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.

(Newsweek)   Eleven years, over one hundred thousand lives, and $1.7 trillion later, the Iraq War looks a lot more like Vietnam than most of us are willing to admit   (newsweek.com) divider line 265
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

4092 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2014 at 6:52 PM (4 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-26 04:53:06 PM
Before the war I remember saying "Even George Bush isn't stupid enough to invade Iraq."  Boy, did he prove me wrong.
 
2014-06-26 05:20:57 PM
remember: bush "won" the war and obama "lost" it.

that will be the talking point. i guarantee it.
 
2014-06-26 05:24:48 PM
I said this would be a fiasco when I was 5 miles off the Iraq border on 9/11. Nearly 13 years later I'm still right.

/No one was there when I came home.
//I got in a HMMWV and hitched a ride back to the barracks.
 
2014-06-26 05:46:15 PM
Having lived through them both, I'd have to concur.
 
2014-06-26 06:00:59 PM
Yeah but it's 17 trillion to mostly Bush/Cheney insiders. Checkmate libs.
 
2014-06-26 06:04:11 PM
It looked like Vietnam right from the farking start.

Islam is the new Communism.
 
2014-06-26 06:09:19 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It looked like Vietnam right from the farking start.

Islam is the new Communism.


Yeah, this.  I thought so back in '91 when they were rattling sabres over the First Gulf War.
 
2014-06-26 06:17:07 PM
At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.
 
2014-06-26 06:41:20 PM
Kim Jung Hussein of North Iraq?
 
2014-06-26 06:44:05 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


I disagree. I don't think the appropriate yardstick for determining similarity is the amount of casualties.

There's better arguments to be made for the two being dissimilar; the big one being that Iraq wasn't a proxy war against another superpower. But there's good arguments to be made for similarities too- mostly that it was a complete debacle with massive amounts of blood and treasure spent to ends that were dubious- at best.
 
2014-06-26 06:51:24 PM

Cyclometh: Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.

I disagree. I don't think the appropriate yardstick for determining similarity is the amount of casualties.

There's better arguments to be made for the two being dissimilar; the big one being that Iraq wasn't a proxy war against another superpower. But there's good arguments to be made for similarities too- mostly that it was a complete debacle with massive amounts of blood and treasure spent to ends that were dubious- at best.


A "complete debacle" would've been Saddam and the Iraqi army lasting ten years against US forces, which didn't happen. Yes, the ends were dubious, I'll agree to that.
 
2014-06-26 06:55:07 PM

FlashHarry: remember: bush "won" the war and obama "lost" it.

that will be the talking point. i guarantee it.


I've said it in more than one thread about the war in Iraq, and I'm standing by it: There was never a way to "win" the Iraq war. The victory conditions established at the outset were impossible to achieve.

The only way to be able to accomplish the goal of attacking another nation, defeating it and replacing its government with a totally new one is to utterly destroy the nation being attacked. That means that if you really do want to get there, you must destroy their culture and defeat any sense of continuity they have. You can't replace a country's government and culture by simply defeating its military; you can only do that by defeating its people. That means killing a lot of them or occupying them for generations.

And history shows us that the only way to do that is to kill a whole bunch of them. You'd need to outright kill a whole lot more people than we did- probably ten to twenty percent of the Iraqi population, and at least ten percent of the current military-age male generation. You don't do it with surgical strikes or precision weapons. You do it by destroying cities. You do it by killing millions. This is something that few will admit, but the pattern repeats itself because we  simply refuse to acknowledge the true price of our desire.

The only times the US has accomplished the goal of "regime change" has been when the level of violence, the ferocity, was so high that the collateral damage was that entire cities were utterly laid waste and the remaining population was completely exhausted. And the only time in our history that we've had the stomach for that kind of bloodshed (rightly so) is when it was forced upon us. We've got no problem crushing you into blood when there's no other option.

There was never going to be a Marshall Plan writ Iraq. The very idea is incomprehensible because even the most hawkish of the warmongers would have blinked at what it would take.

Whether they realized it and simply didn't care because there was lots of money to be made, or didn't realize it and went ahead because they thought it was a viable plan is irrelevant. They were either liars or fools, but which one is immaterial now.

What I wonder is why we can look at the pattern for so long and not see what history tells us?
 
2014-06-26 06:55:12 PM
I wish we would have drafted a few rich white people for combat duty.
 
2014-06-26 06:56:45 PM

FlashHarry: remember: bush "won" the war and obama "lost" it.

that will be the talking point. i guarantee it.


A couple of weeks ago, was getting my car worked on and Fox News was on in the waiting area. This was right when the ISIS stuff started gaining traction. One of the talking heads actually said "and now, thanks to Obama, terrorism is running rampant in the Middle East."
 
2014-06-26 06:56:47 PM

Mark Ratner: A "complete debacle" would've been Saddam and the Iraqi army lasting ten years against US forces, which didn't happen. Yes, the ends were dubious, I'll agree to that.


I'm going to have to disagree with you on the definition of "debacle", or at least not define it so narrowly as you do.
 
2014-06-26 06:57:23 PM
The war profiteers got filthy rich from both wars, so mission accomplished.
 
2014-06-26 06:57:31 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


Given the advances in medical technology (plus the climate difference), a better measure would be total killed and wounded.
 
2014-06-26 06:58:05 PM

ajgeek: I said this would be a fiasco when I was 5 miles off the Iraq border on 9/11. Nearly 13 years later I'm still right.


My first thought on 9/11 was that this country was going to be farked up for a LONG time. Not that it would have taken a psychic to predict that.
 
2014-06-26 06:58:09 PM
And we even get our version of the hells of Cambodia and Laos to boot. And when Iran invades it'll be the Sino-Vietnamese war all over again. Thanks, assholes. Feith, Wolfie, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Bush Jr. All y'all
 
2014-06-26 06:58:30 PM
media.sdreader.com


Remember how much the rubes ate this up? In a sane world this would be parodying a president.
 
2014-06-26 06:58:41 PM
Add those costs to the total and it comes to almost $2.2 trillion, according to the study.

The GOP: party of fiscal responsibility.
 
2014-06-26 06:59:02 PM
We have relatively good relations with Vietnam now, don't we?

And things aren't that bad there, are they?

So now we just have to wait about 40 years and things will be just fine.
 
2014-06-26 07:00:39 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


No, we've gotten much better at keeping wounded soldiers from dying on the battlefield, which means that we can make statements like yours while ignoring the fact that there is a much higher proportion of permanently disabled and mentally f*cked up vets coming back who will give us another 50 years of the societal problems caused by Vietnam.  So yes, Iraq is absolutely this nation's next Vietnam, and the people that were saying that is exactly what it would become were called every disgusting name in the book for opposing it in the first place.
 
2014-06-26 07:01:52 PM
Never, ever forget that this guy

indianayr.com

took the volunteers--who just watched thousands of Americans slaughtered and volunteered to find their murderers--

consumersforpeace.org

and put those volunteer right here.

Never ever forget what this criminal and his associates did to our volunteers. Just one thing he and his did to our volunteer military? Multiple 15 month combat tours with little or no time off in-between.
 
2014-06-26 07:02:13 PM
Well, duh.
 
2014-06-26 07:02:15 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


Yet.
 
2014-06-26 07:02:27 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


Not yet anyway.  But since we're just getting warmed up...
 
2014-06-26 07:03:52 PM
World War 2
We stayed and occupied Germany and Japan
Gave both countries a chance to stabilize.

Korean War
We stayed and occupied South Korea
Gave them a chance to stabilize

Viet Nam
Bunch of pansy liberals didn't want to invade North Viet Nam and end the war.
We left and there was death and turmoil

Iraq War
We had the war won.
Bunch of pansy politicians pulled us out of Iraq
We left and there IS death and turmoil

DUH!!!!
 
2014-06-26 07:06:25 PM
Eleven years, over one hundred lives, and $1.7 trillion later, the Iraq War looks a lot more like Vietnam than most of us are willing to admit

scottberkun.com

No it doesn't

/someone had to
 
2014-06-26 07:06:32 PM
I know I've said this before here but I'm saying it again.This would have been a much shorter or even non existent war if it it was truly "like Vietnam".Once they start forcing young people to become cannon fodder  via the draft,it starts to look like everyone's problem and not just a small percentage of the country who actually sign up to fight these incredibly stupid wars. Bring back the draft and very few politicians will have the balls to send their voters and the children of those voters to war.
 
2014-06-26 07:06:42 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


Came for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2014-06-26 07:06:46 PM
Peace with honor, right?
 
2014-06-26 07:06:48 PM
Oh yes, blame the liberals again you shameless losers.
 
2014-06-26 07:07:48 PM

oldernell: Before the war I remember saying "Even George Bush isn't stupid enough to invade Iraq."  Boy, did he prove me wrong.


Hard to believe he overcame congress, the courts, and the American people all by himself to do it. Now that's power.
 
2014-06-26 07:08:11 PM
What do you mean "us"?

I've been saying this since 2003, from the moment they were predicting a six-month romp in the sand.
 
2014-06-26 07:08:28 PM

spamdog: Oh yes, blame the liberals again you shameless losers.


Wut?
 
2014-06-26 07:10:57 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: Hard to believe he overcame congress, the courts, and the American people all by himself to do it. Now that's power.


There was a real problem post 9/11 of people wanting to do  something, anything to avenge ourselves. Couple that with a major drive by the hawks on the right, helped in no small way by the media, to demonize anyone who dared to object to the drums of war as being treasonous and you've got a recipe for unilateral action with little restraint.

Which is precisely what happened.
 
2014-06-26 07:11:47 PM

gfid: We have relatively good relations with Vietnam now, don't we?

And things aren't that bad there, are they?

So now we just have to wait about 40 years and things will be just fine.


It was a shiat-hole when we got there, it was a shiat-hole when we left, and it's a shiat-hole now. So, yea, it's fine.
 
2014-06-26 07:11:49 PM

Gyrfalcon: What do you mean "us"?

I've been saying this since 2003, from the moment they were predicting a six-month romp in the sand.


Six months?  shiat, Dicky boy said it would be over in 6 WEEKS.  What a greasy liar.
 
2014-06-26 07:12:37 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: oldernell: Before the war I remember saying "Even George Bush isn't stupid enough to invade Iraq."  Boy, did he prove me wrong.

Hard to believe he overcame congress, the courts, and the American people all by himself to do it. Now that's power.


You really think the American people had a say in the matter?

Also, bear in mind that Obama voted against the war while he was in the Congress.  As for the courts, why the fark would they even get involved?

'Think' before you post.
 
2014-06-26 07:13:17 PM

gfid: We have relatively good relations with Vietnam now, don't we?

And things aren't that bad there, are they?

So now we just have to wait about 40 years and things will be just fine.


Vietnam is still on the map.  I'm not confident that the same will be the case of Iraq in 40 years.
 
2014-06-26 07:13:45 PM
vietnam was still vietnam after saigon got the ho chi minh city treatment

iraq is......greater assyria, western iran, and kurdistan.
 
2014-06-26 07:13:55 PM

Mark Ratner: At least 50,000 US soldiers didn't die in Iraq. The comparison is kinda bs.


How apropos. The logic of the Vietnam era used to measure our success. More of them are dying than us so we WIN.

/Like Subby said...
 
2014-06-26 07:14:22 PM
My shameful admission is that in the lead-up to the war and as it began, I actually supported it.  I thought there was every chance that Saddam really was building WMDs.  After all, I reasoned, surely both Bush and Blair wouldn't gamble their entire political careers on bullcrap, right?  If it comes out that they were wrong or lying, they're both out of office in about 5 minutes, I said to myself.  And anyway, I further continued telling myself, Saddam is an evil fark, so Iraq - and the world - will be better off without him, and perhaps Iraq can become a strategic partner in the Middle East.  I actually thought these things.

*sigh*  I'd like to chalk it up to being young, but I don't think 30 counts as being young enough to be that dumb and naive.  Saddam really *was* an evil fark, and yet somehow we contrived to be worse.  I'll still never understand how Bush got re-elected after it was made eminently clear that not only was the WMD intelligence wrong, it was fabricated.  And all I can do is say, well, at least I'm just Joe Schmo off the street, with no actual influence.  But I still feel stupid and duped and so very, very, very wrong.
 
2014-06-26 07:14:33 PM
Sometimes Fark sounds like a bar full of drunks arguing about something they know nothing about.
 
2014-06-26 07:14:42 PM
And a big fark you GOPer flag wave bush supporters for all of it.
 
2014-06-26 07:15:30 PM

gfid: We have relatively good relations with Vietnam now, don't we?

And things aren't that bad there, are they?

So now we just have to wait about 40 years and things will be just fine.


www.jamontoastproductions.com

Nope, try another 60 or so until the next crop of these guys die off.  Just replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq" or "Afghanistan."  And you know that's how this nation will handle the oncoming tide, just let them end up in prison or dead, at least if you think we've established a pattern of how we treat our disabled and mentally broken vets.

According to US Veterans Magazine:
www.usveteransmagazine.com
Thanks for your service.  Sorry, I don't have any spare change.  I spent it all on this bumper sticker ribbon and flag so I can show everyone what a patriot I am.
 
2014-06-26 07:16:50 PM

noneyourbase: gfid: We have relatively good relations with Vietnam now, don't we?

And things aren't that bad there, are they?

So now we just have to wait about 40 years and things will be just fine.

Vietnam is still on the map.  I'm not confident that the same will be the case of Iraq in 40 years.


Vietnam isn't an English-devised construction, unlike Iraq.
 
2014-06-26 07:17:29 PM
Remember when the biggest controversy surrounding our involvement in Iraq was how many Iraqi babies were dying due to sanctions? And the cost of maintaining the no-fly zones? I barely do, too
 
2014-06-26 07:17:50 PM
I love the excuse that we just weren't brutal enough.
Yes, a few more hundred thousand dead and the Iraqi national spirit would have been broken.
Oh wait, Islamists aren't nationalists and they will gladly cross borders to fight you. You're not breaking their spirit - you're galvanizing them.
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report