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

(The Progressive)   Republicans pissed that Obama paid tribute to WWI casualties. Oh, wait a second, I meant Democrats pissed that Obama paid tribute to WWI casualties   (progressive.org) divider line 86
    More: Fail, President Obama, Democrat Party, World War I, World War I casualties, war bonds  
•       •       •

1742 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Mar 2014 at 2:46 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-31 01:02:57 PM  
I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.
 
2014-03-31 01:08:18 PM  
But this was not a war for freedom. It was a triumph of nationalism, pitting one nation's vanity against another. It was a war between empires for the spoils.



*cough* Iraq *cough*
 
2014-03-31 01:08:56 PM  
Yes, they died for the rich oilfields of Belgium.
 
2014-03-31 01:23:48 PM  
Matthew Rothschild is not "Democrats," subtard.
 
2014-03-31 01:34:05 PM  
FTFA:  President Obama just went to Flanders Field in Belgium to pay homage to those who lost their lives in World War I.

STUPID FLANDERS!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-31 01:44:16 PM  

DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.


It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.
 
2014-03-31 01:45:22 PM  

vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.


Its never too late to take the right lesson from it, though.
 
2014-03-31 01:54:01 PM  

gopher321: But this was not a war for freedom. It was a triumph of nationalism, pitting one nation's vanity against another. It was a war between empires for the spoils.

*cough* Iraq *cough*


not only that but the Americans that came over were so gung-ho about finally getting involved that they took countless stupid risks that killed off far more than if they had just listened to the Brits and French about what they had learned from 3 years of fighting trench battles.

seriously, we got there in 1918 and acted like it was pre-1914 all over again. Not only was it a European war of stupidity, but we went in there with our heads so far up our own asses we had no idea how to fight this war we joined.
 
2014-03-31 01:59:05 PM  

DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.


For one thing, there are no pissed-off Democrats in TFA.
 
2014-03-31 02:50:16 PM  
Yeah, this isn't a Democratic publication.
 
2014-03-31 02:50:58 PM  
Bored with the Troll headlines fark.com step up or be laid low.
 
2014-03-31 02:55:56 PM  

DamnYankees: vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.

Its never too late to take the right lesson from it, though.


WW1 led to WW2 led to Vietnam...

xanadian: FTFA:  President Obama just went to Flanders Field in Belgium to pay homage to those who lost their lives in World War I.

STUPID FLANDERS!


Poppies!
 
2014-03-31 02:58:18 PM  

DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.


That Obama should have "use[d] the occasion to point out the idiotic hideousness of the war" would be my guess. Can you imagine the shiat-storm that would have ensued if he'd gone to Flanders Field and lectured the world about WWI?
 
2014-03-31 02:59:22 PM  

somedude210: gopher321: But this was not a war for freedom. It was a triumph of nationalism, pitting one nation's vanity against another. It was a war between empires for the spoils.

*cough* Iraq *cough*

not only that but the Americans that came over were so gung-ho about finally getting involved that they took countless stupid risks that killed off far more than if they had just listened to the Brits and French about what they had learned from 3 years of fighting trench battles.

seriously, we got there in 1918 and acted like it was pre-1914 all over again. Not only was it a European war of stupidity, but we went in there with our heads so far up our own asses we had no idea how to fight this war we joined.


The last mass casualties of the war were Americans when they did a charge against the Germans on November 11th 1918.
 
2014-03-31 02:59:31 PM  

Infernalist: Yeah, this isn't a Democratic publication.


It looks pretty left-wing to me.  Of course, being left-wing pretty much means it isn't technically a Democratic publication, but that confuses people like subby.

Still, of all the things to biatch about, the President avoiding the reasons for a 100-year old war is pretty low on the list of important ones for the left.  Where are my farking single-payer health care and greenhouse gas controls?
 
2014-03-31 03:00:31 PM  

Rusty Shackleford: Yes, they died for the rich oilfields of Belgium.


Actually the rich oil fields of the Dutch in east indies.
 
2014-03-31 03:01:38 PM  
AMonkey'sUncle: DamnYankees: vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.

Its never too late to take the right lesson from it, though.

WW1 led to WW2 led to Vietnam...
the Cold War led to the current problems with Russia.

/thanks Obama!
 
2014-03-31 03:02:12 PM  
I've always found WWI more interesting than WWII. For example, did you know that pilots on opposing armies would wave to each other as they passed by on their missions? That is of course until 1 jerk pulled out his sidearm and popped shots at the opposing pilot.

It takes just one asshole, and next thing you know you're developing air to air missiles.
 
2014-03-31 03:02:20 PM  
We get it, he's black.
 
2014-03-31 03:03:10 PM  

DarwiOdrade: That Obama should have "use[d] the occasion to point out the idiotic hideousness of the war" would be my guess. Can you imagine the shiat-storm that would have ensued if he'd gone to Flanders Field and lectured the world about WWI?


He didn't need to do that, but its obviously an opportunity to meditate on the tragedy of war, and not on its heroism.
 
2014-03-31 03:04:05 PM  

Frank N Stein: I've always found WWI more interesting than WWII. For example, did you know that pilots on opposing armies would wave to each other as they passed by on their missions? That is of course until 1 jerk pulled out his sidearm and popped shots at the opposing pilot.

It takes just one asshole, and next thing you know you're developing air to air missiles.


I find everything about WWI aviation fascinating.
 
2014-03-31 03:04:38 PM  

GoldSpider: Frank N Stein: I've always found WWI more interesting than WWII. For example, did you know that pilots on opposing armies would wave to each other as they passed by on their missions? That is of course until 1 jerk pulled out his sidearm and popped shots at the opposing pilot.

It takes just one asshole, and next thing you know you're developing air to air missiles.

I find everything about WWI aviation fascinating.


It's really as close to a steam punk war as we'll ever get.
 
2014-03-31 03:04:42 PM  

vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.


Never too late for some...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-31 03:07:12 PM  

DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.


The following from the article comes to mind:

As Howard Zinn noted, ten years ago, "They died for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They died to cover up the theft of the nation's wealth to pay for the machines of death."


American empire wasn't a factor in WWI nor was "Oil Greed". Now Nationalism was pretty rampant at that point in history and recent finds tend to leave one to believe that Russia was actually pushing for the war to start, which is why they were able to mobilize as many men as they did as quickly as they did.

But, as a relative late comer to the fight, I think the notion that American Implerialism played any role in our WWI endeavors or just laughable on it's face. Granted we weren't fighting a fascist power like we did in WWII but the author of this article has a simplistic view of WWI and all of the machinations at play there.
 
2014-03-31 03:09:25 PM  

DemonEater: Infernalist: Yeah, this isn't a Democratic publication.

It looks pretty left-wing to me.  Of course, being left-wing pretty much means it isn't technically a Democratic publication, but that confuses people like subby.

Still, of all the things to biatch about, the President avoiding the reasons for a 100-year old war is pretty low on the list of important ones for the left.  Where are my farking single-payer health care and greenhouse gas controls?


Baby steps, young one, baby steps.
 
2014-03-31 03:09:25 PM  
One of my professors said that there was no WW I or WW II, it was just one war and they needed to take 20 years off to grow new armies.
 
2014-03-31 03:10:03 PM  

a particular individual: Matthew Rothschild is not "Democrats," subtard.


If only he were.
 
2014-03-31 03:11:06 PM  

Frank N Stein: GoldSpider: Frank N Stein: I've always found WWI more interesting than WWII. For example, did you know that pilots on opposing armies would wave to each other as they passed by on their missions? That is of course until 1 jerk pulled out his sidearm and popped shots at the opposing pilot.

It takes just one asshole, and next thing you know you're developing air to air missiles.

I find everything about WWI aviation fascinating.

It's really as close to a steam punk war as we'll ever get.


And really the last bastion of wartime chivalry. That and the invention of the Fokker timing gear (timed machine gun fire to not shoot apart ones own propeller) really impressed me for some reason.
 
2014-03-31 03:12:57 PM  

Infernalist: Yeah, this isn't a Democratic publication.


Exactly.

When was the Democratic Party able to be labeled "progressive"?

//And I'm not counting the fevered imaginations of the GOP.
 
2014-03-31 03:13:16 PM  

a particular individual: Matthew Rothschild is not "Democrats," subtard.


www.quickmeme.com

/referring to Rothschild, of course...
 
2014-03-31 03:17:30 PM  

a particular individual: Matthew Rothschild is not "Democrats," subtard.


A certain journalist seriously needs to be dragged back onto the reservation.
 
2014-03-31 03:18:51 PM  

Brick-House: vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.

Never too late for some...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 385x287]


img.fark.net

Remember Brick-House, if you had fun, you Won!

Now take this back to the kiddie table and show your firends.
 
2014-03-31 03:18:53 PM  

CanisNoir: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

The following from the article comes to mind:

As Howard Zinn noted, ten years ago, "They died for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They died to cover up the theft of the nation's wealth to pay for the machines of death."


American empire wasn't a factor in WWI nor was "Oil Greed". Now Nationalism was pretty rampant at that point in history and recent finds tend to leave one to believe that Russia was actually pushing for the war to start, which is why they were able to mobilize as many men as they did as quickly as they did.

But, as a relative late comer to the fight, I think the notion that American Implerialism played any role in our WWI endeavors or just laughable on it's face. Granted we weren't fighting a fascist power like we did in WWII but the author of this article has a simplistic view of WWI and all of the machinations at play there.


I know it looks to you like Matt was saying that, but he wasn't.

Historian Allen Ruff, who is studying the causes and effects of World War I, was not impressed with Obama's speech. "With Both NATO and the European Union headquartered in Brussels," Ruff says, "it would have been a true homage to the dead buried in Belgium a hundred years ago if Obama spoke out against all major power imperial ambition, the true cause of so much slaughter then and since, rather than mouthing some trite euphemisms about the honor of dying for 'freedom.' "


For the soldiers Obama praised did not die for "freedom," but for something much more base. They died for the same reason U.S. soldiers died in the Iraq War. As Howard Zinn noted, ten years ago, "They died for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They died to cover up the theft of the nation's wealth to pay for the machines of death."


WWI was driven by imperial ambition, just not entirely American imperial ambition.
 
2014-03-31 03:19:46 PM  

DarwiOdrade: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

That Obama should have "use[d] the occasion to point out the idiotic hideousness of the war" would be my guess. Can you imagine the shiat-storm that would have ensued if he'd gone to Flanders Field and lectured the world about WWI?


He doesn't have to lecture, but would have it been so difficult and scandalous to say "while we gather here, at one of the most famous battlefields of the first world war, and commemorate the sacrifice of those who fell here; those soldiers who gave their last, full measure of devotion to their countries, it is our responsibility as leaders to make sure that we learn the lessons of the past. That these brave men fell because of the failures of their leaders to avoid war, and it is our task to make sure that we only ask our men and women to pay down their lives as a true last resort, and to realize that if we send our soldiers into harms way, it is a sign that we have failed to resolve our problems peacefully, which is the true charge our people have put in our hands."
 
2014-03-31 03:20:09 PM  
CanisNoir: ...I think....


No. No, you don't.
 
2014-03-31 03:23:23 PM  

nmrsnr: DarwiOdrade: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

That Obama should have "use[d] the occasion to point out the idiotic hideousness of the war" would be my guess. Can you imagine the shiat-storm that would have ensued if he'd gone to Flanders Field and lectured the world about WWI?

He doesn't have to lecture, but would have it been so difficult and scandalous to say "while we gather here, at one of the most famous battlefields of the first world war, and commemorate the sacrifice of those who fell here; those soldiers who gave their last, full measure of devotion to their countries, it is our responsibility as leaders to make sure that we learn the lessons of the past. That these brave men fell because of the failures of their leaders to avoid war, and it is our task to make sure that we only ask our men and women to pay down their lives as a true last resort, and to realize that if we send our soldiers into harms way, it is a sign that we have failed to resolve our problems peacefully, which is the true charge our people have put in our hands."


Why would a leader say that when the people he leads are the very resources he'll need should there be another war?
 
2014-03-31 03:23:49 PM  

neversubmit: Bored with the Troll headlines fark.com step up or be laid low.


...by what?
 
2014-03-31 03:24:37 PM  
Is this "Don't Read the Article Before You Submit Monday"?

Obama wasn't criticized for honoring the war's dead; he was criticized for mouthing the ridiculous propaganda that WWI had something to do with freedom.
 
2014-03-31 03:25:22 PM  

nmrsnr: DarwiOdrade: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

That Obama should have "use[d] the occasion to point out the idiotic hideousness of the war" would be my guess. Can you imagine the shiat-storm that would have ensued if he'd gone to Flanders Field and lectured the world about WWI?

He doesn't have to lecture, but would have it been so difficult and scandalous to say "while we gather here, at one of the most famous battlefields of the first world war, and commemorate the sacrifice of those who fell here; those soldiers who gave their last, full measure of devotion to their countries, it is our responsibility as leaders to make sure that we learn the lessons of the past. That these brave men fell because of the failures of their leaders to avoid war, and it is our task to make sure that we only ask our men and women to pay down their lives as a true last resort, and to realize that if we send our soldiers into harms way, it is a sign that we have failed to resolve our problems peacefully, which is the true charge our people have put in our hands."


My objection was to the author's hyperbolic phrase "idiotic hideousness" - if Obama had said anything approaching that level of vehemence, the result would have been bad. Not saying it's wrong, but it's definitely not a diplomatic way to speak. Something like what you wrote would have been perfectly fine, and perhaps better than the "whitewash."
 
2014-03-31 03:26:13 PM  

DamnYankees: vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.

Its never too late to take the right lesson from it, though.


The right lesson seems to have been that they didn't kill enough Germans the first time around.
 
2014-03-31 03:28:57 PM  

ivan: WWI was driven by imperial ambition, just not entirely American imperial ambition.


And that is still wrong. The serbian issue was ongoing but *could* have been relegated to a regional conflict. The problem, however, came in the fact that Germany needed to find a way to fight a war on two fronts because Wilhelm had managed to irritate the Russians (a Cardinal sin in Bizmarks book) - that plan relied upon invading France through Belgium *before* the Russians could fully mobilize. That meant that the *moment* Russia started mobilizing, Germany had to act or their plan was garbage. It *still* could have been relegated to a "regional" conflict had England stayed out of the war, but the invasion of Belgium was too much, and England was forced to enter.

This was less about imperialistic desires and expansion than it was about the faults of mobilization and plans that involve invading neutral countries and rely upon a strict time table. Germany left themselves no wiggle room, not that they had much to begin with.

As I said, it's simplistic view of the conflict and laughable. Article is a joke.
 
2014-03-31 03:31:06 PM  

somedude210: not only that but the Americans that came over were so gung-ho about finally getting involved that they took countless stupid risks that killed off far more than if they had just listened to the Brits and French about what they had learned from 3 years of fighting trench battles.


I'm not sure "Field marshal Douglas Haig is a sociopathic assmunch out to systematically kill every single member of the British Empire, preferably without gaining one single, solitary inch of ground in the process" would have been much use to the Americans.

Because when you get down to it, the war was actually a fight between the British senior officers and the rest of the British military; the Germans were just a handy weapon the senior staff were using to kill their troops/enemies.  No other frame of reference results in that bloody disaster make any sense.  The psychotic rage against the Germans at Versailles was mostly because there were still a few people still alive in Devonshire.
 
2014-03-31 03:33:59 PM  

GoldSpider: A certain journalist seriously needs to be dragged back onto the reservation.


You're trolling the libs pretty hard but not getting any bites. Might need to dial it back a bit.

/ you're farkied as "the oracle of Derphi"
 
2014-03-31 03:34:11 PM  
The only thing WWI did was make WWII happen. And remember, it, like the Afghan War("Mission Accomplished"), was started entirely on an act of terrorism.
 
2014-03-31 03:35:07 PM  

Frank N Stein: GoldSpider: Frank N Stein: I've always found WWI more interesting than WWII. For example, did you know that pilots on opposing armies would wave to each other as they passed by on their missions? That is of course until 1 jerk pulled out his sidearm and popped shots at the opposing pilot.

It takes just one asshole, and next thing you know you're developing air to air missiles.

I find everything about WWI aviation fascinating.

It's really as close to a steam punk war as we'll ever get.


That is kinda meta as WW1 technology is a template for a lot of steam punk.
 
2014-03-31 03:35:19 PM  

Wooly Bully: / you're farkied as "the oracle of Derphi"


I like it.
 
2014-03-31 03:36:54 PM  
What do people expect from a Nixonian Republican?
 
2014-03-31 03:38:51 PM  

vharshyde: The only thing WWI did was make WWII happen. And remember, it, like the Afghan War("Mission Accomplished"), was started entirely on an act of terrorism.


I think the strangest part of it is *how* that act of terrorism actually succeeded. Talk about the Universe wrapping around itself lol.

/But if only he'd bought a sammich from a different shop
 
2014-03-31 03:41:24 PM  
Historian Allen Ruff, who is studying the causes and effects of World War I, was not impressed with Obama's speech. "With Both NATO and the European Union headquartered in Brussels," Ruff says, "it would have been a true homage to the dead buried in Belgium a hundred years ago if Obama spoke out against all major power imperial ambition, the true cause of so much slaughter then and since, rather than mouthing some trite euphemisms about the honor of dying for 'freedom.' "

Yeah, "They died for nothing," would have been much better.
 
2014-03-31 03:42:46 PM  

Brick-House: vpb: DamnYankees: I'd love to know what Subby things TFA is wrong about. It's spot on.

It's a bit too late to protest against WW-I.

Never too late for some...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 385x287]


Are you aware that's a photoshop?

/Sincere question
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report