starting to get that "We've always been at war" vibe, because damn it, we've been doing something, somewhere, that would classify as a "war" if Congress wasn't so averse to actually declaring war, for damn near my entire life (born in 80);

A perpetual state of war is necessary to feed the military-industrial complex. Don't they have hippies where you live?

The military-industrial complex is doing a shiat job then.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
/And keep in mind that the budget has fallen since then.
//Mostly because we shoved it all off on the states, but still.

Notice your graph says Iraq and Afghanistan were excluded from the graph...


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2013-12-18 08:17:15 AM

mbillips: You actually have to have some knowledge before you dismiss someone else's reporting. Hell, just read "The Kite Runner" and you'd know a little more about the situation. We haven't bombed the fark out of Afghanistan. There's a big difference between shooting Hellfires at small groups of bad guys who have been identified from the ground (sometimes mistakenly), and Arc Light. The Afghans are all for us blowing up the Taliban; they just get mad when we miss. One reason that drones firing missiles have become so ubiquitous in Afghanistan is that they're a lot less likely to kill nearby civilians than satellite-guided, 2,000-pound bombs dropped from aircraft, which we basically quit using because of civilian deaths.


We "miss" when the Taliban first responders get to the site before the ground forces do and haul away all the heavy weapons, turning an insurgent attacking force setting up an artillery barrage outside a town into "an innocent wedding party that was mis-identified by coalition troops."

/but at least the US media isn't shrieking about "war crimes" whenever one of these incidents takes place
//thanks Obama
///no, seriously, thanks Obama
 
2013-12-18 08:24:52 AM

phillydrifter: Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.


Don't worry, if you ignore them long enough, Afghanistan will come to visit you.

/again
//like on September 11, 2001
///or February 26, 1993
 
2013-12-18 02:46:26 PM

Tatterdemalian: Don't worry, if you ignore them long enough, Afghanistan will come to visit you.

/again
//like on September 11, 2001


Gee, I thought most of those guys were Saudis.  Joke's on me, I guess.
 
2013-12-18 05:59:02 PM

Ishkur: mbillips: farking lazy-ass kids, read a history or economics book. Show me some farking numbers. Every U.S. war for the past 50 years has led to budget deficits, recessions and inflation. "Back and to the left," is also not a cogent argument. Corporations make money on trade. War farks up trade. The defense sector makes almost as much money in peacetime as during wars, except for the Christmas-tree stores like Halliburton. Defense companies account for barely more than 2 percent of the economy, anyway. With the exception of professional warmongers like Dick Cheney, nobody is going to war for General Dynamics.

All American wars are fought over economics but sold under the guise of ideology. Americans never get involved in war until it actually affects their prospects for making money. That's when they get mad.


Wow, that's all pretty much bullshiat, other than the United Fruit Company stuff in Central America, and oil in Iraq (it was much more complicated than that, but Cheney really did want to physically control the Middle East's oil, because the U.S. military can't pursue unilateral "defensive aggression" without a really insane amount of airplane fuel).

My favorite part was straining the response to Pearl Harbor into a pure greed reaction.
 
2013-12-18 08:45:03 PM

mbillips: Wow, that's all pretty much bullshiat


You see, not being American has given us a very keen perspective on actual American history. Sorry to hit you in the face with the cold, hard shovel of historical truth like that, but hey -- it was bound to happen sooner or later.

Let me quote some more Butler:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

"It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

"I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service. I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

"I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"During those years, I had a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

~ Major General Smedley D. Butler (1935)


mbillips: My favorite part was straining the response to Pearl Harbor into a pure greed reaction.


You do realize they knew about Pearl Harbour well ahead of time and let it happen, right? That's why their carriers were out to sea that day. They wanted into the war but knew the American people would never support such aggression unless they were attacked. Pearl Harbour was the perfect catalyst for mobilization. And best of all, war spending cured the Depression, validating Keynesian theory.
 
2013-12-18 09:18:24 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Tatterdemalian: Don't worry, if you ignore them long enough, Afghanistan will come to visit you.

/again
//like on September 11, 2001

Gee, I thought most of those guys were Saudis.  Joke's on me, I guess.


If you think the country of your birth is more important than the country where you spent most of your life training and forming relationships as a jihadi terrorist, then yes, it is.

/Osama hoped to start a holy war between the US and the entire Islamic world
//if Dubya had been stupid enough to blame the attack on The Land of Mecca and Medina based on the nationality of the hijackers alone, Osama would have received everything he wanted
///he probably would have choked on it, but it's like the difference between winning WWII using nukes and winning it with a decade-long bloody invasion and extermination of the entire Japanese Empire
 
2013-12-18 10:56:36 PM

Tatterdemalian: Man On Pink Corner: Tatterdemalian: Don't worry, if you ignore them long enough, Afghanistan will come to visit you.

/again
//like on September 11, 2001

Gee, I thought most of those guys were Saudis.  Joke's on me, I guess.

If you think the country of your birth is more important than the country where you spent most of your life training and forming relationships as a jihadi terrorist, then yes, it is.

/Osama hoped to start a holy war between the US and the entire Islamic world
//if Dubya had been stupid enough to blame the attack on The Land of Mecca and Medina based on the nationality of the hijackers alone, Osama would have received everything he wanted
///he probably would have choked on it, but it's like the difference between winning WWII using nukes and winning it with a decade-long bloody invasion and extermination of the entire Japanese Empire


yo tatter put down the crack pipe...WTF dude?
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report