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.

(CBS News)   Blackhawk down, six U.S. troops die in Afghanistan after coming under attack by insurgents   (cbsnews.com) divider line 29
    More: Sad, Afghanistan, United States, Blackhawks, aviation accidents and incidents, security agreement, insurgents, deputy governor, Martin Dempsey  
•       •       •

3723 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Dec 2013 at 4:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-12-17 05:26:04 PM  
8 votes:

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 05:24:26 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:09:50 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:00:21 PM  
3 votes:
Thanks for defending my freedoms, in Afghanistan, which I'll never visit. Ever.
2013-12-17 05:19:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:12:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:02:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:59:14 PM  
2 votes:
Thanks, Bush!
2013-12-17 04:55:21 PM  
2 votes:
Sad news.
2013-12-18 02:46:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:34:02 AM  
1 votes:
Was the opium transport saved?
2013-12-17 08:53:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:50:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:54:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:52:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:45:04 PM  
1 votes:

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


But then who would guard the poppy fields?
2013-12-17 05:38:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:36:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:30:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:29:57 PM  
1 votes:

Radak: Thanks Whigs!


F*cking Tories.
2013-12-17 05:25:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:20:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:10:28 PM  
1 votes:
Q: Hey, what do you call a group of dead insurgents?

A: A wedding party.
2013-12-17 05:04:43 PM  
1 votes:
I blame Clinton.
2013-12-17 05:04:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:02:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:58:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:56:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:54:13 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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