Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 Guy)   Russ Feingold on fighting terrorism in Iraq: We need to leave so terrorist activity will stop. In Afghanistan: We need to stay and fight the terrorists until we defeat them   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line
164
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2006 at 8:27 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



164 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
tchamber
2006-06-26 5:23:06 PM  
Troll. Go away.
 
R.A.Danny
2006-06-26 5:26:58 PM  
Makes perfect sense to me.
 
kmmontandon
2006-06-26 5:27:26 PM  
These are not mutually exclusive for those of us who don't look at everything as a large-scale video game.
 
CougarJeff
2006-06-26 5:28:15 PM  
Yeah. And?
 
SilentStrider
2006-06-26 5:28:28 PM  
little logic here.

who attacked us on 9/11.

Thats right, Osama Bin Laden.
Where was he based?
That's right, Afghanistan.
Who had nothing to do with 9/11?
That's right, Saddam Hussein.
Where was he in charge of?
That's right, Iraq.

Seems to make some sense to me.
 
Doctor Hooey
2006-06-26 5:28:56 PM  
Yes, that's right. I'm not sure if the headline's funny but it's sound foreign policy. Good job, submitter!
 
Uncle Eazy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:29:30 PM  
Sounds reasonable.

Remember, there were terrorists in Afghanistan. They attacked us.

Now I know Saddam is reported to have given some dough to a couple Palestinian suicide bombers and some Al Qeuda guy got a boil lanced in Baghdad once, but Iraq did not attack the US and there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (9/11 Commission Report)
 
Fireproof [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:33:26 PM  
Uncle Eazy,, SilentStrider: Did either of you happen to notice this group called "Al Queda in Iraq?" yes, I know they weren't they're before we attacked, but they are today.
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:33:59 PM  
Different countries. Different circumstances. Different causes.

Therefore, different strategies.

It's about goddamned time someone spoke up and differentiated the two despite the administration's thinly-veiled (yet weirdly successful) attempts to make them synonymous.
 
UnFark
2006-06-26 5:36:45 PM  
And people say that Conservatives have no nuance.
 
Uncle Eazy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:36:52 PM  
Fireproof: "Al Queda in Iraq?"


Sure.

Foreign militants make up only a small percentage of the insurgents fighting in Iraq, as little as 10 percent, according to US military and intelligence officials. The top general in Iraq said late last month that about 600 foreign fighters have been captured or killed by coalition forces since the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. The wider insurgency, numbering in the tens of thousands, is believed to consist of former Iraqi soldiers, Saddam Hussein loyalists, and members of Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_se eds_of_terror_in_iraq?mode=PF
 
sarahthustra [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:40:27 PM  
so, here's my plan: we build a giant wall around iraq. inside of it we put terrorists, gays, the entire population of mexico, the 1972 dolphins, american flag burners, the backstreet boys, and john tesh.

surely this will solve all of our political ills.
 
xiaodown
2006-06-26 5:41:55 PM  
Congrats, troll smitty. Antonin Scalia appearantly moderates and greenlit your submission.
 
st_gulik
2006-06-26 5:46:55 PM  
sarahthustra: so, here's my plan: we build a giant wall around iraq. inside of it we put terrorists, gays, the entire population of mexico, the 1972 dolphins, american flag burners, the backstreet boys, and john tesh.

surely this will solve all of our political ills.


Thus spake.
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:47:08 PM  
Fireproof: That's a pretty weak defense of our presence in Iraq. It's almost an admission that it was wrong to go in there in the first place.
 
Turing_Machine [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 5:47:23 PM  
Wow. Whoever submitted this thread was either a briliant troll, or a Fox News viewer.
 
KaponoFor3
2006-06-26 5:48:25 PM  
This got greenlit? Good lord.
 
phenn
2006-06-26 5:48:33 PM  
Smitty, if you cannot see the difference between answering an attack and provoking one, perhaps you should leave the internet and return to your Lincoln Logs.
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2006-06-26 5:48:34 PM  
Pie?

Pie!
 
stevecody
2006-06-26 5:49:27 PM  
img.fark.netTerrorist were in Afgantistan before the US got there. Terrorists FOLLOWED US to Iraq and ar there because of US.

Got it?
 
SilentStrider
2006-06-26 5:58:16 PM  
Fireproof: Did either of you happen to notice this group called "Al Queda in Iraq?" yes, I know they weren't they're before we attacked, but they are today.

And?
Are you saying the Iraqi's can't deal with that themselves? If they can't, then there's really no point in saying we're EVER going to leave. At some point Iraq is going to have to sink or swim when it comes to dealing with the terror on its own turf. We can't keep holding their hands forever.
Last I checked, Osama was still out there, and since he was never in Iraq, and with a somewhat stable government in place, I see no reason we can't start bringing some of our brave soldiers home, or at least putting them on Bin Laden's trail. In Afghanistan, if he's still there, or if not, wherever he may be.
 
SilentStrider
2006-06-26 5:59:04 PM  
2wolves: Pie!

rhubarb mothafarka. Its the ONLY pie worth mentioning.
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-06-26 6:00:42 PM  
Same war, different battlefields.

Unless you believe Iraq had no ties to terrorism whatsoever. If this is the case, well, I'm sure they'll cover it as soon as school starts up again.
 
dameron
2006-06-26 6:01:18 PM  
But what about Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam? They were in Iraq before the invasion.

Saddam should have shown us he really wasn't in legue with the terrorists by killing Zarqawi when he had the chance, that, and 100% prove that he didn't have WMDs. Really, how hard could that be? Then maybe he wouldn't have gotten 2500 G.I.'s killed and upwards of half a trillion dollars worth of whoopass dropped on him.

Now people are expecting us to abandon our newfound Shi'a friends just because they're friendly with the Iranians? My enemy of my enemy is my friend, thus, since Iran hated Iraq and we hate Iraq then the Iraqis in Iraq that like Iran are actually our friends, and Saddam is still a bastard.
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-06-26 6:01:55 PM  
At some point Iraq is going to have to sink or swim when it comes to dealing with the terror on its own turf. We can't keep holding their hands forever.

We're still in Japan and Germany.
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-06-26 6:03:02 PM  
I see no reason we can't start bringing some of our brave soldiers home, or at least putting them on Bin Laden's trail.

We still have over 20000 troops in Afghanistan.
 
Uncle Eazy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 6:03:18 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: Unless you believe Iraq had no ties to terrorism whatsoever.

Show us. You can even use the examples from my post above, if you'd like.
 
Bill_Wick's_Friend
2006-06-26 6:07:13 PM  
Unless you believe Iraq had no ties to terrorism whatsoever.

Iraq had ties to terrorism.

Not to terrorism that was directed against American targets, though.

...and not as many ties to Al Qaeda and anti-American terorrists as the Saudis (allies), the Pakistanis (allies), the Egyptians (allies) and pretty much every other nation in the region except Israel.

...and not to the people who planned or executed Sept 11th.

We're still in Japan and Germany.

Fighting? Propping up government and security forces? No? Ensuring that their societies are running? Haven't been doing that since about 6 months after the war ended.

Keep comparing apples to dogshiat. Me? I'll be laughing while you eat a handful of dogshiat and insisting it tastes like a Granny Smith.
 
Marcus Aurelius [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-06-26 6:15:12 PM  
Anyone attacking Feingold is attacking the last shred of decency left in the entire Congress.

/except for maybe Jeffords
 
milk_plus
2006-06-26 6:16:42 PM  
Iraq has an insurgency that's trying to throw out foreign invaders. This has turned it into a terrorist breeding ground and that makes Iraqi peace harder to achieve. It's very hard anyway with all of those groups in Iraq that don't really care for one another or have any real sense of nationalism.

Afghanistan has a renewed Taliban insurgency that is trying to overthrow the new Afghani government. We overthrew the Taliban to access Al Qaeda leadership and halt their support of global terrorism. Then we pulled our troops out to fight in Iraq so Saddam couldn't attack us with WMDs within 45 minutes which was all BS.

Invading countries on both sides of Iran has helped them rediscover their old interest in nuclear weapons.

That's what this pseudo-cowboy foreign policy has earned us and getting it fixed is more complicated than waiting out Arabs and Persians. They can really hold a grudge so good luck with that.
 
Sunny Ray
2006-06-26 6:22:12 PM  
I just can't believe that the Iraqi people aren't embracing the Freedom and the Love and Support of the American people that President Bush has given to them. It has taken a lot of American Courage and Lives to kill the Iraqis so that they can have Freedom. The same goes for Afghanistan. Mr. Feingold can hate America all he wants, but real Americans have been praying and demanding Freedom for all muslims for decades. President Bush, through God, has finally answered those prayers and the Muslims better start appreciating it.
 
SilentStrider
2006-06-26 6:30:27 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: We still have over 20000 troops in Afghanistan.

and how many do we have in iraq?

And have we caught bin laden in Iraq?
Was he ever in Iraq?

The answer, btw, to the second and third questions is "no."

And last I checked, Bin Laden is still the one who attacked us.

We're still in Japan and Germany.

And that has what exactly do do with this situation?
Nice attempt at a strawman however.

Not really.
 
JB-NoHo
2006-06-26 6:31:47 PM  
Fireproof: Did either of you happen to notice this group called "Al Queda in Iraq?"

Um, stevecody already said it for me: Terrorists were in Afgantistan before the US got there. Terrorists FOLLOWED US to Iraq and are there because of US.

TheConvincingSavant: Same war, different battlefields.

Um, no. Two different wars, the one in Afghanistan justified, the one in Iraq completely not.

TheConvincingSavant: We're still in Japan and Germany.

Are you really that totally farking stupid, or do you just play stupid on Fark? Big difference between having military bases in an ally's country to protect your mutual interests and having a military presence in a foreign country you invaded.
 
POAC
2006-06-26 6:49:29 PM  
The definition of terrorism so braod that really almost every country could be "connected to terrorism". Especially the United States. We need to stop horsing around in Iraq and deal with those who supported and financed the attacks on us while our borders and ports lie mostly unprotected.

Of course, since we did what we did to Iraq, we've bred more terrorism against us there, but as long as the gov't doesn't sanction it, and makes a true hardline attempt to prevent/halt it, we needn't be occupying them. And we may want to undo some of the freedoms that we stole from them. Like criminalizing labor unions, forcing Iraqi farmers to buy their seeds from Monsanto, and allowing for 100% foreign ownership of certain key industries and allowing 100% expatriation of profits from said industries.
 
FriarTuck
2006-06-26 6:54:03 PM  
xiaodown: Antonin Scalia appearantly moderates and greenlit your submission.


How many of these type of comments until people catch on that they greenlight the most trollish and stupid stuff on the left AND right.

They do it to increase traffic on the main page. People like flamewars. Drew admitted as much in an interview about the site about a year ago.
 
KyngNothing
2006-06-26 6:54:18 PM  
dameron: But what about Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam? They were in Iraq before the invasion.
(In the northern, Kurdish areas, where we knew about them, but didn't take them out)

Saddam should have shown us he really wasn't in legue with the terrorists by killing Zarqawi when he had the chance, that, and 100% prove that he didn't have WMDs. Really, how hard could that be? Then maybe he wouldn't have gotten 2500 G.I.'s killed and upwards of half a trillion dollars worth of whoopass dropped on him.

Ummm, brilliant, positively brilliant...

Now people are expecting us to abandon our newfound Shi'a friends just because they're friendly with the Iranians? My enemy of my enemy is my friend, thus, since Iran hated Iraq and we hate Iraq then the Iraqis in Iraq that like Iran are actually our friends, and Saddam is still a bastard.

Iran's also our enemy (axis of evil, remember?)

// congrats if this was trolling, pretty good job
 
POAC
2006-06-26 6:56:34 PM  
FriarTuck: Drew admitted as much in an interview about the site about a year ago.

Not only does it drive traffic, but it creates a good catalyst for sharing information when people disprove the B.S. I can say I've learned a lot from flame wars. It also helps keep me up on the talking points when folks like our pal TGOT posts.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-06-26 7:03:41 PM  
FriarTuck: How many of these type of comments until people catch on that they greenlight the most trollish and stupid stuff on the left AND right.

Yeah. Forget about people with diverse viewpoints having adult conversations. Flame on!
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-06-26 7:13:23 PM  
POAC: it creates a good catalyst for sharing information when people disprove the B.S.

Well, if no one else is enough of a grownup to say it, I will:

I tilt hard right politically. I enjoy participating in, or at least reading, threads like this. Not to argue or flame liberals, but for several other reasons:

1. I live in an extremely conservative city in a very conservative state. I don't want it to become an echo chamber; it's too easy to get nothing but feedback from people who agree with me. Most liberals here are shrill caricatures of themselves for some reason, so without ever interfacing with intelligent people I respect--but happen to disagree with--it's easy to demonize and dismiss them all.

2. When I interface with real people who happen to disagree with me or my viewpoints, I usually see far deeper than the talking points and discover what the reality is in other folks' day to day lives.

3. Since conservatives are a small minority here, they tend to be the shrill caricatures of themselves I just mentioned when they participate in LEFT-leaning political threads. So I'm glad to see more right-tilting threads. Otherwise it's too easy to just shrug at all the dumbass liberals in their nice, safe echo chamber.

I'm glad, in short, for the chance to humanize the politics. I note that some TFers on the opposite end of the political spectrum seem to feel the same way--or at least tend to deal with conservative-type threads on their own merits rather than joining the "cockpunch the dumbass" dogpile.

Others, not so much. C'est la vie.
 
SilentStrider
2006-06-26 7:18:18 PM  
POAC: It also helps keep me up on the talking points when folks like our pal TGOT posts.

meh, i put him on ignore MONTHS ago. Keeps my sanity in check.
 
Bill_Wick's_Friend
2006-06-26 7:31:13 PM  
TheCraneMeister

I think part of the "shrill" from the right wing of late is that they (particularly most "right" posters here) are not so much conservative/right wing/republicans as much as they are "defenders of the bush administration", whose positions aren't really conservative and aren't true to traditional republicanism.

While traditional conservative and GOP mores are easy to defend, it's getting harder and harder to defend the actions of the Bush administration on many fronts and so the only ones willing to play that "defence" position are the shrill and the uninformed and the "go team go" supporters, none of which ratchets the conversation tone upward.
 
Tabatha Static
2006-06-26 8:01:14 PM  
Different countries. Different circumstances. Different causes.
Therefore, different strategies.
It's about goddamned time someone spoke up and differentiated the two despite the administration's thinly-veiled (yet weirdly successful) attempts to make them synonymous.

Succinctly put and completely accurate, Diogenes.

I would add only that, by failing to comprehend even this most basic of obvious truths, submitter's stoopid is showing.
 
rka
2006-06-26 8:11:29 PM  
Uncle Eazy: Remember, there were terrorists in Afghanistan. They attacked us.


So we (and the rest of our buddies..like Canada) get to trash an entire nation over what should have been a criminal matter? At least with Iraq, there were flimsy UN declarations the US/UK could spin and point to and the whole history of Gulf War I to justify going back in. Nothing of the sort with the Taliban.

It's always interesting to watch Iraq War opponents justify Afghanistan (or Kosovo).
 
Megain
2006-06-26 8:16:15 PM  
SilentStrider: meh, i put him on ignore MONTHS ago. Keeps my sanity in check.

my thoughts? ignore lists are typically for cowards. either you're afraid of seeing a dissenting opinion, or too weak in your own convictions to merely scroll past it while lending it no credence or personal relevance. besides, color-coding people (with farky) based on their idealogy makes the political threads much more patriotic looking when you don't have half of them on ignore
 
doctor wu
2006-06-26 8:39:40 PM  
Hehe, submitter thinks he's being sarcastic and funny.
 
Descartes
2006-06-26 8:40:12 PM  
Feingold...
Feingold...

Hey, that's the same genius who took away my First Amendment right of supporting the candidate of my choice. What an asshole!
 
GraphicAddiction
2006-06-26 8:45:55 PM  
That's funny.....Congress mentioned terrorists from other organizations that were known to be in Iraq in the Joint Resolution.

They must have lied.
 
Superjoe
2006-06-26 8:48:01 PM  
How much longer are the admins going to greenlight this crap?
 
GraphicAddiction
2006-06-26 8:49:20 PM  
They also mention being attacked thousands of times by Saddam's forces over the decade between the first and second gulf war.

Maybe you guys should read it again.
 
hophead929
2006-06-26 8:49:56 PM  
FriarTuck: How many of these type of comments until people catch on that they greenlight the most trollish and stupid stuff on the left AND right.


They also put alcohol in beer to keep people buying it :-)
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  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.