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

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

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



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

Archived thread
 
2014-04-01 10:42:02 PM  
img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-04-01 10:46:55 PM  
I've got jokes. But I'm not gonna.
 
2014-04-01 10:48:22 PM  
good thing suicides don't count as combat deaths.
 
2014-04-01 10:55:24 PM  
This just shows how weak he is. He does not love his country enough to send young people to die for it. I bet he doesn't even wear a flag pin on his pajamas.
 
2014-04-01 11:03:33 PM  
It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?
 
2014-04-01 11:06:18 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?


Your heartfelt appeal to our better natures has touched me old chap.  From henceforth I shall endeavor to always find the good in my fellow man, even if they are cynically appealing to our better natures to score partisan points.
 
2014-04-01 11:09:56 PM  
 
2014-04-01 11:12:07 PM  
Good.

A February Gallup survey found that 49 percent thought it 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
 
2014-04-01 11:29:20 PM  
 
2014-04-01 11:34:12 PM  
What does Taffy have anything to do with this?
 
2014-04-01 11:35:36 PM  

bdub77: This just tells you how fickle and shortsighted the American public is about war.


Or that the general public is not really in a position to know what's best, and that the elected leaders have a profound responsibility to not get caught up in the moment.
 
2014-04-01 11:38:18 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?


So true.

If it wasn't for Republicans, "the first month without a US combat death in over a decade" would have never been possible, but do they get any credit? Not from the libtards!
 
2014-04-01 11:40:26 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?


So we should't take note of the fact that one administration started 2 wars which killed thousands of Americans and orders of magnitude more Iraqis and Afghanis, and that his successor ended those wars? Remembering and acknowledging this reality is "snark and partisanship"?
 
2014-04-01 11:50:46 PM  
This is the hope and change I voted for
 
2014-04-02 12:13:19 AM  

DamnYankees: So we should't take note of the fact that one administration started 2 wars which killed thousands of Americans and orders of magnitude more Iraqis and Afghanis, and that his successor ended those wars? Remembering and acknowledging this reality is "snark and partisanship"?


I can't believe people are bringing politics into the politics tab.

Is nothing sacred?
 
2014-04-02 12:14:50 AM  
APRIL FOOLS!
 
2014-04-02 12:39:58 AM  
Fantastic news!
 
2014-04-02 01:14:40 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?


My respect for you continues to grow, SH. We should all be glad to be finally coming out of darkness.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:02 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:48 AM  
Good.
 
2014-04-02 02:25:11 AM  
Depressing that such deaths have gone on this long.
 
2014-04-02 02:30:43 AM  
I'm made out of laffy taffy motherfarker
 
2014-04-02 02:31:39 AM  

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


and car crashes

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


there's also the complex middle ground of "the war in afghanistan was not a bad idea and we should have done it even with hindsight but we also should have done it differently"
 
2014-04-02 02:37:57 AM  
noting that this has occurred while obama is in office is just playing politics with our men and women serving overseas and is disrespectful.

anyway, about that benghazi investigation...
 
2014-04-02 02:38:36 AM  

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


or abortions
 
2014-04-02 02:47:52 AM  
So where are all the limbots and beckheads to tell us how Obama is "disrespecting the military" by not constantly deploying ground troops to useless expanses of blasted desert for the Jesus? I mean, you people thirst for blood, dead American blood, and constantly piss and moan when our troops aren't dying somewhere.

Hint: Born in the 70s, and not once in my life has a troop "died for my freedom". They've died for Dick Cheney's profits, and Reagan's desire to arm terrorists.

Hell, the Coast Guard protects our freedom more than most of the military.
 
2014-04-02 02:59:58 AM  
But we in the GOP are working as hard as possible to make sure it's the LAST such month! Obama is so weak on the Ukraine and also Syria and what about Somalia too don't you think?
 
2014-04-02 03:01:30 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.


Exactly, that is the problem with polls and questions like that.  It captures opinions and views after consequences have occurred and mistakes have been realized even if the fundamental decisions at the time were sound (not saying it applies here but you can make all the right decisions and still have horrible outcomes because the enemy does get to make choices as well).  It is incredibly easy to Monday morning quarterback and point to all the knowledge you have now and call the people who made the horrible decisions foolish or worse.

Afghanistan was necessary to fight.  Was it necessary to remain after the first year, that is up for debate.  We can't see what would have happened or where public opinion would have been if the Taliban reasserted themselves, started subjugating women and children and harboring more terrorists who may have gone on to commit further harm on the US or elsewhere. Certainly it would have been easy for the world to condemn the US and western powers for destroying a nation and then leaving it to a reasserted Taliban or violent civil war to continue to destroy millions of lives under their oppressive government. It is much easier to delude yourself into thinking the world would have been sunshine and puppies everywhere if a given action hadn't been taken without considering what other actors involved would have done or been able to do in response and what would have happened in the aftermath.

I am not saying the situation would have been better or worse.  It is difficult to figure out what may have happened if Afghanistan had been a limited operation rather than an occupation and nation building.  I think the evidence suggests that lives for some in Afghanistan have been improved despite the conflict although whether this improvement is worth the costs in terms of blood and treasure is highly debatable compared to the status quo. However asking if a given decision was a mistake or not certainly isn't a fair or revealing question and should be discounted by all.  Of course if it helps with a certain political viewpoint or attack strategy then you are going to jump on it because flawed data can still damage your political foes.
 
2014-04-02 03:28:12 AM  

neongoats: Hell, the Coast Guard protects our freedom more than most of the military.


The Coast Guard is part of the military, though in peacetime it answers to the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment instead of the Pentagon.
 
2014-04-02 03:50:31 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?


REALLY? Coming from YOU?

i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-02 03:53:07 AM  
No combat deaths this month.

So, the terrorists have won, then?
 
2014-04-02 03:55:26 AM  
hurr durr President Dronestrike

durr
 
2014-04-02 04:04:02 AM  

Grahor: No combat deaths this month.

So, the terrorists have won, then?


Here, have yourself a mighty wallopin' bowl of Foghorn.
 
2014-04-02 04:15:52 AM  
but but - what will i do without my Warporn
 
2014-04-02 04:20:26 AM  

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


Yeah, it's a damn good thing Obama spent twenty years gutting the VA.

Wait, that was the GOP. I get them confused!
 
2014-04-02 04:25:42 AM  
This is good news. Really good news.
 
2014-04-02 04:34:06 AM  
Obama will probably take credit for this the way he did for killing bin Laden. I am proud to report that I have learned today that after I asked the joint chiefs of staff that there were no casualties in March yadayada long story short the guy is freakin black and his wife is a thug and his daughters are Hitler and his dog Bo Soetoro was born in a puppy mill where is the birth certifect.
 
2014-04-02 04:35:02 AM  
I, for one, welcome our healthcare providing peacelords.
 
2014-04-02 04:49:18 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-04-02 04:52:57 AM  
HISTORY'S GREATEST PACIFIST
 
2014-04-02 05:14:33 AM  

nmrsnr: 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.


You believe a terrorist cell was informing the Taliban of its plans, and that the Taliban had the final say on whether or not their attack on the US could go ahead? Is there any evidence of this, because I don't remember hearing anything like this.
 
2014-04-02 05:26:53 AM  
Just think, we could be balls deep in Iran, Turkey, Ukraine, and go knows how many other shiatholes.
 
2014-04-02 05:39:19 AM  

xria: nmrsnr: 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.

You believe a terrorist cell was informing the Taliban of its plans, and that the Taliban had the final say on whether or not their attack on the US could go ahead? Is there any evidence of this, because I don't remember hearing anything like this.


i131.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-02 06:02:20 AM  
Let's hope this is just the beginning and news like this continues.
 
2014-04-02 06:18:37 AM  
hurr durr President Peaceprize
 
2014-04-02 06:19:21 AM  
In other news; we've been at war for over a decade now and nobody seems to think that's abnormal.
 
2014-04-02 06:19:42 AM  
A month without BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
 
2014-04-02 06:28:48 AM  

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


It's not.
 
2014-04-02 06:32:49 AM  
Why does he hate the funeral industry so much?

THANKS FOR NUTHIN' FARTBAMA!
 
2014-04-02 06:41:38 AM  

jso2897: The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?

REALLY? Coming from YOU?


This. STFU, hippo.
 
2014-04-02 06:48:02 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.


I was at the gym last night and a few of the TVs were on Fox News as usual. There was no mention of this milestone. The whole hour was about trumpeting some poll that said Iraq/Afgan vets preferred W to Obama as CiC. Funny timing, that.
 
2014-04-02 06:49:00 AM  
This is just more proof that Obama is making us appear weak to our enemies.
 
2014-04-02 06:54:16 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

But since when are we about nice?


I ran out of nice when I realized that our country is now a nation in perpetual war, and nobody even gives a shiat.

A month without combat deaths? the last DECADE should have had no combat deaths.

/It's easy to celebrate when your standards are so goddamn low.
 
2014-04-02 06:57:39 AM  
Good. It's nice to have a month without a plane full of flag draped coffins to ignore.

Here's to many more months like it.
 
2014-04-02 06:58:30 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-02 06:59:33 AM  

stoli n coke: Good. It's nice to have a month without a plane full of flag draped coffins to ignore.

Here's to many more months like it.


The planes with flag draped coffins are still there.

They just now have a different countries flag on the coffins, and the planes are going somewhere else to be ignored.
 
2014-04-02 06:59:44 AM  

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?
 
2014-04-02 07:02:44 AM  

GardenWeasel: I was at the gym last night and a few of the TVs were on Fox News as usual. There was no mention of this milestone. The whole hour was about trumpeting some poll that said Iraq/Afgan vets preferred W to Obama as CiC. Funny timing, that.


Wonder if they told/asked any of those vets if they knew that Obama has done more for veteran spending then any president ever and that the Republican party has fought him every step of the way on it.
 
2014-04-02 07:04:45 AM  

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.


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.
 
2014-04-02 07:06:18 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: GardenWeasel: I was at the gym last night and a few of the TVs were on Fox News as usual. There was no mention of this milestone. The whole hour was about trumpeting some poll that said Iraq/Afgan vets preferred W to Obama as CiC. Funny timing, that.

Wonder if they told/asked any of those vets if they knew that Obama has done more for veteran spending then any president ever and that the Republican party has fought him every step of the way on it.


As a vet ... source please? Not being a trolling douche, I mean really I would like to see a source on it.
 
2014-04-02 07:08:03 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.


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.
 
2014-04-02 07:08:05 AM  
And the administration just announced that the VA backlog is down 44% and will be eliminated by 2015.

But of course this had nothing to do with Obama, and both sides are still the same.
 
2014-04-02 07:09:47 AM  
Afghanistan probably wouldn't have turned in to such a cluster fark if part way in to it we didn't have a whole 'nother war against a non-aggressor nation that we diverted all our attention and resources to while putting Afghanistan on the back burner.  Granted, it's Afghanistan, so that's still up for debate.
 
2014-04-02 07:12:44 AM  

DamnYankees: bdub77: This just tells you how fickle and shortsighted the American public is about war.

Or that the general public is not really in a position to know what's best, and that the elected leaders have a profound responsibility to not get caught up in the moment.


but being a knee jerk reactionary is just so...Murican.
 
2014-04-02 07:12:55 AM  

Summoner101: Afghanistan probably wouldn't have turned in to such a cluster fark if part way in to it we didn't have a whole 'nother war against a non-aggressor nation that we diverted all our attention and resources to while putting Afghanistan on the back burner.  Granted, it's Afghanistan, so that's still up for debate.


If the Russians couldn't conquer Afghanistan, what hope do Americans have, honestly?
 
2014-04-02 07:13:09 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.


Im not against this. Also cheaper than the war and fact is using the military as guards for this would have produced less casualties. As a general side note though, those guys are pretty damned shady and good with getting past walls or posts or ... really anything. So again I'm down for the glass desert mentality. Full disclosure, I have lost more than a couple friends to those people.

Summoner101: Afghanistan probably wouldn't have turned in to such a cluster fark if part way in to it we didn't have a whole 'nother war against a non-aggressor nation that we diverted all our attention and resources to while putting Afghanistan on the back burner.  Granted, it's Afghanistan, so that's still up for debate.


Yes and no.

Yes, if we were more focused we would have been where we are now years earlier.

No, we aren't done based on the current strategy and basically never will be.
 
2014-04-02 07:15:11 AM  

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.


Here's the other problem with Afghanistan.  That country will NEVER, EVER have a stable government that isn't monumentally corrupt or dictatorial.  Want proof?  Look at the entire history of the country.  The idea that America was going to come in, sweep all the bad guys out, and insert a democratic, pro-Western style government elected by the people, was complete fantasy from the get-go.

Military solutions work when you are prepared to flatten the enemy into the stone age and start over.  See Germany circa 1945.
 
2014-04-02 07:16:18 AM  

GardenWeasel: The Stealth Hippopotamus: It would have been nice to celebrate this good news without the political snark and partisanship.

I was at the gym last night and a few of the TVs were on Fox News as usual. There was no mention of this milestone. The whole hour was about trumpeting some poll that said Iraq/Afgan vets preferred W to Obama as CiC. Funny timing, that.


A cursory search for "march combat deaths" on the Google this morning finds much of the same, Usually, any noteworthy news item will have a Fox News link in the 1st 4-shiats... this item, nothing. I went several pages forward and still nothing. Switched to news.google.com, still nothing. Funny that.
 
2014-04-02 07:18:51 AM  

Lcpl_Dunno: Full disclosure, I have lost more than a couple friends to those people.


My condolences.

Personally, my view on war is you are all in, or all out. This doctrine the US military has of being 'peacekeepers' to protect our political interest just leads to protracted bloodshed over generations.

Either we shouldn't start a war at all, or we should be wiping entire sections of the map off the face of the planet, then salting the earth behind us so nothing will ever grow there again.

/Not surprisingly, I rarely believe that war is the go to option for solving a problem.
//I'm more of an isolationist.
 
2014-04-02 07:19:38 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: neongoats: Hell, the Coast Guard protects our freedom more than most of the military.

The Coast Guard is part of the military, though in peacetime it answers to the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment instead of the Pentagon.


Is this some form of filter pwnage?
 
2014-04-02 07:31:05 AM  
Well, at any rate, I'll bet the guy that didn't get killed last month is happy about it.
 
2014-04-02 07:32:49 AM  

bdub77: Good.

A February Gallup survey found that 49 percent thought it 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


This is true. That's why when the next president wants to blockade Crimea or something, the American public will be 60% in favor....if that president is Republican. If they're a Democrat it'll be a grievous abuse of power - unless it's successful and the economy is good, in which case the American people will say, "Fire at will!"
 
2014-04-02 07:33:16 AM  

fluffy2097: Lcpl_Dunno: Full disclosure, I have lost more than a couple friends to those people.

My condolences.

Personally, my view on war is you are all in, or all out. This doctrine the US military has of being 'peacekeepers' to protect our political interest just leads to protracted bloodshed over generations.

Either we shouldn't start a war at all, or we should be wiping entire sections of the map off the face of the planet, then salting the earth behind us so nothing will ever grow there again.

/Not surprisingly, I rarely believe that war is the go to option for solving a problem.
//I'm more of an isolationist.


I could not agree with you more. Literally. If we used "war" as the threat to end all discussions and we meant it (demolish the place salt the earth and ignore it for a dozen generations) then other wouldn't be inclined to do things to promote us going to war with them. That said (as you said) it should  notbe the first, second, or even third resort on the regular. Hell preferably war is effectively the answer when all other reasonable options have failed.

That said, blackmailing the US is not a reasonable option IMO and should immediately be answered with "Look we can come to a real solution or I can grind your civilization to dust. Your choice."

Lastly, I was an AD Marine. We aren't cops and using the USMC as cops only invites problems. I have a friend that killed a guy (because really, that's what Marines do) under  reallywrong circumstances. He didn't know and he has been really  reallymessed up over it ever since. Wanna bet that the locals are equally as unhappy or more? Can't train people to "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver" and then ask them to be local PD.
 
2014-04-02 07:34:51 AM  

Alphax: A month without BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!


Cthulu is going to be pissed.
 
2014-04-02 07:39:56 AM  
fluffy2097:

My condolences.


Also because I am an asshat (and forgot the first time around), thank you for your condolences.
 
2014-04-02 07:44:55 AM  
What we need to do is put a job creator into the White House, who will soon detect the most wickedly diabolical plot ever, truly, against America, truly, since the beginning of time, and then it will be our destiny to Remember the Heroes and Support the Troops and Keep America Safe and Go to War with the Army We Have and most importantly Cut Job Killing Tax Job Killers on the Job Creators, and remember folks, keep on shopping.

/truly
 
2014-04-02 07:59:50 AM  

Lcpl_Dunno: fluffy2097: Lcpl_Dunno: Full disclosure, I have lost more than a couple friends to those people.

My condolences.

Personally, my view on war is you are all in, or all out. This doctrine the US military has of being 'peacekeepers' to protect our political interest just leads to protracted bloodshed over generations.

Either we shouldn't start a war at all, or we should be wiping entire sections of the map off the face of the planet, then salting the earth behind us so nothing will ever grow there again.

/Not surprisingly, I rarely believe that war is the go to option for solving a problem.
//I'm more of an isolationist.

I could not agree with you more. Literally. If we used "war" as the threat to end all discussions and we meant it (demolish the place salt the earth and ignore it for a dozen generations) then other wouldn't be inclined to do things to promote us going to war with them. That said (as you said) it should  notbe the first, second, or even third resort on the regular. Hell preferably war is effectively the answer when all other reasonable options have failed.

That said, blackmailing the US is not a reasonable option IMO and should immediately be answered with "Look we can come to a real solution or I can grind your civilization to dust. Your choice."

Lastly, I was an AD Marine. We aren't cops and using the USMC as cops only invites problems. I have a friend that killed a guy (because really, that's what Marines do) under  reallywrong circumstances. He didn't know and he has been really  reallymessed up over it ever since. Wanna bet that the locals are equally as unhappy or more? Can't train people to "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver" and then ask them to be local PD.


I agree. Every branch of the US military was created with a specific job in mind.  Marines are shock troops.  They are a sledgehammer, their role is kill people and break stuff, they are very good at killing people and breaking stuff.  If this is the 'new face of combat' then maybe it's time for another branch that is trained and equipped to stabilize a country after the marines finish killing and breaking stuff.

This is not a slam against the marines, killing people and breaking stuff is necessary in any conflict.
 
2014-04-02 08:24:42 AM  

fluffy2097: Summoner101: Afghanistan probably wouldn't have turned in to such a cluster fark if part way in to it we didn't have a whole 'nother war against a non-aggressor nation that we diverted all our attention and resources to while putting Afghanistan on the back burner.  Granted, it's Afghanistan, so that's still up for debate.

If the Russians couldn't conquer Afghanistan, what hope do Americans have, honestly?


Well, it's the usual problem everyone since Ghenghis Khan faced: you can conquer the nation easily, but you can't get the tribes to do anything differently from what they have been doing, so they fight back. After a while, it gets tiring and the original intent has less support, so the guest army goes away.
 
2014-04-02 08:26:52 AM  
i2.cdn.turner.com
Oh, so NOW it's ok for a President to stay out of wars? Fark you! Build your own damn houses from now on!
 
2014-04-02 08:39:28 AM  

Lcpl_Dunno: As a vet ... source please? Not being a trolling douche, I mean really I would like to see a source on it.


First off - best ever is a bit hyperbolic, should have said best in my life time.

A list from Google:
Politifact list on his campaign promises on veterans
White House's list
Veterans of Foreign Wars list
Some Guy on Tumblr's list

He's pushed for (and gotten) huge increases in money for veteran medical care, despite fights with Congress.  We've had a number of threads over the years on this.
 
2014-04-02 08:41:41 AM  
Well, we're still engaged in warfare, we've just learned to eliminate the risk to our soldiers.  When you're fighting dudes who have barely managed to put together an arsenal with automatic weapons with missile-wielding death-bots controlled from the middle of a body of water 400 miles away, that's not exactly putting you at imminent risk of retaliation.
 
2014-04-02 08:42:31 AM  
Imagine President McCain and how many wars we would be in right now.
//That is all.
 
2014-04-02 08:44:03 AM  
Well this is good news, and I should be happy. But then I think about the generation of kids that's has grown up never knowing what peace looks like, and I get all angry again. Oh, and the thousands of war veterans that are already crippled for life. So yeah. I'm not celebrating.
 
2014-04-02 08:49:14 AM  

Egoy3k: I agree. Every branch of the US military was created with a specific job in mind.  Marines are shock troops.  They are a sledgehammer, their role is kill people and break stuff, they are very good at killing people and breaking stuff.  If this is the 'new face of combat' then maybe it's time for another branch that is trained and equipped to stabilize a country after the marines finish killing and breaking stuff.

This is not a slam against the marines, killing people and breaking stuff is necessary in any conflict.


http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace
 
2014-04-02 08:51:32 AM  
Ah, but not being in a war means we are cowards, and cowards die a thousand deaths, so the death toll is actually eleventy billion.
 
2014-04-02 08:55:09 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Lee Jackson Beauregard: neongoats: Hell, the Coast Guard protects our freedom more than most of the military.

The Coast Guard is part of the military, though in peacetime it answers to the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment instead of the Pentagon.

Is this some form of filter pwnage?



Department of Fatherland Security, nicht warh?
 
2014-04-02 09:00:57 AM  
Thanks Taft
 
2014-04-02 09:03:14 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Lee Jackson Beauregard: neongoats: Hell, the Coast Guard protects our freedom more than most of the military.

The Coast Guard is part of the military, though in peacetime it answers to the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment instead of the Pentagon.

Is this some form of filter pwnage?

Seems like someone is virally hawking something. Pretty clever I guess? Might work?
http://www.zazzle.de/department+von+vaterland+sicherheit+geschenke
 
2014-04-02 09:08:02 AM  

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


We've been at "war" since WWII, at least. Hell, technically we're still at war with N. Korea, since no peace treaty was signed.
 
2014-04-02 09:12:18 AM  

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

We've been at "war" since WWII, at least. Hell, technically we're still at war with N. Korea, since no peace treaty was signed.



The military industrial complex is full steam ahead!

Thanks Taft
 
2014-04-02 09:13:27 AM  
That should give them plenty of time to answer questions about Benghazi.
 
2014-04-02 09:17:10 AM  
What was that old episode of original Star Trek?  A world has a non-destructive method of war.. so citizens are just expected to report to the disintegration rooms when told to, but there's no infrastructure destroyed.  It's neat and clean, so they never have a reason to end the war.

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.

It might have been 'A Taste of Armageddon'.
 
2014-04-02 09:20:12 AM  
Obama
study it out
idiot
wtf
filters
lol

/*sigh*
 
2014-04-02 09:24:12 AM  

Alphax: What was that old episode of original Star Trek?  A world has a non-destructive method of war.. so citizens are just expected to report to the disintegration rooms when told to, but there's no infrastructure destroyed.  It's neat and clean, so they never have a reason to end the war.

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.

It might have been 'A Taste of Armageddon'.


... if these wars should be fought anywhere, they should be on US soil, and we'd see how many more wars the US would be iffy to get into.

/not born in the US
//live here
///afraid one day south america is targeted.
 
2014-04-02 09:24:55 AM  

theknuckler_33: Obama
study it out
idiot
wtf
filters
lol

/*sigh*


Yes, that was fun yesterday.
 
2014-04-02 09:26:48 AM  
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.
 
2014-04-02 09:28:27 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-02 09:29:20 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.


You have a sweet ass
 
2014-04-02 09:31:18 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-02 09:34:04 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

coloradoright.files.wordpress.com
 
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.
 
2014-04-02 07:02:09 PM  

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

or abortions


Is a fetus limited in the rank it can attain?
 
2014-04-02 10:42:45 PM  

Daedalus27: 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.



What you don't realize is that it is entirely possible for the US to be the bad guys.

Nobody fancies themselves the villain of the story.
 
2014-04-02 11:15:53 PM  
If we had tens of thousands of troops still in the Middle East, this might be news. But how many troops do we have over there now? Like...two?
 
2014-04-02 11:17:11 PM  

TerminalEchoes: If we had tens of thousands of troops still in the Middle East, this might be news. But how many troops do we have over there now? Like...two?


Tens of thousands.
 
2014-04-03 01:24:50 AM  

fluffy2097: Daedalus27: 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.


What you don't realize is that it is entirely possible for the US to be the bad guys.

Nobody fancies themselves the villain of the story.


Oh sure the US has been "bad guys" in various foreign policy choices.   Are you going to go back to the overthrow of the socialist government in Iran and backing of the Shah?  The gall of inserting western soldiers into Saudi Arabia and the holy land to protect the western oil supply and save their ass from an aggressor who they were unwilling or unable to counter themselves.  The backing of the Israeli regime and their questionable actions over the Palestinian peoples who the Arab countries only give lip service into supporting because it is a weapon against Israel? Is it the US support of Arab strongmen over the years that have oppressed organizations such as the Muslim brotherhood who we have seen have been completely tolerant and effective once given power?  Just point to me where these actions make US is a "bad guy" in this case that justifies the acceptance of 9/11 attacks on innocent civilians as a righteous outcome that doesn't deserve any response.
 
2014-04-03 02:57:35 AM  
No, invading Afghanistan wasn't necessary, or wise.  Just as we didn't invade Pakistan when we did get Bin Laden.
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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