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  
•       •       •

1143 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2014 at 1:44 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 34 of 134 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report