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)   Why the US can't just deploy special forces soldiers to Iraq to solve the country's problems on the cheap: "What are they going to do? Host a dinner party? It's 300 guys to stop ISIS from taking over Baghdad"   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 115
    More: Obvious, Iraq, U.S. military, White House announced, Joint Special Operations Command, special forces, Sending, Iraqi security forces, The Daily Beast  
•       •       •

931 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 3:15 PM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 03:55:51 PM
leave the masses with no education and no job and you end up with a clusterfark every time
 
2014-06-24 03:58:15 PM

Generation_D: Note to any Islamic apologist: The West used to have shooting wars just as violent or angry as the Islamic world does today. And we evolved out of it. The Reformation, The 100 Years' War and so forth, basically our entire history 1500 - 1800 was based around Catholics and Protestants trying to hurt one another over whose version of God was correct.

Someone better educated in Islamic culture could explain why with double the history the Islamic world is still basically fighting for which version of the bible is correct, and is willing to kill itself in order to settle it.


Short version: not "still."

Long version: You're talking recent history. You're ignoring that Baghdad was the center of world culture for 500 years, starting in the 8th century, and the Islamic empire was larger than anything Alexander the Great or the Romans ever put together. The world language of science and mathematics was Arabic (we still call them Arabic numerals), and Baghdad was by far the richest and most intellectually advanced city of the time. For twice as long as America has been a place.

So what happened? Genghis Khan, then the Christians, then the Europeans, and then the Americans.

Before you treat the current state of the Middle East as a problem inherent to Islam, consider -- they had civilization pretty well figured out over a millennium ago, at a time when the enlightened Christians you talk about were still dealing with Viking invaders, and neither Islam's fall from grace nor its inability to recover has been entirely the fault of Islamic people.

/And it's not like history is devoid of Christian-on-Christian violence, either.
 
2014-06-24 03:59:19 PM

Generation_D: Why do we care about Iraq again? A regional civil war is long overdue there, the tribal alliances that don't match those idiot boundaries the British gave them 100 years ago have been enforced for far too long.

Also, Kudos to the "Religion of Peace" for even having a shiite / Sunni split worthy of a shooting war again, just like every other Islamic holy conflict with itself in the past .. 1400 years now?

Note to any Islamic apologist: The West used to have shooting wars just as violent or angry as the Islamic world does today. And we evolved out of it. The Reformation, The 100 Years' War and so forth, basically our entire history 1500 - 1800 was based around Catholics and Protestants trying to hurt one another over whose version of God was correct.

In the end it served to help the West grow past religious theocracy as a form of government and led to the society we enjoy today.

Someone better educated in Islamic culture could explain why with double the history the Islamic world is still basically fighting for which version of the bible is correct, and is willing to kill itself in order to settle it.

Ridiculously immature and non-modern thing to be arguing over, Islamic World. If you didn't have oil wealth we'd just laugh at your tribal nonsense, but since you inherited some money along the way you actually have the ability to damage the civilized world with your antics.


I'm not particularly educated on Islamic culture ... but I do know that it doesn't have "double the history" of Christianity.
 
2014-06-24 04:01:26 PM

dittybopper: Well, you'd be surprised what 300 highly trained, highly motivated guys can do.

CSB:  The Army base where I learned Morse code was Fort Devens, which at the time was the home of the 10th SF Group.  So there were guys with green berets all over the place.  I remember one in particular.  Unlike most of the other SF guys, who to a man were really scrawny, this guy was just different.  You could tell he spent time lifting weights.  SF places a premium on endurance, not raw strength.  Marathon runners, not powerlifters, so he stood out.  That, and the fact that he was probably at that time pushing 40 years old.

One Saturday while I was at the post library, I happened to run across this guy in the stacks.  Being an impressionable young PV2, and generally not prone to being intimidated by rank, I walked up to him and said "Hey Master Sergeant, what's the hairiest situation you've been in?".

He then proceeded to tell me the story about how, after his second extended tour in Vietnam, he was looking up some of his old war buddies when he started getting hassled by a local cop in a podunk small town.  A deputy ended up dying in the ensuing row, which he insisted was an accident, but it took all of his skills to evade the ensuing manhunt.  Eventually, his commander showed up and they got everything straightened out.

I met him in the language section, btw.  He was getting some books on Pashto.  I assume he was heading at that point to Afghanistan to help out the Mujahideen, but I can't rightly say.


was his name john Rambo?
 
2014-06-24 04:02:39 PM

some_beer_drinker: was his name john Rambo Titor?

 
2014-06-24 04:05:22 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm sure 300 SFs could do some pretty amazing shiat.

It's still 300 more than we should send.


Remove all air support and give them access to the same weapons as the ISIS members.
Now that would be interesting.
 
2014-06-24 04:06:14 PM

dittybopper: BTW, that paragraph about SF guys being mostly skinny, to the point of looking scrawny?  Absolutely true.  And yes, I did spend 7 months at Fort Devens, and the 10th SF Group was based there at the time.


I used to live across the street from the 7th group at Ft Bragg. Mostly pretty ordinary looking guys, which is by design.
 
2014-06-24 04:06:29 PM

Scrotastic Method: Generation_D: Note to any Islamic apologist: The West used to have shooting wars just as violent or angry as the Islamic world does today. And we evolved out of it. The Reformation, The 100 Years' War and so forth, basically our entire history 1500 - 1800 was based around Catholics and Protestants trying to hurt one another over whose version of God was correct.

Someone better educated in Islamic culture could explain why with double the history the Islamic world is still basically fighting for which version of the bible is correct, and is willing to kill itself in order to settle it.

Short version: not "still."

Long version: You're talking recent history. You're ignoring that Baghdad was the center of world culture for 500 years, starting in the 8th century, and the Islamic empire was larger than anything Alexander the Great or the Romans ever put together. The world language of science and mathematics was Arabic (we still call them Arabic numerals), and Baghdad was by far the richest and most intellectually advanced city of the time. For twice as long as America has been a place.

So what happened? Genghis Khan, then the Christians, then the Europeans, and then the Americans.

Before you treat the current state of the Middle East as a problem inherent to Islam, consider -- they had civilization pretty well figured out over a millennium ago, at a time when the enlightened Christians you talk about were still dealing with Viking invaders, and neither Islam's fall from grace nor its inability to recover has been entirely the fault of Islamic people.

/And it's not like history is devoid of Christian-on-Christian violence, either.


you. i like you.
 
2014-06-24 04:11:16 PM
As far as I can tell, opposition to common core, to common educational standards across the country, basically boils down to "California can say that 2+2=4, but doesn't South Carolina have the state's right to say it equals potato?"

A kid can move from one state to another and not get dinged on his education because the new state doesn't expect him to know something the old one didn't teach.  Why is this bad again?
 
2014-06-24 04:12:40 PM
well sumofabiatch
 
2014-06-24 04:18:15 PM

Karac: well sumofabiatch


You have potato windows open huh?
 
2014-06-24 04:20:57 PM
Too bad we don't have a military presence there. Something like that would come in handy right about now.
 
2014-06-24 04:23:16 PM

Karac: well sumofabiatch


You had the "potato" part right. According to this thread Iraq is hot, dry and full of keyboard policy warriors.
 
2014-06-24 04:23:52 PM

Scrotastic Method: Long version: You're talking recent history. You're ignoring that Baghdad was the center of world culture for 500 years, starting in the 8th century, and the Islamic empire was larger than anything Alexander the Great or the Romans ever put together. The world language of science and mathematics was Arabic (we still call them Arabic numerals), and Baghdad was by far the richest and most intellectually advanced city of the time. For twice as long as America has been a place.

So what happened? Genghis Khan, then the Christians, then the Europeans, and then the Americans.


Cracked has a short write up on that, worth reading (Baghdad is no. 3):
http://www.cracked.com/article_18476_5-ancient-acts-war-that-changed -f ace-earth.html
 
2014-06-24 04:24:57 PM

SpectroBoy: dittybopper: Well, you'd be surprised what 300 highly trained, highly motivated guys can do.

Particularly when those highly trained individuals can call in air strikes, drones, and other equipment.


Iraq doesn't need bombs. It needs a non-sectarian goverement that doesn't treat the country like a cash machine to loot from and the army like a political machine to reward your friends and punish your enemies.

I don't care how many bombs, guns, bullets, drones, bribes, etc. can be delivered by special forces, blackwater mercenaries and CIA agents. The problem in Iraq isn't that there aren't enough payola and dead people, and the problem isn't going to be solved with more payola and dead people.
 
2014-06-24 04:28:51 PM

untaken_name: Too bad we don't have a military presence there. Something like that would come in handy right about now.


What for?
 
2014-06-24 04:31:12 PM
So, it's President Obama's fault when the Benghazi is overrun and 4 Americans are killed, but when he sends 300 Special Forces troops into Baghdad to implement the removal of 10,000 people from the embassy there, it's the worst tactical mistake since Waterloo?

Next you'll be telling me he should be impeached for getting a POW released at the end of a war!
 
2014-06-24 04:31:45 PM

MisterTweak: I'm not sure I understand why I'm even supposed to care about iraq.


Because you are supposed to care about Israel.  Or oil.  Or the fact that we made a mess and therefore are supposed to try to fix the mess even though it is completely impossible to do so.

/hint: I don't care about any of these things, personally
 
2014-06-24 04:32:55 PM

dittybopper: But as I've pointed out before, this is a Sunni movement taking over Sunni areas.  It'll stop, hard, once they run up against a majority Shia area.


Absolutely.  No chance they "take over" Baghdad.  They might set off a lot of IEDs, though, but so what else is new.
 
2014-06-24 04:35:34 PM
Last week they were 300 advisors, this week they are 300 troops. I was wondering what changed over the weekend. Then I recalled, oh yeah, now they are not under the rule of law, per se. US troops have some kind of inexplicable total legal immunity, or something.

300 soldiers without the rule of law can accomplish an unlimited amount of force or coercion, and practically any kind of control over, civilians (who are under the rule of law). Equipment, funding, mission objectives; none of those matter. Without the rule of law, 300 trained, experienced soldiers could rule a large city and be taking their orders from the Zombocom voice for all it matters. They can hold it. they can be "good guys" or "bad guys", but it is even harder than usual to distinguish which they are if they have legal immunities.

I know I am being cynical. The obvious counterargument is that ISIS control over the cities it has taken is clearly FUBAR in the most dangerous ways. And on top of that, the Iraqi government giving those legal immunities to US personnel is effectively abdicating governance to US troops, so the Iraqi government seems to have already capitulated and handed over the right to repel ISIS the the US. But doesn't anyone else think that the media narrative for these 300 soldiers is itself FUBAR? (Including this Daily Beast article)? The counterarguments against the 300 troops taking part are also clear, though. Legal immunity puts the Iraqi citizens in an adversarial position relative to the US troops because they cannot claim to have rights as civilians against the foreign force. Secondly, the US seems a little too eager to take control of the Iraqi civil war, or else it would not have demanded the legal immunity in the first place. Unless, I guess, Obama didn't want to get involved so made an offer Maliki had to refuse, and Maliki called his bluff...?
 
2014-06-24 04:37:28 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Scrotastic Method: Long version: You're talking recent history. You're ignoring that Baghdad was the center of world culture for 500 years, starting in the 8th century, and the Islamic empire was larger than anything Alexander the Great or the Romans ever put together. The world language of science and mathematics was Arabic (we still call them Arabic numerals), and Baghdad was by far the richest and most intellectually advanced city of the time. For twice as long as America has been a place.

So what happened? Genghis Khan, then the Christians, then the Europeans, and then the Americans.

Cracked has a short write up on that, worth reading (Baghdad is no. 3):
http://www.cracked.com/article_18476_5-ancient-acts-war-that-changed -f ace-earth.html


Yeah, I'd heard that line about the river running black with ink for days and days before, but didn't know how accurate that was (too bad nobody thought to shoot video of it with their phone), but even if false it does a good job of communicating just what Baghdad was: all the things we're supposed to want to be, I guess. Oh well.
 
2014-06-24 04:43:38 PM
Usefulness or not, if we're going to send troops back to Iraq, I'd say 300 is a good number.  Small enough that they don't need a lot of logistical support, and when things go completely to shiat again we can fly them all out in just one or two planes.
 
2014-06-24 04:47:01 PM
What should have been done the first time:
www.janmontyn.com
 
2014-06-24 04:47:21 PM

Karac: Usefulness or not, if we're going to send troops back to Iraq, I'd say 300 is a good number.  Small enough that they don't need a lot of logistical support, and when things go completely to shiat again we can fly them all out in just one or two planes.


Actually, seeing as how we are not content to admit we haven't won a war since 1945, this situation is going to continue to blow up in our face until we finally capitulate and work towards getting away from being this aggressive paranoid ultra-military state pretending to be a democracy.

Or "republic" for some of you pedantics out there. Annoying.
 
2014-06-24 05:01:29 PM
I vote for empting every prisoner in the US prison system, and air lift them to the offending area. Once the pedo/murdering/whackos get done  (more than 2 million by what I see online) , any who make it back to the US get a full pardon and a chance to go to our next little trouble spot. But I would be willing to bet most places would as my pappy used to say straighten up and fly right.
 
2014-06-24 05:02:07 PM

ferretman: What should have been done the first time:
[www.janmontyn.com image 482x200]


No, we should have done  nothing the first time.  (Talking about Iraq not Afghanistan here.)
 
2014-06-24 05:10:36 PM
RoE, that's the reason why....
 
2014-06-24 05:11:47 PM
The problem with the whole concept of invading countries, toppling their government, and replacing them with Democracy Seeds (tm) is this:

It. Does. Not. Work.

It never has. I said it in another thread about Iraq, and I stand by it- the only way we could achieve the victory conditions established at the outset of this debacle would be to have killed about ten to twenty percent of the Iraqi population- and at least ten percent of the current military-age generation. The only other method is to invade and occupy under threat of massive force for several generations- and historically that hasn't worked very well either.

You can't destroy a country and just replace it at the point of a gun. You can do it if you're willing to kill enough people to destroy their culture. We're not- except in those cases where it's pushed on us (see: WWII).

There was never any possibility of a "victory" in Iraq, because this country is unable to understand the cost, and even if it did understand it, would be (correctly) unwilling to pay it, because that cost is literally millions of lives. And not just the ones with guns. It means destroying  cities.
 
2014-06-24 05:21:02 PM
What the hell ever happened to only Congress could get us involved in wars? So what's with all this legal hooey now negating that point altogether? They passed a law saying that our guys are above the law so it okay for them to go to war? WTF? And it worked? What is this, farking Calvinball?

Do we really have an elected monarch now and not a republic with built in checks and balances to stop pointless crapola just like this----sending more America troops into a Muslim civil war?
/no more blood for oil.
 
2014-06-24 05:21:02 PM

Geotpf: ferretman: What should have been done the first time:
[www.janmontyn.com image 482x200]

No, we should have done  nothing the first time.  (Talking about Iraq not Afghanistan here.)


I guess I should find it amusing that people still find the need to make a distinction between two of the worst foreign policy farkups of modern times. Honestly, the only one I can find is that we used international sympathy after 911 to pull off Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much.

I would rather we had "done nothing the first time" regarding either. Bonus: less destruction, less lives taken or displaced and we would have caught OBL regardless nearly 15 years later.
 
2014-06-24 05:23:26 PM

Cyclometh: The problem with the whole concept of invading countries, toppling their government, and replacing them with Democracy Seeds (tm) is this:

It. Does. Not. Work.

It never has. 

You can't destroy a country and just replace it at the point of a gun.


Except that's how America was born, so, it's ingrained in our psyche that you can use guns to make a Bad Thing (subjective) into a Good Thing.
 
2014-06-24 05:24:02 PM

whidbey: Geotpf: ferretman: What should have been done the first time:
[www.janmontyn.com image 482x200]

No, we should have done  nothing the first time.  (Talking about Iraq not Afghanistan here.)

I guess I should find it amusing that people still find the need to make a distinction between two of the worst foreign policy farkups of modern times. Honestly, the only one I can find is that we used international sympathy after 911 to pull off Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much.

I would rather we had "done nothing the first time" regarding either. Bonus: less destruction, less lives taken or displaced and we would have caught OBL regardless nearly 15 years later.


Afghanistan attacked us.  Attacking back was the correct move.

Iraq did not attack us.  Not attacking them would have been the correct move.
 
2014-06-24 05:24:32 PM

ArgusRun: An elegant dinner party, maybe...

[images.tvfanatic.com image 575x292]


Do they even train the special forces how to use shrimp deveiners?  I think not.

/remember to tip your soup bowl away from you
 
2014-06-24 05:26:42 PM

Scrotastic Method: Cyclometh: The problem with the whole concept of invading countries, toppling their government, and replacing them with Democracy Seeds (tm) is this:

It. Does. Not. Work.

It never has. 

You can't destroy a country and just replace it at the point of a gun.

Except that's how America was born, so, it's ingrained in our psyche that you can use guns to make a Bad Thing (subjective) into a Good Thing.


America was not born by forcing the inhabitants of the land to adhere to a new form of government. They were massacred and settlers were shipped in.
 
2014-06-24 05:28:07 PM

Geotpf: whidbey: Geotpf: ferretman: What should have been done the first time:
[www.janmontyn.com image 482x200]

No, we should have done  nothing the first time.  (Talking about Iraq not Afghanistan here.)

I guess I should find it amusing that people still find the need to make a distinction between two of the worst foreign policy farkups of modern times. Honestly, the only one I can find is that we used international sympathy after 911 to pull off Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much.

I would rather we had "done nothing the first time" regarding either. Bonus: less destruction, less lives taken or displaced and we would have caught OBL regardless nearly 15 years later.

Afghanistan attacked us.  Attacking back was the correct move.

Iraq did not attack us.  Not attacking them would have been the correct move.


Actually, neither country attacked us. And even so, it should have been a carefully negotiated international operation.

These are not new points, they were made at the time. It's interesting that nearly a decade and a half later you would still cling to the original rhetoric, justifying the Bush era failure we're still caught up in.
 
2014-06-24 05:32:56 PM

Scrotastic Method: Cyclometh: The problem with the whole concept of invading countries, toppling their government, and replacing them with Democracy Seeds (tm) is this:

It. Does. Not. Work.

It never has. 

You can't destroy a country and just replace it at the point of a gun.

Except that's how America was born, so, it's ingrained in our psyche that you can use guns to make a Bad Thing (subjective) into a Good Thing.


But we did it all by ourselves.  Forcing it on others doesn't work.

Now, I am in favor of the giving arms, training, and maybe even air strikes (no true ground troops, but a couple dozen special ops guys is ok) to local opposition groups if all of the following apply:

A. The group involved existed prior to our involvement.
B. They ask for our help.
C. They are fighting against a tyrannical regime or an actual dictator.
D. They have a strong chance of winning if we help them.
E. They are certain to form a democratic government that respects the rights of all of it's citizens and will be friendly towards the United States.

This will never be a common circumstance, but in the rare chance it does, we should help.
 
2014-06-24 05:34:44 PM

whidbey: Karac: Usefulness or not, if we're going to send troops back to Iraq, I'd say 300 is a good number.  Small enough that they don't need a lot of logistical support, and when things go completely to shiat again we can fly them all out in just one or two planes.

Actually, seeing as how we are not content to admit we haven't won a war since 1945, this situation is going to continue to blow up in our face until we finally capitulate and work towards getting away from being this aggressive paranoid ultra-military state pretending to be a democracy.

Or "republic" for some of you pedantics out there. Annoying.


Yeah and I was thinking the other day if the US might have developed different if Ben Franklin's suggestion of the turkey was taken instead of the eagle like so many European militaristic nation state.
 
2014-06-24 05:38:24 PM

whidbey: Actually, neither country attacked us. And even so, it should have been a carefully negotiated international operation.


Bull.  The Taliban and Al Queda had more or less merged into one organization before 9/11.  And, they attacked us directly.  If a country A attacks country B, country A doesn't have to crawl to the UN to fight back, especially if it can do so all by itself.  Now, Bush failed in putting enough resources behind the attack on Afghanistan since he wanted to save stuff to invade Iraq; the 150,000 troops that went to Iraq should have gone to Afghanistan instead.
 
2014-06-24 05:44:17 PM

Geotpf: whidbey: Geotpf: ferretman: What should have been done the first time:
[www.janmontyn.com image 482x200]

No, we should have done  nothing the first time.  (Talking about Iraq not Afghanistan here.)

I guess I should find it amusing that people still find the need to make a distinction between two of the worst foreign policy farkups of modern times. Honestly, the only one I can find is that we used international sympathy after 911 to pull off Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much.

I would rather we had "done nothing the first time" regarding either. Bonus: less destruction, less lives taken or displaced and we would have caught OBL regardless nearly 15 years later.

Afghanistan attacked us.  Attacking back was the correct move.

Iraq did not attack us.  Not attacking them would have been the correct move.


Que? Afghanistan did not attack us Bin Laden was Saudi. After 9/11 the US demands the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden they say we don't have him and were sorta busy with a civel war against the Northern Alliance. So the US invades which the neo cons wanted all along and then the go for Iraq. PNAc had stated way earlier a plan to set up bases all over the world around the equator or close to it.
 
2014-06-24 05:44:57 PM

Geotpf: whidbey: Actually, neither country attacked us. And even so, it should have been a carefully negotiated international operation.

Bull.  The Taliban and Al Queda had more or less merged into one organization before 9/11.  And, they attacked us directly.  If a country A attacks country B, country A doesn't have to crawl to the UN to fight back, especially if it can do so all by itself.  Now, Bush failed in putting enough resources behind the attack on Afghanistan since he wanted to save stuff to invade Iraq; the 150,000 troops that went to Iraq should have gone to Afghanistan instead.


Um no.
 
2014-06-24 05:48:35 PM

Geotpf: whidbey: Actually, neither country attacked us. And even so, it should have been a carefully negotiated international operation.

Bull.  The Taliban and Al Queda had more or less merged into one organization before 9/11.  And, they attacked us directly.


Neither the Taliban or Al Queda are a country. See once again, there were extenuating circumstances that did not fit the definition. No matter how you spin it, Afghanistan did not attack us, and there is a perfectly good argument that we had no justification to put its people in harm's way for what a terrorist group did.

If a country A attacks country B, country A doesn't have to crawl to the UN to fight back, especially if it can do so all by itself.

See: extenuating circumstances. Again, amusing that this line of reasoning is still considered valid after nearly 15 years of failed policy.

 Now, Bush failed in putting enough resources behind the attack on Afghanistan since he wanted to save stuff to invade Iraq; the 150,000 troops that went to Iraq should have gone to Afghanistan instead.

Or it was an unwinnable quagmire no matter how many troops or bombs we employed, just like Iraq.

Again, I should find it amusing that someone is still touting the 2001 liberal hardline on this, that nearly 15 years hasn't offered you the opportunity to adopt another perspective.
Actually
 
2014-06-24 06:00:11 PM
300 people opposing? They're sending the GOP congressional delegation?
 
2014-06-24 06:02:39 PM
Why the US can't just deploy special forces soldiers to Iraq to solve the country's problems on the cheap: "What are they going to do? Host a dinner party? It's 300 guys to stop ISIS from taking over Baghdad"

Very nice, special operations guy. I see the 300 trope has been covered, as was to be expected. (There are, incidentally more "300" stories, of which the Spartans are only the most famous example. There's the Battle of the Champions, where 300 hoplites from Argos fought 300 Spartan ones, the Sacred Band of Thebes (300 men, or 150 gay couples as the story has it), the 300 Fabii who formed a special Roman force against the Etruscans, and others.)

As to the dinner party, never trust somebody who wants to set up a regime in Baghdad and invites you to a banquet:

An uncle of Abbas, Abdallah b. Ali, riding high on the success of the revolt, invited eighty princes from the Umayyad clan to a banquet. But this was not to be the gesture of respect and reconciliation that it appeared to be. During the banquet a signal brought executioners rushing into the room who clubbed to death the Umayyad princes. The victims were then covered with a leather carpet, those still dying groaning as the host and his Abbasid friends finished their meal.
 
2014-06-24 06:08:50 PM

Lando Lincoln: They don't give a shiat about Iraq. The oil refineries, on the other hand, are the property of the oil companies now, and we CANNOT have them be taken away.


Well, that and having a gazillion bucks worth of ordnance and equipment, plus an enormous revenue flow fall into the hands of guys who are too nuts for al Qaeda, who could destabilize the whole region, and whose long-term goal is to bring the fight to the West.
 
2014-06-24 06:32:44 PM

whidbey: Geotpf: whidbey: Actually, neither country attacked us. And even so, it should have been a carefully negotiated international operation.

Bull.  The Taliban and Al Queda had more or less merged into one organization before 9/11.  And, they attacked us directly.

Neither the Taliban or Al Queda are a country. See once again, there were extenuating circumstances that did not fit the definition. No matter how you spin it, Afghanistan did not attack us, and there is a perfectly good argument that we had no justification to put its people in harm's way for what a terrorist group did.

If a country A attacks country B, country A doesn't have to crawl to the UN to fight back, especially if it can do so all by itself.

See: extenuating circumstances. Again, amusing that this line of reasoning is still considered valid after nearly 15 years of failed policy.

 Now, Bush failed in putting enough resources behind the attack on Afghanistan since he wanted to save stuff to invade Iraq; the 150,000 troops that went to Iraq should have gone to Afghanistan instead.

Or it was an unwinnable quagmire no matter how many troops or bombs we employed, just like Iraq.

Again, I should find it amusing that someone is still touting the 2001 liberal hardline on this, that nearly 15 years hasn't offered you the opportunity to adopt another perspective.
Actually


Stop being stupidly pedantic.  The Taliban, although only recognized as the government of Afghanistan by a few Islamic states, functioned as such and were the de facto government of Afghanistan at the time of 9/11.
 
2014-06-24 06:33:35 PM

The Larch: untaken_name: Too bad we don't have a military presence there. Something like that would come in handy right about now.

What for?


Protecting the ginormous palace, er, embassy, we built over there. That thing cost a shiatload of cash.
 
2014-06-24 06:43:05 PM

Geotpf: whidbey: Geotpf: whidbey: Actually, neither country attacked us. And even so, it should have been a carefully negotiated international operation.

Bull.  The Taliban and Al Queda had more or less merged into one organization before 9/11.  And, they attacked us directly.

Neither the Taliban or Al Queda are a country. See once again, there were extenuating circumstances that did not fit the definition. No matter how you spin it, Afghanistan did not attack us, and there is a perfectly good argument that we had no justification to put its people in harm's way for what a terrorist group did.

If a country A attacks country B, country A doesn't have to crawl to the UN to fight back, especially if it can do so all by itself.

See: extenuating circumstances. Again, amusing that this line of reasoning is still considered valid after nearly 15 years of failed policy.

 Now, Bush failed in putting enough resources behind the attack on Afghanistan since he wanted to save stuff to invade Iraq; the 150,000 troops that went to Iraq should have gone to Afghanistan instead.

Or it was an unwinnable quagmire no matter how many troops or bombs we employed, just like Iraq.

Again, I should find it amusing that someone is still touting the 2001 liberal hardline on this, that nearly 15 years hasn't offered you the opportunity to adopt another perspective.
Actually

Stop being stupidly pedantic.  The Taliban, although only recognized as the government of Afghanistan by a few Islamic states, functioned as such and were the de facto government of Afghanistan at the time of 9/11.


It's hardly "pedantic." Your own admission states they weren't internationally recognized. And how convenient an excuse that was for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Again, this is not news. You've had a long time to come up with a better position than Bush's hardline.
 
2014-06-24 06:54:26 PM
Why not just send in the 2 dudes they all surrendered to last time?
 
2014-06-24 07:52:48 PM
Don't forget ISIS in Syria was armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the help of the US.  The ISIS invasion of Iraq is just a false flag operation orchestrated by Obama to get more weapons in the hands of ISIS and to get the US troops back into a permanent occupation of Iraq.
 
2014-06-24 09:18:25 PM

Scrotastic Method: Cyclometh: The problem with the whole concept of invading countries, toppling their government, and replacing them with Democracy Seeds (tm) is this:

It. Does. Not. Work.

It never has. 

You can't destroy a country and just replace it at the point of a gun.

Except that's how America was born, so, it's ingrained in our psyche that you can use guns to make a Bad Thing (subjective) into a Good Thing.


Not only that, we did it in Germany and Japan.

And yes, you can make a bad thing into a good thing with guns.  Not always, and not everywhere, but it can be done.

Trying it in the Middle East, however, is almost always a losing proposition.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 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 »






Report