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  
•       •       •

1154 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

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

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