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.

(Huffington Post)   March was the first month without a U.S. combat death in more than a decade. Thanks Obama   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 156
    More: Spiffy, United States, combat deaths, Enduring Freedom, Hamid Karzai  
•       •       •

747 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Apr 2014 at 2:19 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 09:34:53 AM  

Alphax: qorkfiend: Alphax: We're not too far from that now.. just a tiny percentage of the population doing all the fighting, and all the destruction is overseas in other nations.

The war-fighting population - young adult males - is a small percentage of any population, so it's always been a small percentage of the population that does all the fighting. Also, keeping the enemy as far away from your own infrastructure as possible is one of the basic tenets of war. These don't really signify anything new.

No, we're using smaller numbers of soldiers, with larger numbers of tours of duty, than in the past.  And the topic hardly comes up in our media, or in our Congressional debates.  It's something that just happens, and most people don't notice.


Sure, but while that might be new to the US, but it's not new to humanity in general.
 
2014-04-02 09:57:54 AM  

Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives. Oh, and Iran will most likly have a nuke. So yeah, Thanks Obama.


He earned that Nobel Peace Prize afterall.  Obama 1:  GOP chicken-hawks: 0

Obama kept Americans safe, advanced democracy throughout the world, ended two wars, killed OBL and got you some mother farking donuts.  Your welcome.
 
2014-04-02 09:59:25 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-02 09:59:52 AM  

spongeboob: the801: good thing suicides don't count as combat deaths.

From 2004 to 2009, the rates doubled to more than 30 suicide deaths per 100,000 individuals deployed. For those who weren't deployed, the rates tripled to between 25 and 30 suicide deaths per 100,000 people.

Yeah thanks Taft


testing the filter thingy.  Obama.
 
2014-04-02 10:00:30 AM  
Fark Independents are happier when Vladamir Putin invades another country than when the US goes an entire month without a combat death.
 
2014-04-02 10:00:48 AM  

brandent: spongeboob: the801: good thing suicides don't count as combat deaths.

From 2004 to 2009, the rates doubled to more than 30 suicide deaths per 100,000 individuals deployed. For those who weren't deployed, the rates tripled to between 25 and 30 suicide deaths per 100,000 people.

Yeah thanks Taft

testing the filter thingy.  Obama.


Dang it.  I liked that.  I wonder if Taft will stick now.  Then again Taft was known to be nubianrdly.
 
2014-04-02 10:01:41 AM  

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 415x262]

[coloradoright.files.wordpress.com image 640x567]


A) You left out ROE 1 - 4, but the ones you did show seem to be pretty good rules to operate under.
B) There are several layers of command structure between the President and front line troops. They all have some control over strategic and tactical objectives and operations
 
2014-04-02 10:02:01 AM  
Still pissed Oblahma got us into two unpaid for wars just to satisfy his warmongering lust for killing brown people.
 
2014-04-02 10:03:55 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-02 10:04:15 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-02 10:09:09 AM  

Befuddled: In other news; we've been at war for over a decade now and nobody no conservatives seems to think thought that's abnormal

until Jan 2009.

FTFY
 
2014-04-02 10:10:58 AM  

Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.



It's funny that you're just now realizing this, when most everyone else against the wars knew this back in 2002.
 
2014-04-02 10:13:13 AM  
All Wars are Bankers Wars!
 
2014-04-02 10:13:54 AM  

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 415x262]

[coloradoright.files.wordpress.com image 640x567]


You got any good combat stories for us from your days in the Core?
 
2014-04-02 10:15:03 AM  

azazyel: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 320x184]


I like you
 
2014-04-02 10:15:53 AM  

Lord_Baull: Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.


It's funny that you're just now realizing this, when most everyone else against the wars knew this back in 2002.


Iraq was in the hands of terrorists?
 
2014-04-02 10:16:55 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Lord_Baull: Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.


It's funny that you're just now realizing this, when most everyone else against the wars knew this back in 2002.

Iraq was in the hands of terrorists?


Don't we still have a boatload of troops over there keeping an eye on U.S. business interests?
 
2014-04-02 10:19:29 AM  

Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives. Oh, and Iran will most likly have a nuke. So yeah, Thanks Obama.


1) These wars are already a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.  They were a complete waste of time, treasure and lives from the minute george w. bush dropped the first bomb.

2) There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" until george w. bush started dropping bombs.

3) But sure, send more live troops after dead ones, more good money after bad.  When are you going to enlist?  And are you willing to pay higher taxes to fund your wars?  If the answers are "never" and "no", then STFU.
 
2014-04-02 10:21:01 AM  

Notabunny: This is the hope and change I voted for

 
2014-04-02 10:28:46 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Lord_Baull: Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.


It's funny that you're just now realizing this, when most everyone else against the wars knew this back in 2002.

Iraq was in the hands of terrorists?


Well it is now.  Mission Accomplished.
 
2014-04-02 10:29:34 AM  

Befuddled: In other news; we've been at war for over a decade now and nobody seems to think that's abnormal.


During the Apache War, the sides were engaged in regular hostilities for almost 40 years, and it was 75 years before it was all said and done.
 
2014-04-02 10:30:31 AM  
This is something I approve of. Well done Mr. President.
 
2014-04-02 10:36:14 AM  
Anybody catch the news this week of a private recording where Cheney (I think) talked to a group about bombing Iran?

If you support the Rs currently in power and trying to get power, you're wrong. Grab your gun, fly over to the Middle East and fight your pretend wars by yourself.
 
2014-04-02 10:41:20 AM  

Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives. Oh, and Iran will most likly have a nuke. So yeah, Thanks Obama.


Yea! And Vietnam was only a mistake because we got out too soon. We were winning! Stoopid libs!
 
2014-04-02 10:41:38 AM  

Lcpl_Dunno: We also could have turned the place into a glass desert and not have had to worry about future black mail from a culture that perpetually seeks to leech off of anyone it can. Both would have been cheaper in the short run, but only one would have been cheaper in the long run.


You'd be feared, but hated. But if that's your goal....

Oderint dum metuant. Let them hate me as long as they fear me.

/Caligula's motto
//losing all your friends would be expensive in the long run
 
2014-04-02 10:46:45 AM  
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is old Iran!
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee, we're all gonna die!
 
2014-04-02 10:52:02 AM  

fluffy2097: Lcpl_Dunno: We also could have turned the place into a glass desert and not have had to worry about future black mail from a culture that perpetually seeks to leech off of anyone it can. Both would have been cheaper in the short run, but only one would have been cheaper in the long run.

The only cheap way to deal with the middle east is to build a wall around the entire area, and just ignore the whole goddamn place until the shooting stops for a decade or two.


The only way to deal with the Middle East is to increase funding for fusion research in order to find a cheap replacement for our energy needs and then tell the Saudis and Isreal to go fark themselves.
 
2014-04-02 10:53:17 AM  
I completely LOVE the FARK April Fools nicknames. Can I keep calling Vlad Putin "Pootie-Tang" from here on out please?
 
2014-04-02 10:57:17 AM  

Print'sNotDead: I completely LOVE the FARK April Fools nicknames. Can I keep calling Vlad Putin "Pootie-Tang" from here on out please?


upload.wikimedia.org
Ok, but be careful
 
2014-04-02 11:08:02 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Lord_Baull: Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.


It's funny that you're just now realizing this, when most everyone else against the wars knew this back in 2002.

Iraq was in the hands of terrorists?


Of course. I was told Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that's why we had to invade. I was also told Saddam was terrorizing his own citizens, and that's why we had to invade. I was also told Saddam was ready to use terror nukes, and that's why we had to invade. This is all common knowledge.
 
2014-04-02 11:10:52 AM  

mrshowrules: Print'sNotDead: I completely LOVE the FARK April Fools nicknames. Can I keep calling Vlad Putin "Pootie-Tang" from here on out please?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x158]
Ok, but be careful


+1. I'm a sad, heartless sonofabiatch.
 
2014-04-02 11:46:19 AM  
I'll keep these small but I want to remember who is responsible for the 10+ years of combat deaths of our volunteers--many of whom were serving 15 month extended combat tours.

blogforarizona.net

Fark Bush. Fark Cheney. Fark Rumsfeld. Fark Rice.

www.biography.com

Fark Paul Wolfowitz.

media3.s-nbcnews.com

Fark David Addington.  Fark John Yoo.

upload.wikimedia.org

Fark Douglas Feith.

lh5.googleusercontent.com

Fark Richard Perle.

upload.wikimedia.org

Fark MG Geoffrey D. Miller

I hope all of those criminals pictured above never find the one thing that our men and women who are buried in Section 60 at Arlington share. Peace.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-02 11:48:54 AM  

nmrsnr: bdub77: Good.

A February Gallup survey found that 49 percent thought [the war in Afghanistan] was a mistake and 48 percent did not. That was a radical shift from November 2001, when 9 percent thought it was a mistake while 89 percent did not.

This just tells you how fickle and shortsighted the American public is about war.

I have chickenhawk friends telling me they think Taft is weak for not starting WW III w/Pootie Tang for Crimea.

/notthisshiatagain.jpg

Fixed so it's clear what "it" referred to.

We had a thread about that poll before, and the number is still problematic since it is unclear what it actually says.

When 49 percent of people said "yes, it was mistake" they could have meant one (or both) of two things:

1) With the benefit of hindsight, the result of our actions we not what I wanted, and therefore I believe, given what I know now, that I would have preferred we took different action

2) Even given only what we knew then, but with the benefit of emotional distance, the decision was one we should not have made at the time.

I'd agree with the first point, that with how things turned out, it would have been better not to go to war. However I still believe that harboring Al Qaeda and allowing them to attack the US like they did was an act of war, and retaliation was appropriate. Given competent leadership I believe that the decision to go to war at the time would still be an appropriate response, and preferable to no military action. But given the poll's broad wording, I don't know what people meant by their response.

/oh, but no deaths is undeniably great, it's just sad that it's news, it should be the other way.


I believe that,  when I was in Afghanistan,  I don't know how many times I was told, "I thought the war was over"  They were referring to Iraq.
 
2014-04-02 11:57:10 AM  

feickus: I believe that, when I was in Afghanistan, I don't know how many times I was told, "I thought the war was over" They were referring to Iraq.


This is what really made me angry. That Bush got us into war with Iraq.

I was 16 on 9/11, and I was seriously considering joining the military or finding some other way to serve, but by the time I turned 18 (June 2003) "mission accomplished" had already been declared in Iraq, and I had no desire at all to fight Bush's war.

Thank you for your service.
 
2014-04-02 12:06:01 PM  
This just in, revised suicide statistics for 9/11 reveals 3,000 less murders, 3,000 more suicides than previously thought. Also, suicide figures for 1940s Japan revised.
 
2014-04-02 12:06:51 PM  

Lord_Baull: Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives.


It's funny that you're just now realizing this, when most everyone else against the wars knew this back in 2002.


He had to wait for the blah man to blame it on...
 
2014-04-02 12:18:40 PM  
I have an idea, a financial draft.  For every soldier that dies on duty, combat or not one person is drafted to give half of his or her wealth in the form of a tax. This includes every person in America, however you are exempt for the first million dollars of wealth, the rich do not have any skin in the game as far as war goes this would give the people who are actually in power something to think about before enlarging or engaging our military.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:34 PM  

Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives. Oh, and Iran will most likly have a nuke. So yeah, Thanks Obama.


Here's your prize.
img.fark.net

Now go run along back to the TEA Kiddy Tableand play, the adults are talking here.

You don't know what to play? How about Rope Swing?
Heres how:
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:49:29 PM  

Heliovdrake: Brick-House: And at the end of Obama's tenure as Commander in Chief, both Iraq and Afganistan will be back in the hands of the terrorists we were trying to remove, turning this into a complete waste of time, treasure and lives. Oh, and Iran will most likly have a nuke. So yeah, Thanks Obama.

Here's your prize.
[img.fark.net image 236x213]

Now go run along back to the TEA Kiddy Tableand play, the adults are talking here.

You don't know what to play? How about Rope Swing?
Heres how:
[img.fark.net image 373x664]


Dear Diary:

Today I learned how to make a hangman's noose.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:56 PM  

KeatingFive: cretinbob: Meanwhile, in Albequerque

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x337]

Hey, you wanted illegals out of the country, Obama's getting rid of them and you're mad?


media.247sports.com

His name was James Boyd The only info the police have released is stuff to blame him for their fark ups. Chances are, due to his age and situation he is a vet, but I'm not going to swear to it.

His was the 23rd fatal police shooting by Albequereque cops in 4 years, out of 38 total shootings. Something is incredibly farked up there.

The video is very graphic, but has been shown all over the news.
 
2014-04-02 01:23:25 PM  

nmrsnr: Today I learned how to make a hangman's noose.


It's just a slip knot until it has 13 turns above the loop.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:30 PM  

nmrsnr: feickus: I believe that, when I was in Afghanistan, I don't know how many times I was told, "I thought the war was over" They were referring to Iraq.

This is what really made me angry. That Bush got us into war with Iraq.

I was 16 on 9/11, and I was seriously considering joining the military or finding some other way to serve, but by the time I turned 18 (June 2003) "mission accomplished" had already been declared in Iraq, and I had no desire at all to fight Bush's war.

Thank you for your service.


Thanks, but It's just a job,  7 more years and I can retire and get another job hopefully far away from the gov't
 
2014-04-02 02:44:23 PM  

fluffy2097: Daedalus27: Afghanistan was necessary to fight.

No it wasn't. For what we have spent fighting Afghanistan we could have BOUGHT IT outright. fark fighting, we could have just paid every single terrorists and political official off, and we STILL would have saved billions of dollars over fighting a war for over a decade.


So you believe there should have been no consequences for the regime that allowed terrorist to plan and attack the US on 9/11?  How many attacks would you have allowed to occur before you would have acted.  How long until you would have biatched and complained that Bush was doing nothing to protect our nation from those trying to kill us?  If you are suggesting this, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree strongly that any president could have done nothing after 9/11 against those who provided support (whether active or merely passive by allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely) in Afghanistan.

A fight of some kind in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary.  Now certainly we can question whether a protracted 13 year engagement costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was the best strategy to implement.  Dropping bombs and giving the Northern alliance enough support to make Afghanistan a truly failed state with an active civil war may have been cheaper but would have had other consequences down the road even if on the cheap as we are seeing in Libya now after that strategy has been attempted there. Even a more robust operation of inserting sizeable ground troops and engaging against the Taliban/Al Qaeda up to say the period of the fight in Tora Bora before withdrawing the next year may have been a option to do significant damage to the Taliban and Al Qaeda before leaving the area. Those fantasizing about dropping only one or two nuclear weapons aren't being realistic as those weapons cannot be used politically in these circumstances so why bring them up? Taking the route of an active role for years in fighting in the region and nation building in Afghanistan wasn't the only option and we have seen the consequences that few like.  However just because the nation building route and active combat for years was the given strategy doesn't mean it was the only choice or the best choice when talking about fighting in Afghanistan.
 
2014-04-02 03:39:47 PM  

Daedalus27: So you believe there should have been no consequences for the regime that allowed terrorist to plan and attack the US on 9/11?


Nice straw man.

What you're saying is that we had to make this pile of dead bodies to keep us safe.

In the process of making this pile of dead bodies, we've pissed off a hell of a lot of people, gotten more of our own people killed then the terrorists EVER managed to, and you think this makes us safer how?

The consequences of 9/11 should have been armored cockpit doors, thus preventing anyone with a boxcutter from flying a jetliner into a building ever again.

Spawning a generation of new Bin Ladins does not make us safer.
 
2014-04-02 03:40:53 PM  
There was never any nerve gas, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons. Those were boldfaced lies and even children knew it at the time.
 
2014-04-02 04:24:07 PM  

Daedalus27: fluffy2097: Daedalus27: Afghanistan was necessary to fight.

No it wasn't. For what we have spent fighting Afghanistan we could have BOUGHT IT outright. fark fighting, we could have just paid every single terrorists and political official off, and we STILL would have saved billions of dollars over fighting a war for over a decade.

So you believe there should have been no consequences for the regime that allowed terrorist to plan and attack the US on 9/11?  How many attacks would you have allowed to occur before you would have acted.  How long until you would have biatched and complained that Bush was doing nothing to protect our nation from those trying to kill us?  If you are suggesting this, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree strongly that any president could have done nothing after 9/11 against those who provided support (whether active or merely passive by allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely) in Afghanistan.

A fight of some kind in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary.  Now certainly we can question whether a protracted 13 year engagement costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was the best strategy to implement.  Dropping bombs and giving the Northern alliance enough support to make Afghanistan a truly failed state with an active civil war may have been cheaper but would have had other consequences down the road even if on the cheap as we are seeing in Libya now after that strategy has been attempted there. Even a more robust operation of inserting sizeable ground troops and engaging against the Taliban/Al Qaeda up to say the period of the fight in Tora Bora before withdrawing the next year may have been a option to do significant damage to the Taliban and Al Qaeda before leaving the area. Those fantasizing about dropping only one or two nuclear weapons aren't being realistic as those weapons cannot be used politically in these circumstances so why bring them up? Taking the route of an active role for years in fighting in the re ...


*sigh*

It's people like you that are the same neo-cons who got us into Afghanistan in the first place.  See, you think that America can just pull the strings and magically control what happens in countries that have barely functioning governments and centuries of tribal enmity.  How many times do you need to be proven wrong about this?  I understand that you wanted to punish the Taliban for assisting al-Qaeda.  I get it.  But in doing so, we embarked on a strategy that has been counteractive in making Americans safer.  Al-Qaeda isn't just an organization.  It's an idea.  An idea that everything bad that has happened to Muslims, and all the sin and decadence in the world can be blamed on the USA,  You don't destroy an idea just because you go after the organization militarily.  If anything, YOU REINFORCE THAT IDEA.  Even for all the success we have had going after al-Qaeda with questionably legal drone strikes is pissing in the wind.  And again, reinforces the idea that Americans kill Muslims indiscriminately and for reasons of religious hatred.

As somebody pointed out, securing the cockpit doors during flight has done more to keep the US safe from terrorism than all the bombs and dead soldiers ever have.  They have done their job and done it well, and deserve all the credit.  But frankly, their mission is a fool's errand.  Afghanistan will NEVER have a functioning government that isn't either dictatorial, or massively corrupt.
 
2014-04-02 05:12:35 PM  
Brick-House: Waaaahhhh, Obama murdered that guy! It was so very unseemly, all those people cheering and partying when poor poor Bin Laden was killed! Vladimir Putin is so very Christian and strong and manly!

Look, bricky, seriously. Go somewhere else. Go to Red State or Free Republic.

Or I'll just keep shoving dead fish down your shorts.
 
2014-04-02 05:19:39 PM  

fluffy2097: Daedalus27: So you believe there should have been no consequences for the regime that allowed terrorist to plan and attack the US on 9/11?

Nice straw man.

What you're saying is that we had to make this pile of dead bodies to keep us safe.

In the process of making this pile of dead bodies, we've pissed off a hell of a lot of people, gotten more of our own people killed then the terrorists EVER managed to, and you think this makes us safer how?

The consequences of 9/11 should have been armored cockpit doors, thus preventing anyone with a boxcutter from flying a jetliner into a building ever again.

Spawning a generation of new Bin Ladins does not make us safer.


I wasn't making a strawman, you criticized my post suggesting some action was necessary (even if the actual action was flawed) by saying any action was futile.  If you thought any action wasn't valid, you are saying that no action should have been done. Cockpit doors and TSA screening (that does nothing practical) are not an action that is even remotely acceptable while those who planned and financed the attacks of 9/11 are sitting in Afghanistan celebrating.  It is a logical conclusion of your comment that no military action was acceptable that I criticized and you dodged by setting up an idiotic plan that Bush (or Al Gore or Obama or any president after 9/11) could have accepted 3,000+ US deaths and allowed those who carried it out to continue to exist in peace.

Yes, a pile of dead enemy bodies (and collateral damage of innocents caught up in the action) is necessary sometimes for nation states to enforce international norms and protect your society from it's enemies.  The fact that a sizeable percentage of the population dislikes or hates the US no matter what action is taken or that more people may dislike the US and it's policies for bombing people is what happens when your the dominant power in the world.  Remember after 9/11 when there were the celebrations in the street in many locations, those people were hostile before any direct US action in Iraq or Afghanistan (yes they were a tiny minority but they were a visible portion that had an underlying sentiment that the US deserved the attack). You cannot please everyone or even a majority of people, all you can do is to try and minimize and make certain that the enemies of your nation are deterred or limited in capabilities of engaging in harm against you.  If you can't see this, your not living in the real world.

Close2TheEdge: Daedalus27: fluffy2097: Daedalus27: Afghanistan was necessary to fight.

No it wasn't. For what we have spent fighting Afghanistan we could have BOUGHT IT outright. fark fighting, we could have just paid every single terrorists and political official off, and we STILL would have saved billions of dollars over fighting a war for over a decade.

So you believe there should have been no consequences for the regime that allowed terrorist to plan and attack the US on 9/11?  How many attacks would you have allowed to occur before you would have acted.  How long until you would have biatched and complained that Bush was doing nothing to protect our nation from those trying to kill us?  If you are suggesting this, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree strongly that any president could have done nothing after 9/11 against those who provided support (whether active or merely passive by allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely) in Afghanistan.

A fight of some kind in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary.  Now certainly we can question whether a protracted 13 year engagement costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was the best strategy to implement.  Dropping bombs and giving the Northern alliance enough support to make Afghanistan a truly failed state with an active civil war may have been cheaper but would have had other consequences down the road even if on the cheap as we are seeing in Libya now after that strategy has been attempted there. Even a more robust operation of inserting sizeable ground troops and engaging against the Taliban/Al Qaeda up to say the period of the fight in Tora Bora before withdrawing the next year may have been a option to do significant damage to the Taliban and Al Qaeda before leaving the area. Those fantasizing about dropping only one or two nuclear weapons aren't being realistic as those weapons cannot be used politically in these circumstances so why bring them up? Taking the route of an active role for years in fighti ...


You are not reading my posts if that's what you get out of it.  I am saying that some action was necessary after that profound attack and it would have been unacceptable to everyone but the most pacifist person to suggest that Cockpit doors and the TSA were the solution while those who carried out the attack in Afghanistan in Al Qaeda laughed and celebrated.  Al Qaeda is certainly an idea, but you have to show it is a bad idea and try to erase it by making sure those who choose to carry out that philosophy suffer consequences.  I am not saying the plan that was carried out and a 13 year long invasion, occupation, and nationbuilding strategy was the right move or even desirable.  Airstrikes, special forces missions, passive support to the enemies of the Taliban, a brief occupation, other variations on those for a limited duration may have been options with a lower costs in lives and costs.  However, some action was necessary and if you don't believe this, I don't think you remember the anger after 9/11 that demanded something be done to those who carried out those attacks.  You can't win everyone over with teddy bears and eskimo kisses, sometimes you have to kill or imprison those who mean you harm.
 
2014-04-02 06:00:36 PM  

Daedalus27: You are not reading my posts if that's what you get out of it. I am saying that some action was necessary after that profound attack and it would have been unacceptable to everyone but the most pacifist person to suggest that Cockpit doors and the TSA were the solution while those who carried out the attack in Afghanistan in Al Qaeda laughed and celebrated. Al Qaeda is certainly an idea, but you have to show it is a bad idea and try to erase it by making sure those who choose to carry out that philosophy suffer consequences. I am not saying the plan that was carried out and a 13 year long invasion, occupation, and nationbuilding strategy was the right move or even desirable. Airstrikes, special forces missions, passive support to the enemies of the Taliban, a brief occupation, other variations on those for a limited duration may have been options with a lower costs in lives and costs. However, some action was necessary and if you don't believe this, I don't think you remember the anger after 9/11 that demanded something be done to those who carried out those attacks. You can't win everyone over with teddy bears and eskimo kisses, sometimes you have to kill or imprison those who mean you harm.


No, I read your posts and I believe I do understand.  And yes, it was appropriate to punish groups and a government that supported al-Qaeda.  It is still pointless.  The message you are sending is completely lost on these people.  Will punishing them make you feel better and maybe make the American public feel better?  OK, I'll grant you that.  Still a pointless exercise.  You aren't teaching religious extremists that they are wrong and better stop trying to blow up Americans with bombs attached to their genitals.  These are people who are beyond teaching.  Can you change a Creationist's mind about the origin of the Universe?  Absolutely not.  These people are 1000x more intransigent and way more violent.  You are talking to a brick wall.

But you know who you are teaching?  Disaffected Muslims who may not be hardened jihadists yet, but only need a push in the direction.  Congratulations.  You have given them that push.  And you have sacrificed countless civilian and military lives, spent billions of dollars that could have been used for more productive things, and ultimately done nothing to achieve the goal of safety and peace.

I would agree that you can't win people over with teddy bears and kisses.  But you also don't win them over with half military solutions.  Either stay out and let them fight their own battles while you protect your homeland, or go in and flatten everyone and everything in your way.  To paraphrase Conan, crush your enemies.  Neither of those options is ideal, so I opt for the latter.
 
2014-04-02 06:18:41 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Daedalus27: You are not reading my posts if that's what you get out of it. I am saying that some action was necessary after that profound attack and it would have been unacceptable to everyone but the most pacifist person to suggest that Cockpit doors and the TSA were the solution while those who carried out the attack in Afghanistan in Al Qaeda laughed and celebrated. Al Qaeda is certainly an idea, but you have to show it is a bad idea and try to erase it by making sure those who choose to carry out that philosophy suffer consequences. I am not saying the plan that was carried out and a 13 year long invasion, occupation, and nationbuilding strategy was the right move or even desirable. Airstrikes, special forces missions, passive support to the enemies of the Taliban, a brief occupation, other variations on those for a limited duration may have been options with a lower costs in lives and costs. However, some action was necessary and if you don't believe this, I don't think you remember the anger after 9/11 that demanded something be done to those who carried out those attacks. You can't win everyone over with teddy bears and eskimo kisses, sometimes you have to kill or imprison those who mean you harm.

No, I read your posts and I believe I do understand.  And yes, it was appropriate to punish groups and a government that supported al-Qaeda.  It is still pointless.  The message you are sending is completely lost on these people.  Will punishing them make you feel better and maybe make the American public feel better?  OK, I'll grant you that.  Still a pointless exercise.  You aren't teaching religious extremists that they are wrong and better stop trying to blow up Americans with bombs attached to their genitals.  These are people who are beyond teaching.  Can you change a Creationist's mind about the origin of the Universe?  Absolutely not.  These people are 1000x more intransigent and way more violent.  You are talking to a brick wall.

But you know who you are ...


Except staying out of it doesn't necessarily work either.  We left Afghanistan to its own devices when the Soviet's withrdrew and it fostered extremists who offered sanctuary to those disaffected elements who decided to attack the US.  Sometimes all you can do is remove those who mean to do you harm and hope that the next generation of extremists is less competent or able to carry out plans. Sometimes the only dialog possible is high explosive ordinance.  It isn't necessarily morally right or exactly productive, but it is what the US can do.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report