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  
•       •       •

932 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 3:15 PM (26 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 09:30:04 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: ot 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.


No excuse by the Taliban can be considered valid in the face of an attack that killed more people than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor*.  They could have cooperated.  They chose not to cooperate.  Hell, they didn't even stand aside.  They actively fought against us.  You cleave to the enemy that has attacked us, then you are also the enemy.

It's like my mother used to say:  Choose your friends wisely.


*Remember what we eventually did to Japan?  Afghanistan got off lightly.
 
2014-06-24 09:38:22 PM  

Geotpf: 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.


Not really.  We got a fair amount of aid from the French, who rightly assumed that supporting rebels in British colonies would be a cost-effective way to weaken the British Empire (although in the long run it didn't exactly turn out in France's favor).  I also seem to remember that a fair number of German mercenaries fought on our side in exchange for land.

Furthermore, the British didn't put up as much of a fight as they could have, because as far as they were concerned the North American colonies weren't nearly as valuable as India or the colonies in the Caribbean.
 
2014-06-24 09:42:20 PM  

dittybopper: tinfoil-hat maggie: ot 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.

No excuse by the Taliban can be considered valid in the face of an attack that killed more people than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor*.  They could have cooperated.  They chose not to cooperate.  Hell, they didn't even stand aside.  They actively fought against us.  You cleave to the enemy that has attacked us, then you are also the enemy.

It's like my mother used to say:  Choose your friends wisely.


*Remember what we eventually did to Japan?  Afghanistan got off lightly.


So an invasion of a sovereign state is warranted as long as your looking for a big bad terrorist who is later said not even to be important, please.
 
2014-06-24 10:30:01 PM  
Force multiplier.
 
2014-06-24 11:09:40 PM  

whidbey: 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.


Taiwan is not recognized as an actual country by most countries in the world.  However, if describing them as a country or a government is accurate.  The Taliban functioned as a government in Afghanistan pre-9/11.

In any case, what would have recommended?  Do nothing?  Asked the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan to arrest Bin Laden et al (which they couldn't, of course)?
 
2014-06-24 11:13:22 PM  
Just clone this guy:


www.517prct.orghotlinked lie a mofo
 
2014-06-24 11:58:55 PM  

Geotpf: In any case, what would have recommended?  Do nothing?  Asked the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan to arrest Bin Laden et al (which they couldn't, of course)?


Negotiations, if even over the same span of years as the conflict (2001-2014) would have been preferable to the lives, the resources, the shattered pride.

You really have to ask?

Afghanistan has proven to be a bunch of bullshiat we got sold the same as Iraq. The same disregard of protocol, the same calls for aggressive military operations. Again, the only difference is that Bush & Co managed to use the 911 tragedy to push it through with little or no opposition.
 
2014-06-25 02:13:30 AM  

Amish Tech Support: We spent eight years and billions of dollars training the Iraqi military. How long does Dick Cheney think they need?


Just long enough to get all of the oil out of the ground.
 
2014-06-25 10:12:35 AM  

whidbey: Negotiations, if even over the same span of years as the conflict (2001-2014) would have been preferable to the lives, the resources, the shattered pride


But it might have taken us 10 years or more to get Bin Laden that way.  Can you imagine what the American public would think if a President just let Bin Laden spend 10 years holed up in a house in Pakistan Afghanistan without facing justice for the attacks?  The American people would be livid!
 
2014-06-25 12:38:29 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


You're right, but not for the reasons you think. It's because the West has already ruined the Middle East far beyond what a gun can fix -- and they're still doing it. There is no bad guy in the Middle East, and as much as some people here might not like to hear it, there is no religious, cultural, or, I don't know, genetic reason there are wars there. The mess that is the Middle East is the mess the West has created.
 
2014-06-25 01:37:27 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: dittybopper: tinfoil-hat maggie: ot 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.

No excuse by the Taliban can be considered valid in the face of an attack that killed more people than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor*.  They could have cooperated.  They chose not to cooperate.  Hell, they didn't even stand aside.  They actively fought against us.  You cleave to the enemy that has attacked us, then you are also the enemy.

It's like my mother used to say:  Choose your friends wisely.


*Remember what we eventually did to Japan?  Afghanistan got off lightly.

So an invasion of a sovereign state is warranted as long as your looking for a big bad terrorist who is later said not even to be important, please.


For the deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say "Yes".
 
2014-06-25 01:50:47 PM  

whidbey: Negotiations, if even over the same span of years as the conflict (2001-2014) would have been preferable to the lives, the resources, the shattered pride.

You really have to ask?

Afghanistan has proven to be a bunch of bullshiat we got sold the same as Iraq. The same disregard of protocol, the same calls for aggressive military operations. Again, the only difference is that Bush & Co managed to use the 911 tragedy to push it through with little or no opposition.


www.scienceof911.com.au

Wrong.

There are some things that just can *NOT* be answered by negotiation.  The attack on 9/11 was an act of war by a non-state actor.  When the state that was sheltering that organization didn't immediately do what we requested, they become the enemy.

I suspect that you were raised with the platitude "Violence never solves anything".

That is wrong.

Violence, indeed, is rarely the answer.  But sometimes, it's the only appropriate answer.  You believe this also, unless you think we should abolish the police and the military.

If I've misrepresented how you feel or how you were raised, I apologize in advance.  It's just that I can't imagine how anyone could possibly feel that nearly 3,000 civilian dead isn't worthy of a prompt and overwhelming military response.  If that isn't a legitimate casus belli, what is?
 
2014-06-25 01:57:54 PM  

Scrotastic Method: dittybopper: 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.

You're right, but not for the reasons you think. It's because the West has already ruined the Middle East far beyond what a gun can fix -- and they're still doing it. There is no bad guy in the Middle East, and as much as some people here might not like to hear it, there is no religious, cultural, or, I don't know, genetic reason there are wars there. The mess that is the Middle East is the mess the West has created.


How do you know what I think?

Also, I'd disagree that there aren't religious and cultural reasons.  There are divisions within Islam similar to the divisions that caused the violence in Northern Ireland, or that caused the 100 Years War.

Then you have tribal divisions.

There are also economic reasons.   This is one that is often overlooked in all the talk about causes.

The fact is that the Middle East wasn't some paradise before the Crusades.
 
2014-06-25 02:57:31 PM  

dittybopper: whidbey: Negotiations, if even over the same span of years as the conflict (2001-2014) would have been preferable to the lives, the resources, the shattered pride.

You really have to ask?

Afghanistan has proven to be a bunch of bullshiat we got sold the same as Iraq. The same disregard of protocol, the same calls for aggressive military operations. Again, the only difference is that Bush & Co managed to use the 911 tragedy to push it through with little or no opposition.

[www.scienceof911.com.au image 493x591]

Wrong.

There are some things that just can *NOT* be answered by negotiation.  The attack on 9/11 was an act of war by a non-state actor.  When the state that was sheltering that organization didn't immediately do what we requested, they become the enemy.

I suspect that you were raised with the platitude "Violence never solves anything".


Hardly. I grew up in the same generation you did. And I came to realize that "violence never solves anything" later in life.

That is wrong.

Your opinion.

Violence, indeed, is rarely the answer.  But sometimes, it's the only appropriate answer.  You believe this also, unless you think we should abolish the police and the military.

Irrelevant. Also, as far as the US military goes, violence is ALWAYS the "answer." You seem to think that it's some kind of exception throughout our history.

If I've misrepresented how you feel or how you were raised, I apologize in advance.  It's just that I can't imagine how anyone could possibly feel that nearly 3,000 civilian dead isn't worthy of a prompt and overwhelming military response.  If that isn't a legitimate casus belli, what is?

Your patronizing attitude aside, it isn't.

I've already explained the extenuating circumstances, how that country did not attack us, and that the right thing to have done at the time would have kept a cool head. The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to a 3rd party, so don't give me that crap about "negotiation wouldn't work."

Again, I would have preferred 10 years of hemming and hawing, stalling and renewing talks over what we did.

This is common sense in an era where we are questioning military "solutions."

One on hand you complain about how powerful our government has gotten, and yet you turn around on a dime and support ill-advised actions like Afganistan. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you are US military like you claim, I suppose it's hard to shake the indoctrination.
 
2014-06-25 03:37:19 PM  

dittybopper: The fact is that the Middle East wasn't some paradise before the Crusades.


As I detailed earlier in the thread, it was. Or at least, it was the most civilized place on Earth for 5+ centuries. Then other people came and farked that up, and then more others came, and then oil.
 
Displayed 15 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 »
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