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 25
    More: Spiffy, United States, combat deaths, Enduring Freedom, Hamid Karzai  
•       •       •

748 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Apr 2014 at 2:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-04-02 02:47:52 AM  
4 votes:
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 04:35:02 AM  
3 votes:
I, for one, welcome our healthcare providing peacelords.
2014-04-02 04:20:26 AM  
3 votes:

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!
2014-04-01 11:50:46 PM  
3 votes:
This is the hope and change I voted for
2014-04-01 10:48:22 PM  
3 votes:
good thing suicides don't count as combat deaths.
2014-04-02 11:46:19 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:57:17 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:59:25 AM  
2 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
2014-04-02 02:37:57 AM  
2 votes:
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 02:31:39 AM  
2 votes:

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"
2014-04-01 11:40:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:38:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:09:56 PM  
2 votes:
2014-04-02 04:24:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:39:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:20:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:57:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:03:55 AM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2014-04-02 07:33:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:14:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:18 AM  
1 votes:
i.chzbgr.com
2014-04-02 04:34:06 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:16:02 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-01 11:35:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:07 PM  
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report