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.

(The Daily Beast)   How the situation in Iraq is going to get worse when the US starts bombing insurgents opposed to the government, not better. In fact, it's already being called Vietnam 2.0   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 134
    More: Obvious, United States, Iraq, Iraqi government, Vietnam, South Vietnamese, Mosul, Iraqi security forces, American wars  
•       •       •

1152 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-13 10:29:06 AM  
At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?
 
2014-06-13 10:31:09 AM  
Let's suppose the government is going to do X, which is convenient since I have a whole article against them doing X.
 
2014-06-13 10:38:32 AM  
Can we ask the French to come in and clean it up like we tried to do for them in Vietnam?
 
2014-06-13 10:50:08 AM  
What do you mean "already"?
 
2014-06-13 11:03:20 AM  
www.troll.me
 
2014-06-13 11:04:36 AM  
What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?
 
2014-06-13 11:18:44 AM  

nekom: At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?


Other war criminals?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 11:24:52 AM  

nekom: At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?


I think things have switched to the "you're glad that this happened" strategy.  That's usually what people say when they screw up badly, but don't want to take the blame for their screw up.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 11:25:55 AM  

Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?


The previous quagmire, WW I.  Now we get to retire Vietnam and compare them to Iraq.
 
2014-06-13 11:31:27 AM  
If we don't act quickly, the dominoes could start falling and soon the entire middle east could turn communist. Then it's a matter of time until it's at our shores.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 11:31:54 AM  
It's actually a lot like Vietnam.  We tried to fight the war ourselves and realized that it would take a thousand years, so we handed it over to the locals who ended up losing.

Then all the horrible disasters that were going to happen if we didn't fight or lost the war didn't happen and we realized that it was all for nothing.
 
2014-06-13 11:37:09 AM  
Why do we care? What objective is at risk now that we were willing to go to war over back when? None.

That's without debating the objectives that were put forth at the time.
 
2014-06-13 11:53:11 AM  
I notice that some of the GOP's bullshiatterati are now claiming "Well, WE won that war."

Then again these are also the people who truly believe that the Berlin Wall fell only because Ronald Reagan gave it a wink, snap-point and Charo-style hip thrust.
 
2014-06-13 11:54:56 AM  
Just to be clear, Obama is Pol Pot in this scenario, right?
 
2014-06-13 12:02:36 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just to be clear, Obama is Pol Pot in this scenario, right?


Yes....and Sarah Palin is President
 
2014-06-13 12:08:14 PM  
I suggest that we had and still have no business invading countries to install a government we would rather have.
 
2014-06-13 01:36:59 PM  

vpb: It's actually a lot like Vietnam.  We tried to fight the war ourselves and realized that it would take a thousand years, so we handed it over to the locals who ended up losing.

Then all the horrible disasters that were going to happen if we didn't fight or lost the war didn't happen and we realized that it was all for nothing.


And we learned nothing.

Hello Syria!
 
2014-06-13 01:46:15 PM  
When Colin Powell (originally) smartly warned us all "if you break it, you own it," he neglected to mention what a farking lemon the merchandise was.
 
2014-06-13 01:46:33 PM  
Thanks Obama
 
2014-06-13 01:48:33 PM  
Another Vietnam?


...does this mean music will get good again?
 
2014-06-13 01:49:31 PM  

Diogenes: When Colin Powell (originally) smartly warned us all "if you break it, you own it," he neglected to mention what a farking lemon the merchandise was.


Fu*k that guy. He's arguably the worst of the bunch since he clearly knew the reasons for invading were bullshiat, but went in front of the UN and the American people anyway and lied his ass off. Piece of sh*t.
 
2014-06-13 01:50:29 PM  
So is this just a nostalgia thing for McCain?
 
2014-06-13 01:51:55 PM  
and we are droning Pakistan again

/war
/war never changes ends
 
2014-06-13 01:52:28 PM  

vpb: Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?

The previous quagmire, WW I.  Now we get to retire Vietnam and compare them to Iraq.


I thought they compared it to the Crimean War?  Or is that military bungles, not quagmires?
 
2014-06-13 01:53:19 PM  

meat0918: vpb: Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?

The previous quagmire, WW I.  Now we get to retire Vietnam and compare them to Iraq.

I thought they compared it to the Crimean War?  Or is that military bungles, not quagmires?


You know what, I have my wars completely mixed up.
 
2014-06-13 01:53:46 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Another Vietnam?


...does this mean music will get good again?


Lol, at this noob who mistakes his nostaligia for good music.

//In no way a defense of the pop music of the 2010s
 
2014-06-13 01:54:29 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Another Vietnam?


...does this mean music will get good again?


Unfortunately, the lack of a draft pretty much insulated everyone but the military from ever being directly influenced by the war.  Our culture was barely touched.
 
2014-06-13 01:54:33 PM  

Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?


the phillipines occupation, if we're talking strictly americans
 
2014-06-13 01:57:09 PM  
It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.
 
2014-06-13 01:57:59 PM  

vpb: It's actually a lot like Vietnam.  We tried to fight the war ourselves and realized that it would take a thousand years, so we handed it over to the locals who ended up losing.

Then all the horrible disasters that were going to happen if we didn't fight or lost the war didn't happen and we realized that it was all for nothing.


All for nothing?  Nah.. we enriched Halliburton and all those defense contractors.
 
2014-06-13 01:59:48 PM  

nekom: At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?


Lots of people are out today saying it was awesome until Obama farked it up. Does that count?
 
2014-06-13 02:00:33 PM  
Well, you go to war with the lies you have.
 
2014-06-13 02:02:01 PM  

vpb: Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?

The previous quagmire, WW I.  Now we get to retire Vietnam and compare them to Iraq.


The modern high commitment military quagmire or protractacred proxy war is only possible with two large wealthy nations such as Russia and America in Vietnam, or one really farkin stupid wealthy nation like America in Iraq. The people who supported invading Iraq should have to wear a sign warning the rest of us not to trust their judgement and also pay for it with increased taxes.
 
2014-06-13 02:02:17 PM  
Gee it might be enough to get Iran to put the whole "death to America" bit away and want to be our allies again.

And that is more or less what we need here, strong regional players who have their acts together. Without that you are just playing in the sand.
 
2014-06-13 02:02:18 PM  
What do you mean already? Most of us have been calling it Vietnam 2 since the WMD lies or before. A big farking waste of time that we should have never even started in the first place. The Great Patriotic hurpadurp war that broke America.

Hopefully Obama stops pandering to to the hurpublicans and says "fark you iraq, go eat a dick" and keeps the bombs at home.
 
2014-06-13 02:03:19 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

I tried to tell you, but you bastards wouldn't listen...
 
2014-06-13 02:03:27 PM  
We'd be out of Iraq by now if this war were exactly like Vietnam, as our campuses and streets would be burning by now.Parents would be dreading their sons coming of age only to be shipped off to a slaughter and powerful politicians would be scrambling to get their sons a gig with the national guard stateside.This country would benefit greatly by reestablishing the draft,as visions of 1968 scare the shiat out of politicians and make them much less likely to fark around where they don't belong.
 
2014-06-13 02:04:29 PM  
McCain is the one saying "I told you so", when the real person who should be saying such is Biden.  He predicted (and wanted to encourage) a Shia/Sunni/Kurd split with a loose federal government in Baghdad years ago.
 
2014-06-13 02:05:08 PM  

whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.


we didn't even try to nation build. arguably the iraq provisional authority did the opposite. most of its decisions involved tearing down the economic and civil national structures that we hadn't blown up and then not actually replacing them with anything else.
 
2014-06-13 02:05:23 PM  
Iraq Is Vietnam 2.0...

Is this a repeat from 2003?
 
2014-06-13 02:05:37 PM  

hammettman: Well, you go to war with the lies you have.


Turns out Saddam was the only leader to tell the truth when he said of the US attacking Iraq "will open the gates of hell"
 
2014-06-13 02:07:49 PM  

kapaso: vpb: Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?

The previous quagmire, WW I.  Now we get to retire Vietnam and compare them to Iraq.

The modern high commitment military quagmire or protractacred proxy war is only possible with two large wealthy nations such as Russia and America in Vietnam, or one really farkin stupid wealthy nation like America in Iraq. The people who supported invading Iraq should have to wear a sign warning the rest of us not to trust their judgement and also pay for it with increased taxes.


I supported it when it started. I was frightened, angry, and foolish enough to believe that the administration wasn't psychotic enough to lie just to start a war. I regret that more every day.
 
2014-06-13 02:08:19 PM  

Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?


Gallipoli

It's what got Churchill fired in disgrace
 
2014-06-13 02:08:36 PM  
The US is better off just staying on the sidelines and watching.  The Iranians are going batshiat over the prospect of having a radical Sunni state on their southern border.  As soon as they get into the heavily Shi'ite areas, they'll intervene.  Which may have been the plan all along....
 
2014-06-13 02:08:52 PM  
Oh man, this is gonna be so fun. See, at first, the only way we could be conned into this bullsh*t was for a bunch of guys to be all "THEY'RE GONNA WMD YOUR CHILDREN! MUSHROOM CLOUD! MUSHROOM CLOUD!" but now, all they have to do is point out how since we've already sunk trillions into this sh*thole, we can't LEAVE, if we leave, it'll undo all our hard work just barely keeping that sh*thole from sinking into mass civil war. We have to stay there forever babysitting these f*cking assholes, or it will have ALL BEEN FOR NAUGHT. Can't have that. Can't have that bullsh*t war have been COMPLETELY pointless. Then those f*cking asshole liberals will have been right all along. And that, my friends, is the real tragedy here.
 
2014-06-13 02:10:45 PM  

neongoats: Hopefully Obama stops pandering to to the hurpublicans and says "fark you iraq, go eat a dick" and keeps the bombs at home.


So far, that's what's he's done.

The issue is that it would, um, be a Very Bad Thing in general if a group so extreme they got kicked out of Al Queda took over much of Iraq.  That being said, the ISIS seems to have no interest in terroristic attacks outside the Middle East, which makes their methods different from Al Queda and much less of a direct security problem for the United States.
 
2014-06-13 02:11:39 PM  

whidbey: We barely won WWII


Wat?
 
2014-06-13 02:12:36 PM  

whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.


You're going to have to clarify that.
 
2014-06-13 02:20:03 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Chris Ween: What did they compare military quagmires to before Vietnam?

Gallipoli

It's what got Churchill fired in disgrace


It got Churchill fired, and it did turn into a quagmire.  However, compared to what was going on in France, it was a much smaller-scale quagmire.  Plus, it damn near worked.  If just a few more things had gone right, they would have seized the peninsula, which almost certainly would have meant the fall of Istanbul, and therefore Turkey would have been knocked out of the war.

World history would have been far, far different if just a few more men had kept their wits on a few hilltops at a few critical moments.
 
2014-06-13 02:20:23 PM  
Yeah, "Vietnam 2.0" makes no sense here. We're at LEAST at Vietnam 4.0 or 4.5 by now.
 
2014-06-13 02:22:19 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Another Vietnam?


...does this mean music will get good again?


No, because now Fox News is around to shout down any musician who isn't wearing the required number of American Flair Pieces.
 
2014-06-13 02:23:25 PM  
And just like the first Vietnam War, George W. Bush managed to run away before having to do anything about it.
 
2014-06-13 02:24:31 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I notice that some of the GOP's bullshiatterati are now claiming "Well, WE won that war."


Yeah, and General Westmoreland personally renamed Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City.
 
2014-06-13 02:24:46 PM  

nekom: At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?


Not for the most part. Most of what I hear from the GOP echoes that Oklahoma idiot Jim Inhofe, who basically blames Obama for not having thoroughly mopped up the Bush administration's Iraq mess five years ago.
 
2014-06-13 02:24:50 PM  
Just let the idiots take over what they want to take over. Let Sunni and Shia slaughter each other; let Muslim, Jew, Christian and any other one true religions slaughter each other. When all the killing that can be done is done, then sign oil contracts and leave the region alone.

These people hate each other. They have since forever. The only people more violent than them were the Imperial Romans and the Monghols. We could spend hundreds of trillions more and thousands more in lives and as long as two of them were left alive, both of them would be waiting for the other to fall asleep so they could stick a shank in them.

I think the only hope for so much of the world is the rise and return to matriarchal societies. Where a penis is just a penis and a vajayjay is everything.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-13 02:25:18 PM  

Diogenes: When Colin Powell (originally) smartly warned us all "if you break it, you own it," he neglected to mention what a farking lemon the merchandise was.


I don't remember that.  He supposedly warned Bush of that, but then went on to try to sell the invasion at the UN using bogus evidence is what I remember.
 
2014-06-13 02:27:17 PM  

qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.


The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.
 
2014-06-13 02:31:41 PM  

vpb: Diogenes: When Colin Powell (originally) smartly warned us all "if you break it, you own it," he neglected to mention what a farking lemon the merchandise was.

I don't remember that.  He supposedly warned Bush of that, but then went on to try to sell the invasion at the UN using bogus evidence is what I remember.


He lied at the UN just as he lied about Mi Lai he has always carried water for the dogs of war.
 
2014-06-13 02:32:49 PM  

whidbey: qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.

The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.


Russia did do a lot of work. In fact, our initial offenses in WWII were very limited for a long time. The whole time we were messing around in Africa, and Italy, Russia was begging us to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING to help bring the fight to the Germans. 

Russia did a lot of work in WWII, albeit, with very little disregard to their own people. Still, two out of every three Germans killed in combat in WWII was done by the Russians.
 
2014-06-13 02:36:37 PM  

Kibbler: World history would have been far, far different if just a few more men had kept their wits on a few hilltops at a few critical moments.


If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, I'd have blown that motherfarker's head off of his shoulders.
 
2014-06-13 02:36:40 PM  
I CALLED IT THAT BACK IN 2003!

God damn it all ...
 
2014-06-13 02:37:38 PM  

whidbey: qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.

The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.


Disagree that the Russians "saved our asses"; if anything, it's the other way around. Yes, Europe would have been a far tougher fight without the Russians, but in no sense did the Russians "save" the US.

I imagine to most people, "barely won" means that you could have lost but managed to eke out a victory. The US was in zero danger of losing WWII at any point.
 
2014-06-13 02:38:06 PM  
This is worse than Vietnam, and was even before last week.  At least Vietnam had the pretext for a reason, in containing Communism.  Iraq was...  why did we invade Iraq again?

Losing in Vietnam didn't make the situation much worse than it would have otherwise been.  Our disastrous decision to preemptively invade Iraq with no follow-through plan may have delivered the whole region into fundamentalist extremism.

The crew of crazies currently threatening Baghdad was kicked out of Al Qaeda for being too violent.  Think about that for a second.  That's what we did.  We traded one mass murdering asshat for something arguably even worse.

And trying to say this is Obama's fault for not wanting to keep pouring endless America lives and trillions of dollars into this disaster is the most pathetic argument I've heard in years, which is really saying something.
 
2014-06-13 02:40:40 PM  

qorkfiend: Disagree that the Russians "saved our asses"; if anything, it's the other way around


No. You can "disagree" all you like. Look it up.

My point is that wars are ultimately unwinnable. Especially in the modern age.

We should not allow any more crap like Iraq. And Iran is next if we stupidly elect another Republican.

We've got to do something about the hardliners in our government.
 
2014-06-13 02:45:11 PM  
I would say ha ha if it weren't so tragic. Maybe Obama should appoint Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rummy as special ambassadors to the region. Since they obviously saw thismcoming they should be given a chance to meet with ISIS in person.
 
2014-06-13 02:46:19 PM  

Geotpf: neongoats: Hopefully Obama stops pandering to to the hurpublicans and says "fark you iraq, go eat a dick" and keeps the bombs at home.

So far, that's what's he's done.

The issue is that it would, um, be a Very Bad Thing in general if a group so extreme they got kicked out of Al Queda took over much of Iraq.   That being said, the ISIS seems to have no interest in terroristic attacks outside the Middle East, which makes their methods different from Al Queda and much less of a direct security problem for the United States.


I don't think that is the case. Al Baghdad was leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (before it became ISIS) and was frequently talking about attacking the US. If it was BS just to rile up his guys and become popular, I have no idea, but that may not be a good assumption. I would love to be wrong, though.
 
2014-06-13 02:47:12 PM  
Iraq wanted us out, we're out.  No reason at all to put our bodies or what little reputation we have in that part of the world between folks bent on killing each other.  We owe nothing - and Obama doesn't have to feel regret for the original sins commited by the Bush Administration.
 
2014-06-13 02:52:20 PM  

Girl Sailor: I would say ha ha if it weren't so tragic. Maybe Obama should appoint Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rummy as special ambassadors to the region. Since they obviously saw thismcoming they should be given a chance to meet with ISIS in person.


ISIS probably loves Bush, Cheney, etc... since they helped them in their goal to turn Iraq into a caliphate.
 
2014-06-13 02:54:34 PM  

Chris Ween: Can we ask the French to come in and clean it up like we tried to do for them in Vietnam?


Didn't we already withdraw, promise to support the locals, then stop supporting them, like we did in Vietnam?
 
2014-06-13 02:56:07 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: whidbey: qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.

The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.

Russia did do a lot of work. In fact, our initial offenses in WWII were very limited for a long time. The whole time we were messing around in Africa, and Italy, Russia was begging us to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING to help bring the fight to the Germans. 

Russia did a lot of work in WWII, albeit, with very little disregard to their own people. Still, two out of every three Germans killed in combat in WWII was done by the Russians.


How many Japanese were killed by Russians? The US had a few things on their plate at the time.
 
2014-06-13 02:57:45 PM  
EyeballKid: And just like the first Vietnam War, George W. Bush managed to run away before having to do anything about it.

lulz.   that's good shiat there,.
 
2014-06-13 02:58:30 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: whidbey: qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.

The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.

Russia did do a lot of work. In fact, our initial offenses in WWII were very limited for a long time. The whole time we were messing around in Africa, and Italy, Russia was begging us to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING to help bring the fight to the Germans. 

Russia did a lot of work in WWII, albeit, with very little disregard to their own people. Still, two out of every three Germans killed in combat in WWII was done by the Russians.


There was also this country named Japan involved in WW II on the axis.
 
2014-06-13 02:58:49 PM  

whidbey: No. You can "disagree" all you like. Look it up.


I am well aware of the Russian contributions; I'm not sure where you got the idea that I gave them no credit. I am also aware of the role the US played in supplying Russia with arms and other raw materials which were instrumental to their war effort.

What I dispute is your apparent belief that the US was in danger of "losing" and thus required "saving" in order to "barely win". You might be able to apply that to the British, but definitely not the US.

As for "unwinnable", I think the problem is that today's "wars" don't have clearly defined objectives and "victory" conditions. In WWII, our objective was defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, which amounted to the surrender of those countries; when that happened, our victory condition was met. In something like Vietnam or Iraq, we didn't have any defined objectives other than "stop the other guy from winning", or the objectives kept shifting.
 
2014-06-13 02:59:03 PM  

nekom: At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?


At the time?

* Stop the guy who was busy funding the Palestinian "We pay lots of money to suicide bombers's families" guarantee, thus freeing up Israel (and in 2003, oh hell yes, this was a consideration).
* Create a honeypot in the Middle East to draw in terrorists that wasn't the mountains of Afghanistan.
* Maybe, maybe, maybe create a democratic-ish open-ish regime that could serve as an example of "Hey, Islam gets you poverty, democracy gets you rich and it's pretty cool" so that we weren't busy fighting a culture war against crazy for the next century.  (And by the way, there IS precedent for this.  Japan after WW2.  They still got to be Japanese, they just weren't hugely militant or a major strategic threat anymore).
* Create a strategic bulwark in the Middle East that we couldn't be removed from by Saudi political unrest over "infidels in the Holy Land", which lets us stop ignoring some of the Saudi dickery.  (And uh, once again, using the German/Japanese post-WW2 model, we'd be there more or less indefinitely albeit with a declining commitment, which would put us one country over from pretty much EVERY Middle Eastern country.  And post-9/11, THAT was useful).
* And of course, finish the job from GW1, which while that isn't a argument that works on me, IS an argument that works well with large portions of the American political spectrum.  And after 9/11, they were running the place.

Eh, I buy it then.  There's at least arguments for it.  Especially if you're going to do that generational "We stick around more or less indefinitely" thing if it works out .

Now of course:

a) Sticking around forever brings to mind Vietnam, which is bad.  So we went in planning to run.
b) Germany and Japan were reasonably coherent countries to begin with, and the Soviet Union was an existential threat that meant that they had to work with us.  Churchill's little lines mean that EVERY Middle Eastern country is basically fake.  In the case of Iraq, there's more or less 3 separate countries in one.
c) Combine this with Iran's absolutely correct paranoia over American interference in the Middle East, their fondness for indirect means, and American-Middle Eastern military mindset mismatch, and Iran was going to be trying to screw us the entire damn time.
 
2014-06-13 03:01:37 PM  

whidbey: My point is that wars are ultimately unwinnable. Especially in the modern age.


I'm going to have Wat you again here. Did Germany and Japan surrender, or not? If they did, I'd say that the war was won by our side.
 
2014-06-13 03:04:07 PM  

qorkfiend: What I dispute is your apparent belief that the US was in danger of "losing" and thus required "saving" in order to "barely win". You might be able to apply that to the British, but definitely not the US.


You're revising history, then. We only won the war because we had a shiatload of help.

And frankly, it proves my point that even today Americans have a very misguided perception of this country's military abilities.
 
2014-06-13 03:04:16 PM  
 
2014-06-13 03:04:22 PM  

Evil High Priest: whidbey: My point is that wars are ultimately unwinnable. Especially in the modern age.

I'm going to have Wat you again here. Did Germany and Japan surrender, or not? If they did, I'd say that the war was won by our side.


Those were nation-states, not insurgents or revolutionaries.
 
2014-06-13 03:06:37 PM  

Evil High Priest: whidbey: My point is that wars are ultimately unwinnable. Especially in the modern age.

I'm going to have Wat you again here. Did Germany and Japan surrender, or not? If they did, I'd say that the war was won by our side.


Again, it was a defensive war where we threw everything we had into it, and we won because we had to. It was a real battle for world survival.

That sort of conflict is not what the US has been engaging in since then.
 
2014-06-13 03:09:33 PM  

vpb: Diogenes: When Colin Powell (originally) smartly warned us all "if you break it, you own it," he neglected to mention what a farking lemon the merchandise was.

I don't remember that.  He supposedly warned Bush of that, but then went on to try to sell the invasion at the UN using bogus evidence is what I remember.


IIRC he said that during Gulf War I when they were questioning whether we should have marched straight up to Baghdad instead of just stopping the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Which then makes it doubly sad since he went on to be on the cheerleading squad for Gulf War II.  He farking knew better.
 
2014-06-13 03:10:13 PM  

shanrick: If we don't act quickly, the dominoes could start falling and soon the entire middle east could turn communist. Then it's a matter of time until it's at our shores.


Are you serious?
 
2014-06-13 03:11:35 PM  

whidbey: You're revising history, then. We only won the war because we had a shiatload of help.

And frankly, it proves my point that even today Americans have a very misguided perception of this country's military abilities.


and without lend/lease the russians don't hold out past the first year. if anything, the US saved russia
 
2014-06-13 03:11:37 PM  

Diogenes: vpb: Diogenes: When Colin Powell (originally) smartly warned us all "if you break it, you own it," he neglected to mention what a farking lemon the merchandise was.

I don't remember that.  He supposedly warned Bush of that, but then went on to try to sell the invasion at the UN using bogus evidence is what I remember.

IIRC he said that during Gulf War I when they were questioning whether we should have marched straight up to Baghdad instead of just stopping the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Which then makes it doubly sad since he went on to be on the cheerleading squad for Gulf War II.  He farking knew better.


Maybe they upped his salary/stock options.
 
2014-06-13 03:11:57 PM  

doyner: Evil High Priest: whidbey: My point is that wars are ultimately unwinnable. Especially in the modern age.

I'm going to have Wat you again here. Did Germany and Japan surrender, or not? If they did, I'd say that the war was won by our side.

Those were nation-states, not insurgents or revolutionaries.


The assertion was that "wars are ultimately unwinnable." Which is nonsense. I agree that wars on abstract ideas (poverty, drugs, terrorism) are doomed to failure. But if we decided to go kick Ecuador's ass, we probably could do that.
 
2014-06-13 03:15:05 PM  

MugzyBrown: Really cool, we get to bomb the people we armed in Syria:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receivin g -most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

Shovel ready jobs


We aren't bombing them, and I doubt we will. It would reduce their numbers too much to take out Assad. IRAN is providing more support than we are, because they know they are next. IMO.
 
2014-06-13 03:15:49 PM  
Yes good thing the Russians were there to save our asses after we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan.
 
2014-06-13 03:16:28 PM  

Evil High Priest: The assertion was that "wars are ultimately unwinnable." Which is nonsense. I agree that wars on abstract ideas (poverty, drugs, terrorism) are doomed to failure. But if we decided to go kick Ecuador's ass, we probably could do that.


"Kicking Ecuador's ass" would not be a "war." It would be a bully picking on someone in the schoolyard.

And how do you know that there wouldn't be an insurgency, either from within or from FARC or some other group?

See, you're exhibiting the same kind of arrogance that brought Rumsfeld down.
 
2014-06-13 03:17:13 PM  

Evil High Priest: doyner: Evil High Priest: whidbey: My point is that wars are ultimately unwinnable. Especially in the modern age.

I'm going to have Wat you again here. Did Germany and Japan surrender, or not? If they did, I'd say that the war was won by our side.

Those were nation-states, not insurgents or revolutionaries.

The assertion was that "wars are ultimately unwinnable." Which is nonsense. I agree that wars on abstract ideas (poverty, drugs, terrorism) are doomed to failure. But if we decided to go kick Ecuador's ass, we probably could do that.


Wars without clear and palatable end-states are unwinnable. Since we don't have the political will or stomach as a people to do what it would really take, then yes, these are "ultimately unwinnable."
 
2014-06-13 03:17:34 PM  
This is why we were in absolutely no danger of losing WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
 
2014-06-13 03:20:57 PM  

Evil High Priest: This is why we were in absolutely no danger of losing WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II


Somebody needs to Photoshop a "missed the point: Hitler Edition" for this one. I'm too lazy to do it.
 
2014-06-13 03:21:52 PM  

Evil High Priest: This is why we were in absolutely no danger of losing WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II


And unlike today, we actually went after war profiteers.
 
2014-06-13 03:23:25 PM  

whidbey: qorkfiend: What I dispute is your apparent belief that the US was in danger of "losing" and thus required "saving" in order to "barely win". You might be able to apply that to the British, but definitely not the US.

You're revising history, then. We only won the war because we had a shiatload of help.

And frankly, it proves my point that even today Americans have a very misguided perception of this country's military abilities.


For fark's sake. Where did I say we didn't have any help? Let me give you a hint: I didn't. What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing, because we weren't. The outside help certainly made it easier and faster. However, it did NOT change the ultimate outcome.

At what point during the war do you feel the US was in danger of "losing"?
 
2014-06-13 03:23:26 PM  

whidbey: The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea


Serious question:  Do the South Koreans believe that they are better off for the US intervention in the fifties?  I know that they are grateful that they are not North Koreans.
 
2014-06-13 03:26:28 PM  
It's only bad when Bush does it.
 
2014-06-13 03:26:33 PM  

qorkfiend: What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing [WWII], because we weren't.


Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.
 
2014-06-13 03:28:14 PM  

flondrix: whidbey: The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea

Serious question:  Do the South Koreans believe that they are better off for the US intervention in the fifties?  I know that they are grateful that they are not North Koreans.


It was still very much a political war, and could have been ultimately avoided.
 
2014-06-13 03:29:14 PM  

flondrix: Serious question: Do the South Koreans believe that they are better off for the US intervention in the fifties? I know that they are grateful that they are not North Koreans.


 http://askakorean.blogspot.com/search?q=korean+war
 
2014-06-13 03:34:17 PM  

www.tutsking.com

 
2014-06-13 03:39:14 PM  

whidbey: qorkfiend: What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing [WWII], because we weren't.

Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.


More than anything, what won the war (at least the Euro campaign) was continual missteps and outright horrible decision-making on the part of Hitler/German High Command... Opening up the Russian front before finishing off Britain being the worst, but a list of 100 bad decisions could easily be put together with little research time invested.
 
2014-06-13 03:39:41 PM  

whidbey: qorkfiend: What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing [WWII], because we weren't.

Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.


This thread has become silly.
 
2014-06-13 03:47:28 PM  

whidbey: qorkfiend: What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing [WWII], because we weren't.

Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.


Would losing at Midway have been a setback? Sure. Would the US have lost the war if the Japanese had won at Midway? Absolutely not.

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting your assertion. If the US was in danger of "losing", it would be easy to point to a specific situation where that was true. You haven't; one can only conclude that you, in fact, can't.

I can't say I'm surprised that someone who doesn't quite grasp the finer points of history has no interest in discussing it.
 
2014-06-13 03:54:55 PM  

qorkfiend: I can't say I'm surprised that someone who doesn't quite grasp the finer points of history has no interest in discussing it.


Dude you're the one still touting the Myth of American Exceptionalism here despite its many failings, so I wouldn't be talking.
 
2014-06-13 04:08:22 PM  

qorkfiend: whidbey: qorkfiend: What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing [WWII], because we weren't.

Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.

Would losing at Midway have been a setback? Sure. Would the US have lost the war if the Japanese had won at Midway? Absolutely not.

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting your assertion. If the US was in danger of "losing", it would be easy to point to a specific situation where that was true. You haven't; one can only conclude that you, in fact, can't.

I can't say I'm surprised that someone who doesn't quite grasp the finer points of history has no interest in discussing it.


It's no use "debating" him. He is special and lives in his own reality.
 
2014-06-13 04:18:29 PM  

machoprogrammer: qorkfiend: whidbey: qorkfiend: What I did say is that we weren't in danger of losing [WWII], because we weren't.

Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.

Would losing at Midway have been a setback? Sure. Would the US have lost the war if the Japanese had won at Midway? Absolutely not.

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting your assertion. If the US was in danger of "losing", it would be easy to point to a specific situation where that was true. You haven't; one can only conclude that you, in fact, can't.

I can't say I'm surprised that someone who doesn't quite grasp the finer points of history has no interest in discussing it.

It's no use "debating" him. He is special and lives in his own reality.


No kidding. I've increased his troll greyness accordingly.
 
2014-06-13 04:18:31 PM  

whidbey: Dude you're the one still touting the Myth of American Exceptionalism


Straw man much?  He hasn't even typed in that term much less suggested that.
 
2014-06-13 04:21:11 PM  

Evil High Priest: No kidding. I've increased his troll greyness accordingly.


Oh is that the way of it?  Then I guess discourse is pointless.  I will have to mark him appropriately.
 
2014-06-13 04:35:33 PM  

machoprogrammer: Geotpf: neongoats: Hopefully Obama stops pandering to to the hurpublicans and says "fark you iraq, go eat a dick" and keeps the bombs at home.

So far, that's what's he's done.

The issue is that it would, um, be a Very Bad Thing in general if a group so extreme they got kicked out of Al Queda took over much of Iraq.   That being said, the ISIS seems to have no interest in terroristic attacks outside the Middle East, which makes their methods different from Al Queda and much less of a direct security problem for the United States.

I don't think that is the case. Al Baghdad was leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (before it became ISIS) and was frequently talking about attacking the US. If it was BS just to rile up his guys and become popular, I have no idea, but that may not be a good assumption. I would love to be wrong, though.


Was he talking about attacking US troops when they were still in Iraq, or the United States itself?

You might be right, though.  However, since they have become the ISIS, their only activities so far seem to have been an attempt to make a caliphate out of Syria and Iraq.  Not a particularly good thing, but not a direct threat to the US either.
 
2014-06-13 04:50:39 PM  

shanrick: If we don't act quickly, the dominoes could start falling and soon the entire middle east could turn communist sharia. Then it's a matter of time until it's at our shores.


I wish it was a joke. But ISIS is purely for sharia, are for a caliphate, and are 2/3 taken over Iraq and 1/3 of Syria. They reject "voting" because you don't get to vote on sharia law. After Iraq and Syria, they have their sharia eyes on including Bahrain and Qatar in their caliphate.
 
2014-06-13 04:56:11 PM  
Actually, the russianswere in real danger of losing the war until WE saved their asses.
 
2014-06-13 05:20:52 PM  

whidbey: Well then you're welcome to keep believing that. History shows that we only won because we had nearly 100% of the country behind what we were doing. We got lucky with battles like Midway. I'm not going to discuss the finer points of history.

You are proving my point, and I am satisfied enough with that.


Midway may have shortened the war in the Pacific, but between 1939 and 1945, Japan put 1 new aircraft carrier out to sea while the US built 126 (!!!).   Additionally, the US built more combat airplanes in 1944 than the entire Axis built over the whole course of the war and would have built even more in 1945 if the USAAF didn't cancel their orders due to a lack of pilots and missions.

At no point was the US in any danger of losing - Japan and Germany would have eventually been crushed under a mountain of war material and atomic bombs regardless of the outcome of any battles.
 
2014-06-13 05:23:40 PM  

OptionC: Japan put 1 new aircraft carrier out to sea while the US built 126


The US built 126 aircraft carriers?  Are you sure about that number?
 
2014-06-13 05:36:54 PM  

Gergesa: OptionC: Japan put 1 new aircraft carrier out to sea while the US built 126

The US built 126 aircraft carriers?  Are you sure about that number?


Actually, it was 163

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

141 of them were merchant vessels converted into escort carriers, but 17 Essex class carriers were also completed during the war.

Anyways - yes, the US built absolute buttloads of aircraft carriers.
 
2014-06-13 05:38:44 PM  

Gergesa: OptionC: Japan put 1 new aircraft carrier out to sea while the US built 126

The US built 126 aircraft carriers?  Are you sure about that number?


Yeah, that's wonky. Possibly just warships?

Anyway, the point stands. We were out-producing all other players, had air supremacy, had nukes, and just for extra fun, had broken both the German and Japanese codes. So, yeah. Close call there.
 
2014-06-13 05:48:40 PM  

Evil High Priest: Gergesa: OptionC: Japan put 1 new aircraft carrier out to sea while the US built 126

The US built 126 aircraft carriers?  Are you sure about that number?

Yeah, that's wonky. Possibly just warships?

Anyway, the point stands. We were out-producing all other players, had air supremacy, had nukes, and just for extra fun, had broken both the German and Japanese codes. So, yeah. Close call there.


To say nothing of the fact that the US production effort was operating without any real threat of destruction whatsoever, whereas no one else involved had such a luxury.
 
2014-06-13 05:55:11 PM  

Evil High Priest: Yeah, that's wonky. Possibly just warships?


At the end of WWII, the US had nearly 7000 active warships.
 
2014-06-13 06:16:04 PM  

Geotpf: machoprogrammer: Geotpf: neongoats: Hopefully Obama stops pandering to to the hurpublicans and says "fark you iraq, go eat a dick" and keeps the bombs at home.

So far, that's what's he's done.

The issue is that it would, um, be a Very Bad Thing in general if a group so extreme they got kicked out of Al Queda took over much of Iraq.   That being said, the ISIS seems to have no interest in terroristic attacks outside the Middle East, which makes their methods different from Al Queda and much less of a direct security problem for the United States.

I don't think that is the case. Al Baghdad was leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (before it became ISIS) and was frequently talking about attacking the US. If it was BS just to rile up his guys and become popular, I have no idea, but that may not be a good assumption. I would love to be wrong, though.

Was he talking about attacking US troops when they were still in Iraq, or the United States itself?

You might be right, though.  However, since they have become the ISIS, their only activities so far seem to have been an attempt to make a caliphate out of Syria and Iraq.  Not a particularly good thing, but not a direct threat to the US either.


There was reports he was talking about the US, IIRC, but I could be remembering wrong or he might've just been making empty promises. I agree with you though, it sounds like ISIS attacking the US is unlikely. Hell, in some of their videos, there are women walking around outside without burkas or male escorts, so who knows.

The main part of the problem, and why they have support, is that the Shi'ites in power were arresting and being assholes to the Sunnis. Part of me hopes that Muqtada Al Sadr takes advantage and takes over; he is an asshole, but he would be one of the best options.
 
2014-06-13 06:21:16 PM  
People really listen when the Daily Beast speaks. It looks like we are hearing the warning, and doing nothing, 'till Monday or so, after golf in Palm Springs, whatever. And it would look a little odd if we were fighting alongside Syria/Russia/Iran.

Get to know the Levant, I expect it will be a new country soon. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/10/syria-opposition-isi s -border-emirate.html#
 
2014-06-13 06:27:00 PM  
So if ISIS takes over Iraq, does Syria declare war on them?
 
2014-06-13 06:29:09 PM  

Mentat: What do you mean "already"?


Exactly
Some of us were calling it that ten years ago
 
2014-06-13 06:35:27 PM  

machoprogrammer: So if ISIS takes over Iraq, does Syria declare war on them?


I'd bet. Already talk of Iran getting involved, and then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmkySNDX4dU
 
2014-06-13 07:19:30 PM  

meyerkev: Eh, I buy it then.  There's at least arguments for it.  Especially if you're going to do that generational "We stick around more or less indefinitely" thing if it works out .


Except "it made sense at the time" does not mean it worked out well.  The strategic bulwark and democratic regime sure as shiat didn't happen.
 
2014-06-13 08:28:58 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: [upload.wikimedia.org image 450x563]

I tried to tell you, but you bastards wouldn't listen...


Lawrence of Arabia. Who knew what he was talking about. If he'd been listened to at Versailles the middle east and the world would be an entirely different place. Wahhabist Islam would have been stamped out (probably) and the Muslim world might be something like the less rich nations in Europe.
 
2014-06-13 08:32:42 PM  

shastacola: We'd be out of Iraq by now if this war were exactly like Vietnam, as our campuses and streets would be burning by now.Parents would be dreading their sons coming of age only to be shipped off to a slaughter and powerful politicians would be scrambling to get their sons a gig with the national guard stateside.This country would benefit greatly by reestablishing the draft,as visions of 1968 scare the shiat out of politicians and make them much less likely to fark around where they don't belong.


The draft didn't 1) stop Vietnam from starting in 1965 and 2) didn't stop it from ending until 1973, which was a long time after 1968. It sounds reasonable that having a draft would stop America from pointless wars, but history proves otherwise.
 
2014-06-13 08:40:18 PM  

Evil High Priest: Gergesa: OptionC: Japan put 1 new aircraft carrier out to sea while the US built 126

The US built 126 aircraft carriers?  Are you sure about that number?

Yeah, that's wonky. Possibly just warships?

Anyway, the point stands. We were out-producing all other players, had air supremacy, had nukes, and just for extra fun, had broken both the German and Japanese codes. So, yeah. Close call there.


You left out the part where over 90% of enemy tonnage sunk in the pacific was courtesy of our submarine fleet.

/They didn't have a chance
 
2014-06-13 08:50:31 PM  

Geotpf: McCain is the one saying "I told you so", when the real person who should be saying such is Biden.  He predicted (and wanted to encourage) a Shia/Sunni/Kurd split with a loose federal government in Baghdad years ago.


I forgot about that.  Iraq was always an artificial construct anyway, designed by the Brits to keep the various groups at each others throats.  I see no way the Kurds ever go back and there may be too much blood between the Sunnis and Shia if this turns into a holy war.  It may be time to let the idea of modern Iraq go.
 
2014-06-13 09:09:32 PM  

nekom: At this point, is anyone other than Cheney still claiming the war was a good idea?

My mom does. She was convinced from day one, because of a 5 second clip of video that was shown on CNN exactly once showing a couple of trucks headed in the general direction of Syria or somewhere. She claims all of Saddam's WMD were on those trucks.

She also called me - twice - in 2009 to complain about Obama not wearing a coat in the oval office. She might just be a tad partisan.
 
2014-06-13 09:35:48 PM  

lifeboat: AnonAmbientLight: whidbey: qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.

The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.

Russia did do a lot of work. In fact, our initial offenses in WWII were very limited for a long time. The whole time we were messing around in Africa, and Italy, Russia was begging us to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING to help bring the fight to the Germans.

Russia did a lot of work in WWII, albeit, with very little disregard to their own people. Still, two out of every three Germans killed in combat in WWII was done by the Russians.

How many Japanese were killed by Russians? The US had a few things on their plate at the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Russia kicked Japan's ass way back in 1939.  It took a lot longer for us to do the same.
 
2014-06-13 09:40:45 PM  
A blind man could see that the US military was heading for another Vietnam before the invasion of Iraq. I did try to warn a US embassy, but the blood lust was already locked in. In fact, our brown nosing Prime Minister pleaded with Australians to stop harassing or writing letters of protest to the U S embassy.

Osama knew, as we all witnessed in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea, that there would be a massive overkill  by the US military in retaliation for 9 / 11.

Despite multi billion dollar budgets and the latest killer technology ( and slaughtering, torturing, maiming millions of innocent, mostly poor people ), the US military has failed to achieve any of it's goals overseas for more than 50 years.
 
2014-06-13 09:52:44 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: lifeboat: AnonAmbientLight: whidbey: qorkfiend: whidbey: It was already "Bush's Vietnam."

And two decades and 4 trillion dollars later, this is an excellent example why the US cannot engage in "nationbuilding."

We barely won WWII. The illusion that we can wage imperialistic police actions with "democracy" as a flimsy pretense should have been a lesson learned in 1953 with Korea, let alone 1973 with Vietnam and now this shiat.

You're going to have to clarify that.

The Russians saved our asses. And it took a lot of outside help to win a defensive war like WWII. We were arrogant to think we could be World Policeman after that.

Russia did do a lot of work. In fact, our initial offenses in WWII were very limited for a long time. The whole time we were messing around in Africa, and Italy, Russia was begging us to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING to help bring the fight to the Germans.

Russia did a lot of work in WWII, albeit, with very little disregard to their own people. Still, two out of every three Germans killed in combat in WWII was done by the Russians.

How many Japanese were killed by Russians? The US had a few things on their plate at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Russia kicked Japan's ass way back in 1939.  It took a lot longer for us to do the same.


Yes, I'm well aware of that engagement and it has nothing to do with my point -- the US wasn't just fighting a war in Europe, it was also fighting a war in the Pacific.  And had the Russians had to travel across the world's largest ocean to fight the Japanese, it may have taken them a bit of time as well.
 
2014-06-13 10:18:48 PM  

lifeboat: And had the Russians had to travel across the world's largest ocean to fight the Japanese, it may have taken them a bit of time as well.


Geographically, Japan and Russia are relatively close to each other.  About the same distance Europe is from England.
 
2014-06-13 11:44:02 PM  

Gergesa: Evil High Priest: No kidding. I've increased his troll greyness accordingly.

Oh is that the way of it?  Then I guess discourse is pointless.  I will have to mark him appropriately.


No it's not "the way of it." I made my points, and several posters ended up proving my point for me.

Part of the reason why we fail in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are because of the arrogant views about the US military I've made note of here.
 
2014-06-14 12:17:55 AM  

edmo: Why do we care? What objective is at risk now that we were willing to go to war over back when?


Do they still have oil in Iraq?  Do we still need cheap access to it?  That's about the only reason I can think of at the moemtn?
 
2014-06-14 11:44:54 AM  

vpb: Then all the horrible disasters that were going to happen if we didn't fight or lost the war didn't happen and we realized that it was all for nothing.


The only thing that really pisses me off is the talking heads saying we "let the territory fall back into the hands of Al Qaeda."

Last I checked, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we took out the dictator.

The only weapon Saddam had was oil and he was about to start controlling it again when the sanctions expired. That's the only reason we sent off so many people to fight and die and get maimed and wounded. That's it.

Sick of hearing the revisionist history bullshiat.

*sigh*

Hearing it from people with frequency now. "Well, I guess it was all for nothing."

Thanks assholes. Maybe you should have listened 10 f*cking years ago!

They just shrug their shoulders and slap another bumper sticker on the SUV.
 
2014-06-14 12:22:08 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just to be clear, Obama is Pol Pot in this scenario, right?

Yes....and Sarah Palin is President


I've seen that movie. It's fun.
 
Displayed 134 of 134 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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