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.

(CNN)   So...turns out al Qaeda controls more territory now than ever. So, we got that going for us   (cnn.com) divider line 176
    More: Sad, al-Qaeda, Middle Eastern, Anbar, Ramadi, Peter Bergen, Prime Minister Nuri, Idlib, Anbar Province  
•       •       •

6117 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2014 at 11:12 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-10 11:13:46 AM
Thanks Obama!
 
2014-01-10 11:13:46 AM
I guess we forgot to kill them in our "War on terror"
 
2014-01-10 11:14:06 AM
And William Kristol has a piece up encouraging Americans to love war.
 
2014-01-10 11:14:48 AM
We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.
 
2014-01-10 11:15:21 AM
Maybe the Muslim extremists are right and this is God guiding the to victory.
Allah be praised!
 
2014-01-10 11:17:29 AM
ISIS is also operating in Syria.

Well at least there's a chance they'll royally screw it up.  If ODIN was operating there, then we'd have problems.
 
2014-01-10 11:18:16 AM
which is nice.
 
2014-01-10 11:18:24 AM
So then....time for another $2 trillion dollar war to straighten it all out and expand their territory again?

ya know, create a shining becon of freedom like we did in Falluja?  Just look at the democratic paradise that we created in Falluja:


previous.presstv.ir

/send your kids today!
 
2014-01-10 11:18:41 AM
At least they're all number 3s or lower
 
2014-01-10 11:19:37 AM
This may mean something, I have no idea, but I don't know if judging them by the square mileage they control is a good method.  Are their numbers up, more attacks, etc.?  Or do they just control a huge swath of nothing?
 
2014-01-10 11:20:32 AM

BadAndy23: ISIS is also operating in Syria.

Well at least there's a chance they'll royally screw it up.  If ODIN was operating there, then we'd have problems.


I laugh every time I see a reference to ISIS.  They really need to change their name.

/I didn't pass out, I took a power blackout
 
2014-01-10 11:21:07 AM
So you're saying we can't kill our way to peace? Who would have guessed?
 
2014-01-10 11:21:18 AM
Throw all the shoes at George Bush. ALL OF THEM!
 
2014-01-10 11:21:30 AM
A bunch of terrorists in the same place at the same time? Their plan is fail proof!
 
2014-01-10 11:22:06 AM
Military Industrial Complex seen rubbing its hands together while whispering, "goooood...gooooood..."
 
2014-01-10 11:22:14 AM
That still counts as change
 
2014-01-10 11:22:35 AM
There was no AQ in Iraq before we invaded them.

This would have been hilarious unless 6 millions + total lives were not lost and trillions of dollars were not wasted.

/Those responsible are still drawing pictures and shooting people on the face
 
2014-01-10 11:22:57 AM
Getting the feeling that the current policy is to just back out and stop pouring money down the hole.

Let them find out how great it is, then maybe the people left alive will abandon the madness.

Nah, they'll be swinging swords at each other on horseback in a generation.
 
2014-01-10 11:22:59 AM
That's too bad.  We were so close to having them entirely eliminated under Bush, virtually months away from being able to dismantle the DHS, TSA,and repealing the Patriot... Nah, can't even type the whole thing.
 
2014-01-10 11:23:37 AM
Did they not get the "Mission Accomplished" memo? Did we not tell them we won? Jesus, just fax it to them-- I'm sure that'll put an end to all this.
 
2014-01-10 11:23:58 AM
Send in the drones!

youbentmywookie.com
 
2014-01-10 11:24:10 AM
As long as we have a Democratic President in the WH, there won't be a repeat of Iraq.

At worst, we'll see repeats of Syria and Libya.  But, that's as far as we'll go.
 
2014-01-10 11:24:36 AM
I place the blame for this squarely on every asshole who signed up for military service after it was obvious we were going to invade Iraq. While the overall strategy was flawed, without volunteers and fresh recruits, we would not have been able to mount such an invasion and squander all the goodwill and support for the Afghan war we had after 9/11.

A strong anti-Iraq war message from the people to the politicians would have done well, but that message wasn't sent as people were falling over themselves to get sent into the desert and people back home were so busy "supporting the troops" when they should have been "condemning the troops" for volunteering to fight an unnecessary and dangerous war that has ultimately made America less safe.

Who couldn't have predicted that an underground terrorist operation that recruits from the angry families of those targeted by the American military as well as those who were killed as collateral damage would have grown in ranks and power from such an invasion and lack of focus? The answer is every American who supported the troops blindly, as if there were any merit in that.
 
2014-01-10 11:24:38 AM

CruJones: BadAndy23: ISIS is also operating in Syria.

Well at least there's a chance they'll royally screw it up.  If ODIN was operating there, then we'd have problems.

I laugh every time I see a reference to ISIS.  They really need to change their name.

/I didn't pass out, I took a power blackout


So what you're saying is that there is some sort of zone of danger between on the Iraqi-Syrian border?
 
2014-01-10 11:25:53 AM
All part of the plan. al Qaeda kills more Muslims than we ever could.
 
2014-01-10 11:26:02 AM

under a mountain: Thanks Obama!


"Decimated."
 
2014-01-10 11:26:09 AM
What a great use of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives! Glad we didn't spend it on healthcare or any other stupid socialist program.
 
2014-01-10 11:26:12 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I place the blame for this squarely on every asshole who signed up for military service after it was obvious we were going to invade Iraq. While the overall strategy was flawed, without volunteers and fresh recruits, we would not have been able to mount such an invasion and squander all the goodwill and support for the Afghan war we had after 9/11.

A strong anti-Iraq war message from the people to the politicians would have done well, but that message wasn't sent as people were falling over themselves to get sent into the desert and people back home were so busy "supporting the troops" when they should have been "condemning the troops" for volunteering to fight an unnecessary and dangerous war that has ultimately made America less safe.

Who couldn't have predicted that an underground terrorist operation that recruits from the angry families of those targeted by the American military as well as those who were killed as collateral damage would have grown in ranks and power from such an invasion and lack of focus? The answer is every American who supported the troops blindly, as if there were any merit in that.


Just an fyi, the vast surge of military volunteers came in the weeks after 9/11 when we were focused on Afghanistan.

But, by all means, continue to foam at the mouth, it's amusing.
 
2014-01-10 11:27:05 AM
At least even the Syria rebels are fighting each other too so it's a good sign that there is some resistance and that their common cause of ousting Assad can't bring them together.

And what about all those Farkers claiming that there were only about a dozen Al Qaeda left anyway?
 
2014-01-10 11:27:08 AM
Maybe if we change our name to the United States of Al Qaeda they will become confused and start sending us money.
 
2014-01-10 11:27:19 AM

USCLaw2010: CruJones: BadAndy23: ISIS is also operating in Syria.

Well at least there's a chance they'll royally screw it up.  If ODIN was operating there, then we'd have problems.

I laugh every time I see a reference to ISIS.  They really need to change their name.

/I didn't pass out, I took a power blackout

So what you're saying is that there is some sort of zone of danger between on the Iraqi-Syrian border?


The further on the edge, the hotter the intensity.
 
2014-01-10 11:28:56 AM

Amish Tech Support: Maybe if we change our name to the United States of Al Qaeda they will become confused and start sending us money.


We need more outside the box thinking like this.
 
2014-01-10 11:29:12 AM

Infernalist: Just an fyi, the vast surge of military volunteers came in the weeks after 9/11 when we were focused on Afghanistan.

But, by all means, continue to foam at the mouth, it's amusing.


I have no problem with those folks. None at all. In fact, anyone who signed up between the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of the war drumming in Iraq I count as heroes. Unfortunately they got stuck in a position where they were required to participate in something they really didn't sign up for.
 
2014-01-10 11:29:22 AM
We should never have treated them like a military enemy. We should have treated them like we did the Cosa Nostra other organized crime syndicates. And many people were saying that at the time but the Bushies and their mouth-breathing acolytes regarded that suggestion as tantamount to treason - like they regarded all other forms of criticism.

By treating them like a military enemy, we raised them up to a level (in terms of their ability to recruit, raise fund and sell their message) that they never could have managed on their own. If we had treated them like low mobsters, on par with pimps and child pornographers and drug pushers, we'd have done a lot better.
 
2014-01-10 11:30:51 AM
This is not your father's al-Qaeda.
 
2014-01-10 11:32:05 AM
More Al Qaeda seems to guarantee only one thing - more dead Muslims.
 
2014-01-10 11:32:06 AM

CruJones: This may mean something, I have no idea, but I don't know if judging them by the square mileage they control is a good method.  Are their numbers up, more attacks, etc.?  Or do they just control a huge swath of nothing?


It pretty much means nothing and, despite the sensationalist headline, the article itself only says that it seems that Al Qaeda backed groups control more territory than ever.  It then goes on to mention that AQ backed groups control parts of Iraq and Syria.  This pretty much contradicts the idea that they control more territory than ever, given that the AQ backed Taliban controlled Afghanistan, which is larger than Iraq and Syria combined.  It also states that AQ backed groups are closer to controlling a state than they ever were, which is pretty much total bullshiat, given that the Taliban actually did control Afghanistan.

This is filed under CNNOpinion for a reason.
 
2014-01-10 11:32:24 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Infernalist: Just an fyi, the vast surge of military volunteers came in the weeks after 9/11 when we were focused on Afghanistan.

But, by all means, continue to foam at the mouth, it's amusing.

I have no problem with those folks. None at all. In fact, anyone who signed up between the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of the war drumming in Iraq I count as heroes. Unfortunately they got stuck in a position where they were required to participate in something they really didn't sign up for.


Smart man.

There were few, if any, volunteers once the focus shifted to Iraq.  They started reducing 'sign up' quotas shortly afterward and started stop-gap measures at about the same time.

In short, not many people signed up once the whole Iraq thing started getting pushed by the GOP.
 
2014-01-10 11:32:37 AM
www.jkrweb.com
 
2014-01-10 11:33:29 AM
And anti-LGBT spokesbigot Tony Perkins is blaming repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
 
2014-01-10 11:35:32 AM

Prey4reign: This is not your father's al-Qaeda.


You're right, I'm sure they have learned a lot over the last 10 years or so.
 
2014-01-10 11:36:24 AM

under a mountain: Thanks Obama!


This is course is all a part of his master plan to usher in the Caliphate to control the entire world under the banner of Islamist Libtardism.
 
2014-01-10 11:36:57 AM
Yeah, but we still have more brew pubs.
 
2014-01-10 11:38:46 AM
From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Falluja in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, according to English and Arab language news accounts as well as accounts on jihadist websites.


Suuuure they do. Just like they have massive underground cities in Tora Bora.

i.imgur.com


And back in reality:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-10 11:39:18 AM
 
2014-01-10 11:40:41 AM
img.fark.net
How is this possible, I was told we won.
 
2014-01-10 11:42:37 AM

The Madd Mann: So you're saying we can't kill our way to peace? Who would have guessed?


If we could somehow graph out "likelihood of peace in the coming 12 months" as a function of "# of people to kill", it'd probably look like an upside-down bell curve.

Sometimes, taking out one or two key people is enough. Sometimes, nothing short of genocide is required for "complete" victory. But as far as simple killing goes, the middle ground is "lengthy military campaign/occupation/power-sharing agreements" (the "messy" part).

// note that I'm not advocating any of the above
 
2014-01-10 11:43:16 AM
So thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and more than a decade of fighting and it's still this easy for them to take over? Maybe warring harder will make us win!
 
2014-01-10 11:43:32 AM

Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.


Yeah, they declared war on us years ago.
 
2014-01-10 11:44:36 AM

gshepnyc: We should never have treated them like a military enemy. We should have treated them like we did the Cosa Nostra other organized crime syndicates. And many people were saying that at the time but the Bushies and their mouth-breathing acolytes regarded that suggestion as tantamount to treason - like they regarded all other forms of criticism.

By treating them like a military enemy, we raised them up to a level (in terms of their ability to recruit, raise fund and sell their message) that they never could have managed on their own. If we had treated them like low mobsters, on par with pimps and child pornographers and drug pushers, we'd have done a lot better.


Exactly.
 
2014-01-10 11:44:46 AM

Infernalist: AverageAmericanGuy: I place the blame for this squarely on every asshole who signed up for military service after it was obvious we were going to invade Iraq. While the overall strategy was flawed, without volunteers and fresh recruits, we would not have been able to mount such an invasion and squander all the goodwill and support for the Afghan war we had after 9/11.

A strong anti-Iraq war message from the people to the politicians would have done well, but that message wasn't sent as people were falling over themselves to get sent into the desert and people back home were so busy "supporting the troops" when they should have been "condemning the troops" for volunteering to fight an unnecessary and dangerous war that has ultimately made America less safe.

Who couldn't have predicted that an underground terrorist operation that recruits from the angry families of those targeted by the American military as well as those who were killed as collateral damage would have grown in ranks and power from such an invasion and lack of focus? The answer is every American who supported the troops blindly, as if there were any merit in that.

Just an fyi, the vast surge of military volunteers came in the weeks after 9/11 when we were focused on Afghanistan.

But, by all means, continue to foam at the mouth, it's amusing.


Not to mention all that certainty about how Iraq had WMD. I won't fault anyone who enlisted under those false assumptions.

Average, you're dangerously close to blaming the victim here.
 
2014-01-10 11:44:50 AM

USCLaw2010: CruJones: BadAndy23: ISIS is also operating in Syria.

Well at least there's a chance they'll royally screw it up.  If ODIN was operating there, then we'd have problems.

I laugh every time I see a reference to ISIS.  They really need to change their name.

/I didn't pass out, I took a power blackout

So what you're saying is that there is some sort of zone of danger between on the Iraqi-Syrian border?


DANGER ZONE!
 
2014-01-10 11:44:51 AM
So... do all these "Al-Qaeda Affiliates" - who are from a host of tribal, national and ethnic groups who operate in remote regions where travel is difficult and communication lines are unreliable know that they're part of a united military organization with a central leadership who are operating a coordinated long term strategy despite the fact the job title "Al Qaeda's Second in Command" comes with a two week life expectancy?
 
GBB
2014-01-10 11:47:04 AM
Ctrl+F: oil

/You guys are slipping.
//Leaving disappointed
 
2014-01-10 11:47:06 AM
So everybody place your bets on if the republican front runners in 2016 will run a platform of "declare war and invade Iraq again".  If you think they cant possibly win the election on such a platform, you are part of the problem.
 
2014-01-10 11:47:30 AM

EdNortonsTwin: More Al Qaeda seems to guarantee only one thing - more dead Muslims.


That's the game plan.
 
2014-01-10 11:48:13 AM
Are they hiring?  Because there are plenty of Americans that could use a job or two.
 
2014-01-10 11:48:25 AM

mike_d85: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Yeah, they declared war on us years ago.



1948? 1953?
 
2014-01-10 11:48:29 AM

Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.


Just say militant islam since thats what we are really at war with, and after watching the documentary on the "muslim brotherhood" Im almost to the point of not allowing muslims into western nations since their plan laid out was to disrupt politically from the inside.
 
2014-01-10 11:48:34 AM

gshepnyc: We should never have treated them like a military enemy. We should have treated them like we did the Cosa Nostra other organized crime syndicates. And many people were saying that at the time but the Bushies and their mouth-breathing acolytes regarded that suggestion as tantamount to treason - like they regarded all other forms of criticism.

By treating them like a military enemy, we raised them up to a level (in terms of their ability to recruit, raise fund and sell their message) that they never could have managed on their own. If we had treated them like low mobsters, on par with pimps and child pornographers and drug pushers, we'd have done a lot better.


There are two big issues with that approach:

A) When fighting Cosa Nostra, all the major nations they operated in were developed nations that were committed and at least semi-capable of fighting Cosa Nostra.  This isn't really the case in the Middle East, where the governments have a loose hold on power and don't really have the support of a large portion of the populace

B) Jurisdiction.  Cosa Nostra operated heavily within the US, meaning the IRS, FBI, ATF, DEA and other organizations within the US government could act against them with relative ease.  With a few exceptions, AQ operates almost entirely outside of the US, which limits the actions the US can take if they are viewed as a criminal organization and not a military enemy.  You can agree or disagree with their classification as PoWs, but it is much easier to imprison a AQ member as a PoW than it is as a common criminal as was done with Cosa Nostra.
 
2014-01-10 11:48:45 AM

i2.cdn.turner.com

There is never, NEVER going to be another FireFly TV series... GET OVER IT!

 
2014-01-10 11:49:29 AM
The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?
 
2014-01-10 11:50:43 AM
don't ya love articles by thinktanks instead of reporters?
 
2014-01-10 11:50:57 AM

Carn: Tune in to Fox this January for the hilarious new sitcom Enlisted.  Join up today!!


That's nothing. You should see the the infomercial on Saturday mornings for the US Army called Army Strong that's run for little kids. At least GI Joe was subtle.

Plus economic conscription is still conscription. In this country you have three choices as youth for an occupation, McWallmart, College-debt trap (which just makes the military more tempting), the military, or jail.
 
2014-01-10 11:51:02 AM

Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?


I do believe genocide is still considered a crime, so yes.
 
2014-01-10 11:52:20 AM
Franco:
Plus economic conscription is still conscription. In this country you have three choices as youth for an occupation, McWallmart, College-debt trap (which just makes the military more tempting), the military, or jail.

Three?
 
2014-01-10 11:52:31 AM
This is good for us. It will be easier to identify our targets and enemies. Instead of having to be discerning and fight against an invisible enemy, we can just carpet bomb the hell out of them all! Huzzah! But seriously, I don't know how anyone thought it was possible to win a "war" with Al Qaeda. That is like saying you are going to wage a war against law-breakers. You will never get rid of law-breakers. You cannot do so. You set yourself up for failure at the very beginning. Once you kill one leader of the organization, another takes their place. This isn't like fighting against a nation where pretty much anyone in the vicinity is a combatant. That would be easy. We are not set up for fighting against this kind of threat. Al Qaeda's best hope for "survival" is to not get too big. The moment the entire nation is flagged as our enemy is the moment they lose.
 
2014-01-10 11:52:42 AM

yakmans_dad: mike_d85: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Yeah, they declared war on us years ago.


1948? 1953?


when we put bases in Saudi Arabia. 1979 or so?
 
2014-01-10 11:53:20 AM

Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?


So we have to start nuking red states?  That sounds extreme.
 
2014-01-10 11:53:58 AM

Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?


Apparently indiscriminately wiping out millions of people to get rid of a few thousand extremists who are mostly engaged in tribal conflicts and actions that are no worse than a lot pre-1900's western history puts you on the moral high ground....
 
2014-01-10 11:54:04 AM

Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?


Don't be silly.  It's not like those country are full of normal folk that are quite content to let the world be and just want to live their lives without fear of death-from-above.

Sure, they have some loonies in their midst.  Hell, a few of them are even in 'charge' of their little corners of the world, but if you're okay with carpet bombing nations simply on the grounds that a few of them hate us and want us dead, then you can't blame them for using bombs on 'us' because of the GOP and the Tea Party lunatics who constantly want us to kill them.
 
2014-01-10 11:55:12 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I place the blame for this squarely on every asshole who signed up for military service after it was obvious we were going to invade Iraq. While the overall strategy was flawed, without volunteers and fresh recruits, we would not have been able to mount such an invasion and squander all the goodwill and support for the Afghan war we had after 9/11.

A strong anti-Iraq war message from the people to the politicians would have done well, but that message wasn't sent as people were falling over themselves to get sent into the desert and people back home were so busy "supporting the troops" when they should have been "condemning the troops" for volunteering to fight an unnecessary and dangerous war that has ultimately made America less safe.

Who couldn't have predicted that an underground terrorist operation that recruits from the angry families of those targeted by the American military as well as those who were killed as collateral damage would have grown in ranks and power from such an invasion and lack of focus? The answer is every American who supported the troops blindly, as if there were any merit in that.


It must be wonderful being right all the time.
 
2014-01-10 11:55:15 AM
content6.flixster.com
 
2014-01-10 11:55:40 AM

Ghastly: Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?

I do believe genocide is still considered a crime, so yes.


Are they doing the same thing?

Why dont we pass new laws that say you cant hide in Schools or churches,  use suicide bombers or IEDs, and only fight on battlefields
 
2014-01-10 11:56:01 AM

yakmans_dad: mike_d85: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Yeah, they declared war on us years ago.


1948? 1953?


When did that Rambo move come out?  1992?  Let's go with that.
 
2014-01-10 11:56:27 AM
Ok, so foreign policy isn't really Obama's thing.   But hey!  He still has the rockin' economy and Obamacare to toot his own horn over....
 
2014-01-10 11:58:07 AM
So, the War on Terror really is Veitnam 2: The Muslim Boogaloo. A Republican president starting an unpopular war, a Democratic president quitting before the job is completed, and our enemy emerging stronger than ever. Why it's almost as if you are not prepared to re-educate an entire population and slaughter 7 out of 10 males over the age of 16 you can't create victory.

Thank you Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld the two assholes who were involved in both Vietnam and The War on Terror, both of which failed.
 
2014-01-10 11:58:27 AM
War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.
 
2014-01-10 11:58:34 AM

BravadoGT: Ok, so foreign policy isn't really Obama's thing.   But hey!  He still has the rockin' economy and Obamacare to toot his own horn over....


OBL.
 
2014-01-10 11:58:42 AM

Franco: Plus economic conscription is still conscription. In this country you have three choices as youth for an occupation, McWallmart, College-debt trap (which just makes the military more tempting), the military, or jail.


i651.photobucket.com

Or all of the above!!1

1) Work at McWallmart, but can't survive on a no bene, $7.15/week PT job, so
2) Get degree by falling into College-debt trap, but there are no jobs for grads, so
3) Join the military and get crippled on first tour + a severe case of PTSD, so
4) End up living on the streets, giving handjobs for crack until you get busted and sent
5) To jail.
 
2014-01-10 11:58:56 AM

Franco: Carn: Tune in to Fox this January for the hilarious new sitcom Enlisted.  Join up today!!

That's nothing. You should see the the infomercial on Saturday mornings for the US Army called Army Strong that's run for little kids. At least GI Joe was subtle.

Plus economic conscription is still conscription. In this country you have three choices as youth for an occupation, McWallmart, College-debt trap (which just makes the military more tempting), the military, or jail.


Funny, now wars are actually closer to fighting Cobra than anything else.
 
2014-01-10 11:59:33 AM

master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.


Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.
 
2014-01-10 12:00:13 PM

Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?


aww, you've started out softly softly this time.

you still suck

1/5
 
2014-01-10 12:04:12 PM

BravadoGT: Ok, so foreign policy isn't really Obama's thing.   But hey!  He still has the rockin' economy and Obamacare to toot his own horn over....



I blew it. I should have voted for John McCain and Sara Palin.  I don't know what I was thinking.  We could be invading Iran and Syria and Potato at this very moment.
 
2014-01-10 12:04:20 PM
The ongoing "war against nouns." In order to play you name a Czar and lose the game on every front by throwing money at the issue. You'll never have enough money.
 
2014-01-10 12:04:41 PM
dancingczars.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-10 12:06:08 PM

Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.


It wasn't what he meant, but the Korean war was where we started seeing these "shadow wars" where it wasn't 2 major powers going head to head (which might have caused WWIII immediately).  Instead we had the US fighting "Korea" who were largely communists from all over east Asia in Soviet equipment.

Repeat this with Vietnam, Afghanistan round 1 (reverse equipment and army), a handful of conflicts in Africa and South America (sometimes with no direct army), and a few other cold war conflicts that kept the world from being nuked but produced mediocre spy movies.
 
2014-01-10 12:06:52 PM

Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.


The Korean War was a war waged between the North and the South that effectively has not ended but instead established a division between North and South Korea. With the ME, you are dealing with militant Islam whose goal is world domination, expansion, and the conversion or genocide of everyone else. If all they wanted was their little territory and be left alone, that's one thing but they will not accept any sort of negotiation. Further, there is really no cohesive "other" side to the coin to maintain equilibrium.
 
2014-01-10 12:07:08 PM

mike_d85: Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.

It wasn't what he meant, but the Korean war was where we started seeing these "shadow wars" where it wasn't 2 major powers going head to head (which might have caused WWIII immediately).  Instead we had the US fighting "Korea" who were largely communists from all over east Asia in Soviet equipment.

Repeat this with Vietnam, Afghanistan round 1 (reverse equipment and army), a handful of conflicts in Africa and South America (sometimes with no direct army), and a few other cold war conflicts that kept the world from being nuked but produced mediocre spy movies.


If that's what he meant, then maybe that's what he should have said.
 
2014-01-10 12:07:22 PM

Hobodeluxe: yakmans_dad: mike_d85: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Yeah, they declared war on us years ago.


1948? 1953?

when we put bases in Saudi Arabia. 1979 or so?


I have a hard time believing that, given that AQ wasn't founded until 1988.  A better date would be 1992, when they launched attacks on US soldiers in Yemen en route to a famine relief operation in Somalia.  That attack failed, though, since the soldiers weren't staying where AQ thought they were.  An argument could also be made for 1993, when the first WTC bombing happened, or in 1996, when Bin Laden issued a Fatawa against the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fataw%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden#1996_fat w. C4.81) and AQ operatives attempted to assassinate President Clinton.
 
2014-01-10 12:08:06 PM

the money is in the banana stand: Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.

The Korean War was a war waged between the North and the South that effectively has not ended but instead established a division between North and South Korea. With the ME, you are dealing with militant Islam whose goal is world domination, expansion, and the conversion or genocide of everyone else. If all they wanted was their little territory and be left alone, that's one thing but they will not accept any sort of negotiation. Further, there is really no cohesive "other" side to the coin to maintain equilibrium.


That's awesome.  Also completely irrelevant to my post, but okay?
 
2014-01-10 12:09:26 PM

CruJones: This may mean something, I have no idea, but I don't know if judging them by the square mileage they control is a good method.  Are their numbers up, more attacks, etc.?  Or do they just control a huge swath of nothing?


This is probably the smartest post in the thread. It says it's around the border between Iraq and Syria.

So to put it simply, they control parts of a country in the middle of a major civil war and parts of two already-unstable cities in Iraq, and even there I don't expect the Iraqi government will let it last too long. And a lot of desert in between.

Al Qaeda needs instability to thrive, and they have it in that area. But I don't see it lasting long after the Syrian civil war ends, unless the worst possible group of rebels wins.
 
2014-01-10 12:09:57 PM

drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]


It's  like you never left...
 
2014-01-10 12:10:35 PM

drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]


No.
 
2014-01-10 12:10:54 PM

mike_d85: Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.

It wasn't what he meant, but the Korean war was where we started seeing these "shadow wars" where it wasn't 2 major powers going head to head (which might have caused WWIII immediately).  Instead we had the US fighting "Korea" who were largely communists from all over east Asia in Soviet equipment.

Repeat this with Vietnam, Afghanistan round 1 (reverse equipment and army), a handful of conflicts in Africa and South America (sometimes with no direct army), and a few other cold war conflicts that kept the world from being nuked but produced mediocre spy movies.


And China was openly operating in Korea.  While they weren't exactly operating with modern equipment, they were a major military power, even back then.  Korea saw lots of major conventional military actions between true national armies.
 
2014-01-10 12:14:41 PM

Target Builder: Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?

Apparently indiscriminately wiping out millions of people to get rid of a few thousand extremists who are mostly engaged in tribal conflicts and actions that are no worse than a lot pre-1900's western history puts you on the moral high ground....


I view terrorism like a virus outbreak or something similar.   You have to initiate quarantine procedures or risk losing much much much more...  And as technology continues to advance in the western world, we have more and more to lose by terrorists acquiring our technological scraps and inventions...  We already see this with nuclear weapons.  We are dealing with people that would wipe out billions of us if they could just press a red button.
 
2014-01-10 12:15:29 PM
also, I was not advocating wiping out entire nations.... just carpet bomb their strongholds whenever they announce them.
 
2014-01-10 12:15:48 PM

drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]


That better be irony, Mister! That man is Al Qaeda's biggest hero. He's done more to unite and strengthen Al Qaeda than Bin Laden did.
 
2014-01-10 12:16:18 PM

Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.


Uh.. no.  We didn't go in and kill everything in sight.  We failed miserably.  We quit and gave up.

Let me rephrase it for dimwits.. To win a war.. as in.. really win a war.. you KILL everything.
 
2014-01-10 12:18:01 PM

TDWCom29: So thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and more than a decade of fighting and it's still this easy for them to take over? Maybe warring harder will make us win!


I warred pretty hard last weekend.
 
2014-01-10 12:19:45 PM
Maul555:  We are dealing with people that would wipe out billions of us if they could just press a red button.

No. No we're not. We're dealing with people armed with IEDs, old soviet surplus RPGs and AK-47s who simply want us the fark off their holy ground and to stay the hell out of their domestic politics.

The other side of this conflict are a bunch of rich business men who are using the US military as their own personal security guards to protect their oil interests.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:22 PM

Ghastly: Maul555:  We are dealing with people that would wipe out billions of us if they could just press a red button.

No. No we're not. We're dealing with people armed with IEDs, old soviet surplus RPGs and AK-47s who simply want us the fark off their holy ground and to stay the hell out of their domestic politics.

The other side of this conflict are a bunch of rich business men who are using the US military as their own personal security guards to protect their oil interests.


no.  they hate our culture and our very way of life.  They advocate killing us all, just like the jews.   these are religious extremists who believe they are doing the work of god, and they are willing to kill themselves and their children to achieve their goal.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:33 PM
master_dman:
Uh.. no.  We didn't go in and kill everything in sight.  We failed miserably.  We quit and gave up.

It shouldn't have been fought in the first place. Communism burns itself out eventually under its own corruption. This would have been accelerated without an enemy for those regimes to turn their citizens anger towards.

Going all-in in Korea would have started WWIII.

I don't know about you, but I personally like living a life where I don't have to stab my next meal to death with a stone tipped spear and dieing of cancer before I'm 30 because of radioactive contamination in my ground water.
 
2014-01-10 12:24:07 PM

Ghastly: drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]

That better be irony, Mister! That man is Al Qaeda's biggest hero. He's done more to unite and strengthen Al Qaeda than Bin Laden did.


Other than that whole, kill them where we find them bit.  Bush was pretty good about killing them.
 
2014-01-10 12:25:32 PM
Maul555:
no.  they hate our culture and our very way of life.

Okay, now we're getting deep into the cliche territory that leads me to believe you are a troll. Well done sir, you got me to bite but you should have quit while you were ahead.

31.media.tumblr.com

 
2014-01-10 12:28:18 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Ghastly: drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]

That better be irony, Mister! That man is Al Qaeda's biggest hero. He's done more to unite and strengthen Al Qaeda than Bin Laden did.

Other than that whole, kill them where we find them bit.  Bush was pretty good about killing them.


Other than the five more springing up for every one that he killed part. All his aggression did was further radicalise the Muslim world against us. People who had probably never given a second thought about the world wanted the US dead after their wedding party was interrupted by a cruise missile.
 
2014-01-10 12:33:18 PM
Infernalist:
If that's what he meant, then maybe that's what he should have said.

No, I said it WASN'T what he meant.  It just made me think of the Korean war in terms of "not a real war" and set of the chain of logic that I thought I would share.

/penis.
 
2014-01-10 12:37:53 PM

Infernalist: the money is in the banana stand: Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.

The Korean War was a war waged between the North and the South that effectively has not ended but instead established a division between North and South Korea. With the ME, you are dealing with militant Islam whose goal is world domination, expansion, and the conversion or genocide of everyone else. If all they wanted was their little territory and be left alone, that's one thing but they will not accept any sort of negotiation. Further, there is really no cohesive "other" side to the coin to maintain equilibrium.

That's awesome.  Also completely irrelevant to my post, but okay?


Korea is relevant to the Middle East question as it relates to our biggest failure in the Middle East:  supporting a sustainable economic model.

When we fought WW II, we destroyed Germany and Japan.  But we then stayed around to help build their economy.  The Soviet Union helped East Germany.  Our work in Germany was a radical departure from what we did after WW I and we all know how well that turned out.  After WW II, however, we stayed around and helped put into place, among other things, supremacy of the rule of law, equality of all citizens before the law, and individual economic security, rather than a centrally planned economy and a system of laws that are subject to the caprices of whoever happens to be in power at the moment.  The differences between East and West Germany were stark.  After reunification, the East wholeheartedly embraced the Western model and look at the progress it has made.

Similarly with Japan, we hung around and had a great deal of influence in developing their new government.  Japan is a very successful country today because of her rule of law and economic model.

North and South Korea are another example of how a form of government based on laws, not individuals, and a free, secure economy tend to drive out elements like Al Qaeda.  This is an example of how the same culture, the same people, the same history can result in diametrically opposed results.

In the Middle East, dictators are the rule.  Economic insecurity is the order of the day.  The law is a capricious concept.  There have been glimmers of success but the terrorists and Islamicists, going back to the PLO, have squelched every opportunity.  Egypt has an opportunity to restore its sanity but I don't see a lot of hope elsewhere.

Meanwhile, in Israel, a system of government based on laws, equality, economic security, and religious freedom (yes, it's a lot easier being Muslim in Israel than it is being Jewish in Iran) function in that same region.

Where the U.S. completely screwed the pooch, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the list goes on, is not using every ounce of influence we could muster, along with European allies, to move those countries in the direction of U.S., European, Japanese, or Israeli forms of government based on laws and not dictators.  I'm not sure it could be accomplished everywhere but if we could get a few countries in the region going, the others would be hard pressed to avoid it for long.

As it has been put so often:  We won the war but lost the peace.

When there is a vacuum, people like the Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, etc. will rush to fill it, to nobody's advantage.
 
2014-01-10 12:40:52 PM
A significant portion of the population in that part of the world would absolutely love to backslide into 8th Century theocracy. Minus the intellectual achievements.

You just can't fix that kind of stupid, especially externally.
 
2014-01-10 12:43:33 PM

master_dman: Infernalist: master_dman: War NEVER really works unless you go in with the realization that you MUST kill everything alive in the area.  The last REAL war was WWII.  You just go in and carpet bomb.

Korean war veterans think you're full of shiat.

Uh.. no.  We didn't go in and kill everything in sight.  We failed miserably.  We quit and gave up.

Let me rephrase it for dimwits.. To win a war.. as in.. really win a war.. you KILL everything.


You apparently know very little about the Korean conflict.  That's okay, I didn't actually expect you to be intelligent.
 
2014-01-10 12:44:08 PM

under a mountain: Thanks Obama!


i248.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-10 12:44:23 PM
I think it's a matter of more groups using the Al Qeada brand name because it sells better.
 
2014-01-10 12:51:44 PM
All Wars are Bankers Wars
 
2014-01-10 12:54:54 PM
USMC guns down young Afghan girl today.


Keeping us safe.
Freedom.
Liberators.

yeah.
 
2014-01-10 01:00:48 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I think it's a matter of more groups using the Al Qeada brand name because it sells better.


There are a couple of reports that suggest that.  This article from the CSM goes into some detail about how Al Qaeda in Iraq was somewhat autonomous from HQ back in Pakistan, and describes in some ways how news reports are overhyped:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0109 /W hat-s-really-going-on-in-Iraq-s-Anbar-Province-video
 
2014-01-10 01:01:18 PM

Ghastly: master_dman:
Uh.. no.  We didn't go in and kill everything in sight.  We failed miserably.  We quit and gave up.

It shouldn't have been fought in the first place. Communism burns itself out eventually under its own corruption. This would have been accelerated without an enemy for those regimes to turn their citizens anger towards.


Good call.  It's not like more people have died as a result of the hilariously incompetent North Korean government than died in the entire Korean war or anything.

In all seriousness, the North Korean famine in the mid 90's killed almost half as many people as the Korean War did.  If the Korean War hadn't taken place, many, many more people would have died as a result.
 
2014-01-10 01:01:43 PM
You know what? I really don't give a flying fark anymore.
 
2014-01-10 01:13:08 PM

I_C_Weener: Amish Tech Support: Maybe if we change our name to the United States of Al Qaeda they will become confused and start sending us money.

We need more outside the box thinking like this.


Or they sue you for copyright infringement, and then you get them in court, and BAM! Lawyered!!!!
 
2014-01-10 01:28:22 PM
Well, when you spend five plus years on the run, you cover a lot of ground...
 
2014-01-10 01:29:18 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Infernalist: Just an fyi, the vast surge of military volunteers came in the weeks after 9/11 when we were focused on Afghanistan.

But, by all means, continue to foam at the mouth, it's amusing.

I have no problem with those folks. None at all. In fact, anyone who signed up between the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of the war drumming in Iraq I count as heroes. Unfortunately they got stuck in a position where they were required to participate in something they really didn't sign up for.


I had just received my discharge papers in June of 2001.  On Sept 12 I was at the recruiters office trying to get back in so I could go help make Afghanistan a smoking hole in the ground.  He told me no, that I was now old and busted but thanks for offering.

As soon as that clown in the Whitehouse started yammering about Iraq, I knew it was farked, and thanked my lucky stars that recruiter had already filled his quota.
 
2014-01-10 01:40:12 PM

gshepnyc: We should never have treated them like a military enemy. We should have treated them like we did the Cosa Nostra other organized crime syndicates. And many people were saying that at the time but the Bushies and their mouth-breathing acolytes regarded that suggestion as tantamount to treason - like they regarded all other forms of criticism.

By treating them like a military enemy, we raised them up to a level (in terms of their ability to recruit, raise fund and sell their message) that they never could have managed on their own. If we had treated them like low mobsters, on par with pimps and child pornographers and drug pushers, we'd have done a lot better.


I'm pretty sure that it was the global realization that a small group could effectively reach out and disrupt a superpower.  The 'enemy' (us), was proven to be reachable, making the goal of 'teaching the enemy a lesson' a realistic one.
 
2014-01-10 01:44:47 PM
Bush was stupid for starting the war

Obama was stupid for just saying "Fark it." and leaving.


Did I pretty much cover the entire thread?
 
2014-01-10 01:59:15 PM

Franco: Carn: Tune in to Fox this January for the hilarious new sitcom Enlisted.  Join up today!!

That's nothing. You should see the the infomercial on Saturday mornings for the US Army called Army Strong that's run for little kids. At least GI Joe was subtle.

Plus economic conscription is still conscription. In this country you have three choices as youth for an occupation,  McWallmart, College-debt trap (which just makes the military more tempting), the military, or jail.



I see you can count to potato. How about signing up for the Army? I hear 11B is good MOS for people with your skills.
 
2014-01-10 02:07:26 PM
flak attack:
Good call.  It's not like more people have died as a result of the hilariously incompetent North Korean government than died in the entire Korean war or anything.

In all seriousness, the North Korean famine in the mid 90's killed almost half as many people as the Korean War did.  If the Korean War hadn't taken place, many, many more people would have died as a result.


There never would have been a North or South Korea if it weren't for Western colonial interference, just as there never would have been a North or South Vietnam. Both countries should have just been left to run their governments the way they seem fit. Without an ever present antagonist and economic sanctions Korea would likely have experimented with communism and like China and Vietnam found it doesn't work and transitioned naturally towards a free market economy.

America ends up making its own enemies because big money uses its military might to bully other countries into doing what they want.
 
2014-01-10 02:12:36 PM

Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?


Have you considered cultural genocide?  If the girls are playing with Barbie Dolls and the guys are watching porn, they're NOT launching suicide attacks.  I've seen some well-written articles that suggest that that was (part of) Bush's goal.  Invade Iraq in order to pull a Germany/Japan after WW2-equivalent, and then seduce them to our side via showing that it could be a success.  It'd take a generation (Heck, we're still in Germany and Japan.  We just don't call it an occupation any more), but a thriving, semi-secular Middle East is less of a threat than a poor, prideful, failed Middle East.
 
2014-01-10 02:14:58 PM
History has proven that when one country fights another, there is a clear outcome. (Except the Korean War..)
History has proven that fighting an insurgency (Taliban, Al Qaeda etc.) there is no clear outcome.

Let them have a country, then we have a target we can pound into submission from the air.
 
2014-01-10 02:15:51 PM
The minute they take over actual control of a country (or a large enough province of a country like Syria with no strong central government) and make any threats against us, we bomb the ever living shiat out of them.
 
2014-01-10 02:19:18 PM
meyerkev:  Invade Iraq in order to pull a Germany/Japan after WW2-equivalent, and then seduce them to our side via showing that it could be a success.  It'd take a generation (Heck, we're still in Germany and Japan.  We just don't call it an occupation any more), but a thriving, semi-secular Middle East is less of a threat than a poor, prideful, failed Middle East.

The US was in Germany and Japan after the occupation to protect them from the USSR. Now we are in Germany and Japan because there are entire towns whose economy revolves upon supplying the US military bases in those towns and they don't want them to leave.

That and to secure the world's supplies of Scheiße and Tentacle porn.
 
2014-01-10 02:23:29 PM

Ghastly: That and to secure the world's supplies of Scheiße and Tentacle porn.


I just hope I'm not alive when we hit "peak Scheiße porn".
 
2014-01-10 02:37:02 PM

flak attack: CruJones: This may mean something, I have no idea, but I don't know if judging them by the square mileage they control is a good method.  Are their numbers up, more attacks, etc.?  Or do they just control a huge swath of nothing?

It pretty much means nothing and, despite the sensationalist headline, the article itself only says that it seems that Al Qaeda backed groups control more territory than ever.  It then goes on to mention that AQ backed groups control parts of Iraq and Syria.  This pretty much contradicts the idea that they control more territory than ever, given that the AQ backed Taliban controlled Afghanistan, which is larger than Iraq and Syria combined.  It also states that AQ backed groups are closer to controlling a state than they ever were, which is pretty much total bullshiat, given that the Taliban actually did control Afghanistan.

This is filed under CNNOpinion for a reason.


Not to mention, AQ-affiliated groups controlled north Mali before the French moved in, and north Mali is larger what AQ controls today.  Then if you also figure al-Shabaab in Somalia, the claim gets even more ridiculous.....
 
2014-01-10 02:43:03 PM
So they are blowing up themselves and not us?

Where's the problem?
 
2014-01-10 02:43:32 PM

Ghastly: Smeggy Smurf: Ghastly: drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]

That better be irony, Mister! That man is Al Qaeda's biggest hero. He's done more to unite and strengthen Al Qaeda than Bin Laden did.

Other than that whole, kill them where we find them bit.  Bush was pretty good about killing them.

Other than the five more springing up for every one that he killed part. All his aggression did was further radicalise the Muslim world against us. People who had probably never given a second thought about the world wanted the US dead after their wedding party was interrupted by a cruise missile.


Funny thing is, we can kill them faster than they can breed.  Eventually they'll run out.  Not that they need a reason to blow up, they seem to enjoy it to an unnatural degree.  Since we like blowing them up it's just natural that we're linked together.
 
2014-01-10 02:43:35 PM

meyerkev: Maul555: The middle east sometimes makes me wish that we still carpet bombed...    I hate to say it, but the only ultimate solution might be to completley wipe out the places that produce pieces of shiat like the taliban.  but that would be a crime right?

Have you considered cultural genocide?  If the girls are playing with Barbie Dolls and the guys are watching porn, they're NOT launching suicide attacks.  I've seen some well-written articles that suggest that that was (part of) Bush's goal.  Invade Iraq in order to pull a Germany/Japan after WW2-equivalent, and then seduce them to our side via showing that it could be a success.  It'd take a generation (Heck, we're still in Germany and Japan.  We just don't call it an occupation any more), but a thriving, semi-secular Middle East is less of a threat than a poor, prideful, failed Middle East.


I dont see how cultural change of that magnitude would be possible in a culture with honor killings.  it would require killing a lot of "parents" first...
 
2014-01-10 02:47:04 PM
As rough as it is on the locals to live under the thumb of those guys, the good thing is that the more people see Taliban-style rule up close, the more they hate it.

/All the U.S. needs to do is keep negotiating in Syria, and arming the Iraqi army and police. Eventually, Al Qaeda will fail from its own hatefulness.
 
2014-01-10 02:47:28 PM

Ghastly: meyerkev:  Invade Iraq in order to pull a Germany/Japan after WW2-equivalent, and then seduce them to our side via showing that it could be a success.  It'd take a generation (Heck, we're still in Germany and Japan.  We just don't call it an occupation any more), but a thriving, semi-secular Middle East is less of a threat than a poor, prideful, failed Middle East.

The US was in Germany and Japan after the occupation to protect them from the USSR. Now we are in Germany and Japan because there are entire towns whose economy revolves upon supplying the US military bases in those towns and they don't want them to leave.

That and to secure the world's supplies of Scheiße and Tentacle porn.


Ah, found the articles:  http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/03/DefeatingIslam.shtmlhttp://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Arabtraditionalism.shtml

Pay close attention to the parts about Japan.

/And then Kagan writes about Germany (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7107 ).  -  Nor should we forget that the Europe of today is very much the product of American foreign policy stretching back over six decades. European integration was an American project, too, after World War II. And so, recall, was European weakness.
 
2014-01-10 02:48:48 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Ghastly: Smeggy Smurf: Ghastly: drivingsouth: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 480x360]

That better be irony, Mister! That man is Al Qaeda's biggest hero. He's done more to unite and strengthen Al Qaeda than Bin Laden did.

Other than that whole, kill them where we find them bit.  Bush was pretty good about killing them.

Other than the five more springing up for every one that he killed part. All his aggression did was further radicalise the Muslim world against us. People who had probably never given a second thought about the world wanted the US dead after their wedding party was interrupted by a cruise missile.

Funny thing is, we can kill them faster than they can breed.  Eventually they'll run out.  Not that they need a reason to blow up, they seem to enjoy it to an unnatural degree.  Since we like blowing them up it's just natural that we're linked together.


They will run out of "martyrs" before we run out of bullets. Come to think of it, with the recent ammo shortage that may not be true.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:55 PM
"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them someplace around elsewhere leading to somewhere which is anywhere that isn't here and there... hurrrp"
 
2014-01-10 02:59:48 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Bush was stupid for starting the war

Obama was stupid for just saying "Fark it." and leaving.


Did I pretty much cover the entire thread?


No, you forgot that Dick Cheney is evil.
 
2014-01-10 03:02:07 PM

Infernalist: As long as we have a Democratic President in the WH, there won't be a repeat of Iraq.

At worst, we'll see repeats of Syria and Libya.  But, that's as far as we'll go.


Afganistan?

Honestly - I can't tell if your bashing the right or the left.
+1?
 
2014-01-10 03:05:38 PM

Ghastly: flak attack:
Good call.  It's not like more people have died as a result of the hilariously incompetent North Korean government than died in the entire Korean war or anything.

In all seriousness, the North Korean famine in the mid 90's killed almost half as many people as the Korean War did.  If the Korean War hadn't taken place, many, many more people would have died as a result.

There never would have been a North or South Korea if it weren't for Western colonial interference, just as there never would have been a North or South Vietnam. Both countries should have just been left to run their governments the way they seem fit. Without an ever present antagonist and economic sanctions Korea would likely have experimented with communism and like China and Vietnam found it doesn't work and transitioned naturally towards a free market economy.

America ends up making its own enemies because big money uses its military might to bully other countries into doing what they want.


Please, please, please tell me that you don't actually believe this garbage.

Without Western interference, Kim Il Sung still would have risen to power, still backed by the USSR and China.  His family would have still developed an iron fist on the regime based on the support of China and the USSR.  Even if things had turned out somewhat differently, let's not pretend that the China route, filled with it's own record of starvation and rampant human rights abuse, is near as good as the route SK went.
 
2014-01-10 03:06:23 PM

Wook: Infernalist: As long as we have a Democratic President in the WH, there won't be a repeat of Iraq.

At worst, we'll see repeats of Syria and Libya.  But, that's as far as we'll go.

Afganistan?

Honestly - I can't tell if your bashing the right or the left.
+1?


You do know those don't have to be exclusive, right?
 
2014-01-10 03:16:39 PM
Last time I checked, Al-Qaeda only numbered a few hundred members, had difficulties recruiting, and was operating on a shoe-string budget. There are also hundreds of other affiliated ME terrorist organisations out there, so try to see the big picture.
 
2014-01-10 03:39:31 PM
imageshack.com
 
2014-01-10 03:50:05 PM
The "War on Terror" works about as well as the "War on Drugs."

Awesome.
 
2014-01-10 04:15:24 PM
Go watch BBC's "The Power of NIghtmares" then come back and let's talk about "Al Qaeda"
 
2014-01-10 04:21:18 PM

Ghastly: In all seriousness, the North Korean famine in the mid 90's killed almost half as many people as the Korean War did. If the Korean War hadn't taken place, many, many more people would have died as a result.

There never would have been a North or South Korea if it weren't for Western colonial interference, just as there never would have been a North or South Vietnam.


That's true. Both would have been colonies of China.
 
2014-01-10 04:58:12 PM

This text is now purple: Ghastly: In all seriousness, the North Korean famine in the mid 90's killed almost half as many people as the Korean War did. If the Korean War hadn't taken place, many, many more people would have died as a result.

There never would have been a North or South Korea if it weren't for Western colonial interference, just as there never would have been a North or South Vietnam.

That's true. Both would have been colonies of China.


Or Japan.
 
2014-01-10 05:06:41 PM

DrewCurtisJr: All part of the plan. al Qaeda kills more Muslims than we ever could.


Indeed.  Al Qaeda works for us these days--they're our proxies against our real enemy in the region: Iran.
 
2014-01-10 05:08:43 PM

Maul555: Ghastly: Maul555:  We are dealing with people that would wipe out billions of us if they could just press a red button.

No. No we're not. We're dealing with people armed with IEDs, old soviet surplus RPGs and AK-47s who simply want us the fark off their holy ground and to stay the hell out of their domestic politics.

The other side of this conflict are a bunch of rich business men who are using the US military as their own personal security guards to protect their oil interests.

no.  they hate our culture and our very way of life.  They advocate killing us all, just like the jews.   these are religious extremists who believe they are doing the work of god, and they are willing to kill themselves and their children to achieve their goal.


If a group of rich assholes killed your entire family you would want to return the favour to!

sorry but you cant kill millions of people in other nations and still be able to play the victim card.


Want to win the war on terror? Start by eleminating the CIA.
 
2014-01-10 06:12:56 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Maul555: Ghastly: Maul555:  We are dealing with people that would wipe out billions of us if they could just press a red button.

No. No we're not. We're dealing with people armed with IEDs, old soviet surplus RPGs and AK-47s who simply want us the fark off their holy ground and to stay the hell out of their domestic politics.

The other side of this conflict are a bunch of rich business men who are using the US military as their own personal security guards to protect their oil interests.

no.  they hate our culture and our very way of life.  They advocate killing us all, just like the jews.   these are religious extremists who believe they are doing the work of god, and they are willing to kill themselves and their children to achieve their goal.

If a group of rich assholes killed your entire family you would want to return the favour to!

sorry but you cant kill millions of people in other nations and still be able to play the victim card.


Want to win the war on terror? Start by eleminating the CIA.


I am not advocating killing millions of people, or even thousands.  if you followed me from my original post you would know that I am simply saying that killing millions of people may be the only solution.  a solution that we cant use, obviously.
 
2014-01-10 06:13:27 PM

vudukungfu: USMC guns down young Afghan girl today.


Keeping us safe.
Freedom.
Liberators.

yeah.


Yeah, because in bad weather and getting engaged from that direction, they just consciously said "F-k it, let's just shoot that little girl instead."

U.S. troops fighting in bad weather accidentally shot dead a young Afghan girl... after they were shot at and returned fire in the Nadali District of Helmand Province, Assistant Police Chief Abdullah Chopan told NBC News. "It's very likely to have happened because visibility was not good, it was raining and cloudy," Chopan said.

Funny that the shiatbags who engaged them didn't seem to care that civilians were close by though... but yeah, the USMC and ISAF are to blame for trying to provide an example of impartial law and order to a backwards, fractured hodgepodge of societies (which will ultimately fail anyway it seems).

FOAD troll, war is hell for many reasons.
 
2014-01-10 06:13:55 PM

Mouser: DrewCurtisJr: All part of the plan. al Qaeda kills more Muslims than we ever could.

Indeed.  Al Qaeda works for us these days--they're our proxies against our real enemy in the region: Iran.


I can never tell who is trolling.
 
2014-01-10 06:30:52 PM

gshepnyc: We should never have treated them like a military enemy. We should have treated them like we did the Cosa Nostra other organized crime syndicates. And many people were saying that at the time but the Bushies and their mouth-breathing acolytes regarded that suggestion as tantamount to treason - like they regarded all other forms of criticism.

By treating them like a military enemy, we raised them up to a level (in terms of their ability to recruit, raise fund and sell their message) that they never could have managed on their own. If we had treated them like low mobsters, on par with pimps and child pornographers and drug pushers, we'd have done a lot better.


This, this, this.
 
2014-01-10 07:33:42 PM
Enjoy your PERMAWARS, serfs!

Never send an army to do a police force's job.

/Bwah-hahahahahahaha!
//Teaching my kids never to love empire -- because it doesn't love them.
 
2014-01-10 09:41:37 PM

Seraphym: FOAD troll, war is hell for many reasons.


We haven't been in an actual war since 1945, but I'll take your word for it.
 
2014-01-10 10:07:17 PM

gshepnyc: We should never have treated them like a military enemy. We should have treated them like we did the Cosa Nostra other organized crime syndicates. And many people were saying that at the time but the Bushies and their mouth-breathing acolytes regarded that suggestion as tantamount to treason - like they regarded all other forms of criticism.

By treating them like a military enemy, we raised them up to a level (in terms of their ability to recruit, raise fund and sell their message) that they never could have managed on their own. If we had treated them like low mobsters, on par with pimps and child pornographers and drug pushers, we'd have done a lot better.


If I was saying this in 2003, can I get a cookie?
 
2014-01-10 10:11:06 PM

theknuckler_33: You know what? I really don't give a flying fark anymore.


I wish our government didn't.   But yeah now, at least tonight,I feel roughly the way way.  It's getting old.

"Oh noes! Syrians are mass graving fellow Syrians!"   - Shrug.
"Gosh Egyptians are slaughtering Egyptians"   - So?
"Holy schnikes! The Sunni's just gassed 100,000 shiates".   - Wow.
"Panic!  Iraquistan just invaded Iranaukistan again!!!"   - You don't say?
"OMG, 74 different tribes in north africa are all genociding each other on alternate days!"   - So just like the last 2000 years you say?

The next time they decide to slaughter, behead, gas, or revolutionary coup each other, which will be tomorrow, just ignore them.   Let Europe or the U.N. worry about it, if they want or think they have an answer.
 
2014-01-10 11:03:29 PM
What difference does it make?
 
2014-01-10 11:10:57 PM

Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.


Do you even get the reference? I see it quoted a lot by anti-war types but it seems to be used more because it's catchy than because it's pithy.

Are you alleging that we were allied with AQ but decided to switch them into an enemy or that AQ doesn't exist and there's nothing happening in these locales?
 
2014-01-10 11:45:31 PM

Dinjiin: This text is now purple: Ghastly: In all seriousness, the North Korean famine in the mid 90's killed almost half as many people as the Korean War did. If the Korean War hadn't taken place, many, many more people would have died as a result.

There never would have been a North or South Korea if it weren't for Western colonial interference, just as there never would have been a North or South Vietnam.

That's true. Both would have been colonies of China.

Or Japan.


Korea was controlled by Japan and the US and USSR occupied Korea after defeating Japan. Much like Germany, the USSR made their portion communist, which is why North Korea's government has more to do with Stalin than Mao.
 
2014-01-11 02:06:58 AM
www.thelibertybeacon.com
"The Taliban, Is Not Our Enemy"
---VP Biden
 
2014-01-11 02:21:18 AM
If you want to win a war, you need to place your foot on the neck of your enemy and press down hard enough to break it.  There are no half-measures or meaningless posturing -- you break his neck.  That is what the Russians and Americans did to the Germans.  That is what the US did the Japanese.  If you call it a draw, you end up fighting the same war over and over again.  That was the cold war between Democracy and Communism. Mind you, a all-out war between those ideologies would have been the end of the human race.  That is why you only fight a war you know you can win, and only those that start a war believe they can win it.

America only gave AQ a spanking.  It needed to give it a thorough stomping, and not have gone into Iraq.  You can lay the whole blame on Bush&Co for the whole mess, including the 9-11 attacks in the first place.  Either though incompetence of letting the US's defenses down, or through deliberate manipulation to "start a war with someone" for political gains by letting America get attacked.

Say what you want about Obama, but he is going out and killing these f*ckers.  You're an AQ?  Say hello to a drone strike!
 
2014-01-11 02:54:56 AM

real_headhoncho: You can lay the whole blame on Bush&Co Franklin D. Roosevelt for the whole mess, including the 9-11 Pearl Harbor attacks in the first place.  Either though incompetence of letting the US's defenses down, or through deliberate manipulation to "start a war with someone" for political gains by letting America get attacked.


That too, right?
 
2014-01-11 03:50:43 AM

real_headhoncho: If you want to win a war, you need to place your foot on the neck of your enemy and press down hard enough to break it.  There are no half-measures or meaningless posturing -- you break his neck.  That is what the Russians and Americans did to the Germans.  That is what the US did the Japanese.  If you call it a draw, you end up fighting the same war over and over again.  That was the cold war between Democracy and Communism. Mind you, a all-out war between those ideologies would have been the end of the human race.  That is why you only fight a war you know you can win, and only those that start a war believe they can win it.

America only gave AQ a spanking.  It needed to give it a thorough stomping, and not have gone into Iraq.  You can lay the whole blame on Bush&Co for the whole mess, including the 9-11 attacks in the first place.  Either though incompetence of letting the US's defenses down, or through deliberate manipulation to "start a war with someone" for political gains by letting America get attacked.

Say what you want about Obama, but he is going out and killing these f*ckers.  You're an AQ?  Say hello to a drone strike!


wow... just wow... you blame bush for 9/11 even though he was still fresh to the job after clinton had 8 years to deal with this shiat?  And then you say obama is doing the stomping on throats with a drone campaign while giving no credit to bush for invading 2 countries and killing terrorists by the thousands?
 
2014-01-11 04:38:30 AM

Closed_Minded_Bastage: real_headhoncho: You can lay the whole blame on Bush&Co Franklin D. Roosevelt for the whole mess, including the 9-11 Pearl Harbor attacks in the first place.  Either though incompetence of letting the US's defenses down, or through deliberate manipulation to "start a war with someone" for political gains by letting America get attacked.  That too, right?


Something would have had to be done about the Axis powers sooner or later.  Might as well have been sooner (and 12/7/41 was already too late for many.)

Al Qaeda, not so much.  9/11 should have been treated as a criminal matter, like any other berserk religious cult.
 
2014-01-11 05:03:03 AM

Man On Pink Corner: Closed_Minded_Bastage: real_headhoncho: You can lay the whole blame on Bush&Co Franklin D. Roosevelt for the whole mess, including the 9-11 Pearl Harbor attacks in the first place.  Either though incompetence of letting the US's defenses down, or through deliberate manipulation to "start a war with someone" for political gains by letting America get attacked.  That too, right?

Something would have had to be done about the Axis powers sooner or later.  Might as well have been sooner (and 12/7/41 was already too late for many.)

Al Qaeda, not so much.  9/11 should have been treated as a criminal matter, like any other berserk religious cult.


Yep, Mayor Rudy Giuliani should have sent what was left of the NYPD into Afghanistan to arrest OBL.
 
2014-01-11 09:44:45 AM

Mrbogey: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Do you even get the reference? I see it quoted a lot by anti-war types but it seems to be used more because it's catchy than because it's pithy.

Are you alleging that we were allied with AQ but decided to switch them into an enemy or that AQ doesn't exist and there's nothing happening in these locales?


Do I?  HAHA!  Do you?  I was referencing 1984.  You should check it out.
 
2014-01-11 10:13:21 AM
Perfect.....perrrrfect,
Just as I planned.
 
2014-01-11 11:07:35 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I place the blame for this squarely on every asshole who signed up for military service after it was obvious we were going to invade Iraq.....

A strong anti-Iraq war message from the people to the politicians would have done well, but that message wasn't sent as people were falling over themselves to get sent into the desert and people back home were so busy "supporting the troops" when they should have been "condemning the troops" for volunteering to fight an unnecessary and dangerous war that has ultimately made America less safe.

....The answer is every American who supported the troops blindly, as if there were any merit in that.


what the fuq am I reading??
 
2014-01-11 11:22:16 AM

Carn: Mrbogey: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Do you even get the reference? I see it quoted a lot by anti-war types but it seems to be used more because it's catchy than because it's pithy.

Are you alleging that we were allied with AQ but decided to switch them into an enemy or that AQ doesn't exist and there's nothing happening in these locales?

Do I?  HAHA!  Do you?  I was referencing 1984.  You should check it out.


I have. That's why I'm asking you to clarify your message as it doesn't seem to fit the current situation with known information.
 
2014-01-11 12:10:38 PM

Military Industrial Complex: Perfect.....perrrrfect,
Just as I planned.


Farking military industrial complex. Always trying to find ways to perpetuate itself.
 
2014-01-11 12:56:41 PM

Mrbogey: Carn: Mrbogey: Carn: We are at war with al qaeda.  We have always been at war with al qaeda.

Do you even get the reference? I see it quoted a lot by anti-war types but it seems to be used more because it's catchy than because it's pithy.

Are you alleging that we were allied with AQ but decided to switch them into an enemy or that AQ doesn't exist and there's nothing happening in these locales?

Do I?  HAHA!  Do you?  I was referencing 1984.  You should check it out.

I have. That's why I'm asking you to clarify your message as it doesn't seem to fit the current situation with known information.


My message?  Here are a couple.  First, and most obvious, it's propaganda.  Second, and still fairly obvious, our "War on Terror" has been going on for 11 years.  Have we won?  Will we ever?  Or will we perpetually be at war with al Qaeda and/or who else the bad guys are?  Perpetual war to feed the war machine.
 
2014-01-11 03:18:07 PM

Carn: My message? Here are a couple. First, and most obvious, it's propaganda. Second, and still fairly obvious, our "War on Terror" has been going on for 11 years. Have we won? Will we ever? Or will we perpetually be at war with al Qaeda and/or who else the bad guys are? Perpetual war to feed the war machine.


Ok, so ultimately it comes down to you not actually understanding what the phrase means.
 
2014-01-11 04:08:54 PM

Closed_Minded_Bastage: Yep, Mayor Rudy Giuliani should have sent what was left of the NYPD into Afghanistan to arrest OBL.


Would have been smarter than invading Iraq.
 
2014-01-11 06:47:59 PM

Maul555: wow... just wow... you blame bush for 9/11 even though he was still fresh to the job after clinton had 8 years to deal with this shiat? And then you say obama is doing the stomping on throats with a drone campaign while giving no credit to bush for invading 2 countries and killing terrorists by the thousands?


And killed civilians by the tens of thousands, and one of those countries wasn't harboring the terrorists but now it is so destabilized it now HAS terrorists.

Kittypie070: what the fuq am I reading??


Either a troll or someone stuck in the 60's.  Just ignore them or drop an anvil on their head.
 
2014-01-11 09:58:06 PM

Mrbogey: Carn: My message? Here are a couple. First, and most obvious, it's propaganda. Second, and still fairly obvious, our "War on Terror" has been going on for 11 years. Have we won? Will we ever? Or will we perpetually be at war with al Qaeda and/or who else the bad guys are? Perpetual war to feed the war machine.

Ok, so ultimately it comes down to you not actually understanding what the phrase means.


Yes, obviously I'm the one who missed the point of 1984.
 
Displayed 176 of 176 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report