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.

(Some Veteran)   "Sure, let's go back to Iraq. Oh, yes. I'll dig out my uniform and strap on my pistol and ride into battle yet again. Just so long as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the rest are in the vanguard"   (stonekettle.com) divider line 158
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

5744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2014 at 7:07 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-15 02:21:11 AM  
img.fark.net

I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.
 
2014-06-15 02:50:53 AM  
This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.
 
2014-06-15 03:00:05 AM  
+1
 
2014-06-15 03:52:16 AM  
I appreciate an inspired rant, I really do, and the beauty of that one is I can't disagree with any of it.
 
2014-06-15 03:53:28 AM  
If you think that "we" would be greeted as liberators, then you should relish the idea of being at the front of the line.
 
2014-06-15 04:02:23 AM  
Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again. They just want to use it against Obama any way they can. If he doesn't send troops, they'll attack him for being weak and 'losing' the Iraq war. If he does send troops, they'll attack him for being a ruthless bloodthirsty warmongering dictator.
 
2014-06-15 04:17:38 AM  
Dear, rich old men and your whores.  We ain't buying the con anymore.  You need money from war?  Go earn it.  - America
 
2014-06-15 07:23:16 AM  
The problem is when you suggest the people beating the war drums be the first to deploy, they don't realize their hawkishness is wrong.  All they do is find some excuse that means they shouldn't go then continue to beat.

It's especially sad when it's a veteran who wasn't in any real danger when they deployed or worse didn't deploy at all.  They have no concept of the actual danger of war because their job was in abject safety.

/the war was fine, I spent most of the time doing college work!
//the war was fine, I got plenty of flight time at 30,000 feet!
///the war was fine, I was awarded the bronze star for helping people's finances!  They don't give those out to just anyone!
 
2014-06-15 07:32:00 AM  
This vet needs to learn some respect. If it's not worth it to launch a nation into a decade-long, trillion dollar conflict to help a dry drunk millionaire win the love of his daddy, then what the hell are we doing here?
 
2014-06-15 07:35:43 AM  
Good read is good.

I'd like to buy that hero an ale.

/Wait what?
//Appropriate use of the Fark Hero tag?
///Does this mean I can start clicking on those links that promise "hot" chicks pics again?
 
2014-06-15 07:39:29 AM  
Wow.  Reminds me of Iraq I and the guys coming into the shop saying, "HELL YES!  LET'S GET THOSE BASTARDS!"  I asked them do they really support that war?  When they answered yes, I told them that unless they had a son, a daughter, niece, nephew, cousin, brother, sister, uncle or aunt or any close friends that they would be willing to sacrifice for the freedom of the people over there who would slit our throats at the drop of the hat, then they did NOT support the war and needed to shut the hell up.  I also reminded them that it wasn't us 40 somethings they sent to the battle field, it was people like the young 20 something guys they had in the shop, who were men, but they were just kids.

Very nice article.
 
2014-06-15 07:42:27 AM  
In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.
 
2014-06-15 07:43:23 AM  
Your blog........does not suck

Impressive rant and one I agree with.
 
2014-06-15 07:59:05 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-15 07:59:50 AM  

Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.


Why don't we do that with everything?  I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.

/Also, good rant
 
2014-06-15 08:05:52 AM  

Summoner101: The problem is when you suggest the people beating the war drums be the first to deploy, they don't realize their hawkishness is wrong.  All they do is find some excuse that means they shouldn't go then continue to beat.

It's especially sad when it's a veteran who wasn't in any real danger when they deployed or worse didn't deploy at all.  They have no concept of the actual danger of war because their job was in abject safety.

/the war was fine, I spent most of the time doing college work!
//the war was fine, I got plenty of flight time at 30,000 feet!
///the war was fine, I was awarded the bronze star for helping people's finances!  They don't give those out to just anyone!


And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern. Hell, even George HW Bush knew he couldn't go but so far in the Gulf War. Which makes it even more disturbing how McCain is so willing to bang the drum.
 
2014-06-15 08:13:40 AM  
Pure democracy is an inherently bad system. Half of all people are, tautologically, below average. They shouldn't get a direct vote on all issues. That's why we have representatives.

However, by allowing people to campaign for for public office as a career, we wind up with representatives who are really only qualified to run for public office. They're less than useless at best.

The only system that is going to work is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, where people are forcibly elected to occupation specific offices by their peers and colleges by a series of mandatory elections that do not have ballots, but rather simply ask people for the best in their industry.
 
2014-06-15 08:28:04 AM  
Wonderful write-up.  Too bad those people in power will ignore it.

Any bets on which one of our usual suspects will pull the "your blog sucks" trigger?
 
2014-06-15 08:30:54 AM  

Cyclometh: [img.fark.net image 480x640]

I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.


An audio version done by Samuel Jackson would be great.
 
2014-06-15 08:30:59 AM  

doglover: Pure democracy is an inherently bad system. Half of all people are, tautologically, below average. They shouldn't get a direct vote on all issues. That's why we have representatives.

However, by allowing people to campaign for for public office as a career, we wind up with representatives who are really only qualified to run for public office. They're less than useless at best.

The only system that is going to work is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, where people are forcibly elected to occupation specific offices by their peers and colleges by a series of mandatory elections that do not have ballots, but rather simply ask people for the best in their industry.


That's not true. Half the people don't necessarily have to be below average. If you have three people with a 100IQ, and one with a 20, average is 80. Most are above average.
 
2014-06-15 08:31:59 AM  

Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.


Actually, it was proposed as a Constitutional amendment in 1916.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/constitution/files/constitu ti on_proposedamendments.pdf
 
2014-06-15 08:40:15 AM  
Fantastic blog.  Thank you, submitter.
 
2014-06-15 08:49:44 AM  
Your blog succeeds.
 
2014-06-15 08:52:03 AM  
Wow. It's super-effective!
 
2014-06-15 08:57:03 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.

Why don't we do that with everything?  I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.


That's why the first democracy was so radical. When the citizens of Athens would vote to go to war, it meant they themselves had to gather their shields and march off.

/of course, a direct democracy only works in a small enough community
 
2014-06-15 09:02:14 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.

Why don't we do that with everything?  I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.

/Also, good rant


California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.
 
2014-06-15 09:04:57 AM  
Naomi Rivkis (for you to ctrl-f) has an interesting comment on the dude's site.
 
2014-06-15 09:05:10 AM  

propasaurus: Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again. They just want to use it against Obama any way they can. If he doesn't send troops, they'll attack him for being weak and 'losing' the Iraq war. If he does send troops, they'll attack him for being a ruthless bloodthirsty warmongering dictator.


Sending troops would be a distraction from the real controversy.   Real, of course, means which ever controversy we're talking about at the moment.  Eventually, his sending troops to Iraq will be a distraction from his decision to send troops to Iraq.
 
2014-06-15 09:05:40 AM  
Great piece. Of course, the warhawk/chickenhawk will claim that we gave the iraqis freedom and they squandered it. All we did was guarantee the Iraqis another 10-20 or more years of civil war. History will look back at our invasion as the stupidest mistake ever.
 
2014-06-15 09:05:53 AM  
Count me in at 100% in agreement.

And I'd just like to point out for the record that this mess is exactly what the anti-war commie liberal "against us" crowd said was the problem before it even kicked off. Would it hurt conservatives to listen once in a while?
 
2014-06-15 09:06:14 AM  
Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,
 
2014-06-15 09:08:49 AM  

propasaurus: Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again.


I think you underestimate the bloodlust, the callousness, and the hubris of many of your countrymen. I'm sure there are many that think if we go back in with enough troops we can kill the Iraqis into living in peace with each other. After all, we know better than they whats best for them.
 
2014-06-15 09:09:45 AM  
"This time you farkers goddamned well tell me why."

Baller.

"Back then, as an officer, mine was not to reason why. But this time, well, this time I'm a civilian. And as a citizen of the United States, this time I demand to know why."

Also baller.
 
2014-06-15 09:10:53 AM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


So (assuming you want to be honest), you don't use a single word.

You say "our armed forces" or "the United States military", or something like that.

If you want to be honest.
 
2014-06-15 09:16:00 AM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


That comes up in the sports tab a lot.

"The team didn't do well today.  We'll do better next week."
"We?  What position do you play, farkwad?
"..."
 
2014-06-15 09:18:58 AM  

UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.


I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.
 
2014-06-15 09:24:25 AM  

ongbok: Cyclometh: [img.fark.net image 480x640]

I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.

An audio version done by Samuel Jackson would be great.


Holy crap, that would be awesome.

/Great find, subs. Thanks.
 
2014-06-15 09:28:02 AM  

Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.


You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.
 
2014-06-15 09:29:39 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.

You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.


Butler was an eminently smarter man than that MacArthur douche who was ordered to disperse the veterans listening to Butler.
 
2014-06-15 09:33:28 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Why don't we do that with everything? I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.


You do realize that we're not a democracy, we're a Democratic Republic, right? That is, our system is designed specifically NOT to be a majority-rules system, but to ensure that the tyranny of the majority is specifically curtailed?
 
2014-06-15 09:38:48 AM  
"Why?
Why, John McCain?
Why, Mitt Romney?
Why, conservatives?
This time you farkers goddamned well tell me why.
What's the goal? What's the objective? Is it to end terrorism? Is it to enforce peace at the muzzle of a gun? Is it it to make defense contractors rich? Is it for jobs? Or is it for magic flying bunnies who shoot rainbows and cheap gasoline out of their little assholes to the sound of Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Or, or, is it just because you hate Barack Obama?
That's it, isn't it?
It is."

I love this section of his oh so awesome rant. Yeah for gasoline shiating bunnies.
 
2014-06-15 09:43:27 AM  
Your blog...does not suck.
 
2014-06-15 09:49:17 AM  

Great_Milenko: Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,


He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.
 
2014-06-15 09:51:33 AM  

EvilEgg: Most are above average.


Go back to Lake Woebegone.
 
2014-06-15 09:54:31 AM  
I skipped this one at first, having a really, really busy night at work. But that's farking beautiful.
 
2014-06-15 10:03:07 AM  

starsrift: Naomi Rivkis (for you to ctrl-f) has an interesting comment on the dude's site.


Holy crap wow. Yeah she made a great point.

Thanks for that. I usually skip the comments.
 
2014-06-15 10:04:18 AM  
The Soviet Empire fell. All the glue holding historical gruges failed. Then Yugoslavia, a fictional country invented by the Hapsburgs, violently split apart, with the Russian-backed Serbs claiming they wanted the separate ethnic and language groups back in the band -- terrorizing every one in sight.

The various Northern Mexico cartels lost their leaders, due to heavy US efforts. They terrorized the area as rivals fought to take control in the vacuum.

We go to Iraq, a second time. We destroy the middle class, destroy the infrastructure and not expect that Kurds, Sunnis and Shias just each want their own geography recognized, and that any violence created vacuum is going to want more. And we want it to be the same fictional three-way we believed it to be. That little movie cost trillions in dollars and lots in humanity.

At least we learned how to destroy the middle class. That's working now in the US.
Maybe Iraq will disappear from the map.
 
2014-06-15 10:08:36 AM  

Kit Fister: Snatch Bandergrip: Why don't we do that with everything? I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.

You do realize that we're not a democracy, we're a Democratic Republic, right? That is, our system is designed specifically NOT to be a majority-rules system, but to ensure that the tyranny of the majority is specifically curtailed?


All hail the oligarchy... long may it reign.
 
2014-06-15 10:09:00 AM  

HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.


Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes.  Is California some sort of failed state?  Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.
 
2014-06-15 10:24:51 AM  
Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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