(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   The United States is preparing to send troops to a third-world nation in order to support the French army. Nothing like this has ever ended badly before in the history of ever

14 Jan 2013 08:51 PM   |   10511 clicks   |   Fox News
Showing 151-200 of 231 comments
Page 3 Refresh Page 5
View Comments:
spacelord321     

Great Janitor: So, we're going to take our exhausted military and send them to yet another place to fight.

Let the French fight their own war, we have our own to deal with.


Pssst. It's the same war.

15 Jan 2013 12:20 AM
g4lt     

Johnny_Canuck: America how is that debt ceiling going?

Please stop stirring up shiat and going broke sending armies into areas where your spy service should be.


How's that "keep peace with the natives" working for your northerners, or did you give up on caring now that Hockey's back on?

15 Jan 2013 12:22 AM
Maul555     
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

15 Jan 2013 12:28 AM
muck4doo     
I see the warmongers are out in full force

15 Jan 2013 12:29 AM
spacelord321     

Wayne 985: ShannonKW: GAT_00: I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda. Communists

That would make Vietnam cool retrospectively. After all, opposing the Commies in Vietnam was as vital to national security as opposing Al Qaida in Outer Absurdia is today. We all know what would have become of our freedoms had the Reds taken over in 'Nam. And, of course, we can be sure that our government today is being as honest with the nation every time they cry "Al Qaida!" in order to justify intervention as they were 50 years ago when the cry was "Communists!"

I think there's a difference between The Taliban: Redux and a bunch of commies trying to change the economic and political leadership of their country. That difference being that the former is an atrocity in itself and the latter is just unfortunate.


You would be wrong. Changing the ecenomic and political leadership of these countries is exactly what the Islamic extremists are attempting. Religion is just the mechanism.

15 Jan 2013 12:31 AM
Maul555     

Maul555: Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.


and Pick your battles...

15 Jan 2013 12:32 AM
olddeegee    [TotalFark]  
Well we can't have NO wars, now can we? What did you think this was, the 70s?

15 Jan 2013 12:45 AM
JungleBoogie     

Maul555: Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.


Well... sort of. People have a right to organize their societies how they see fit. Some of the stuff they do might seem grotesque or idiotic to us. However, we wouldn't appreciate it if they imposed their will and values on us. And they don't appreciate it when we do the same to them.

Some people insist that it's racist or bigoted to suggest that not every place in the world can be Vermont or Switzerland. On the other hand, if they don't want to be Vermont or Switzerland, and they're not f--king with us, we should let 'em be. F--king with them is very expensive in blood and treasure. Especially if there's no point to it.

We need to look at the lessons we have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

15 Jan 2013 12:51 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy     

iheartscotch: We do have a democrat in the White House.........

/ I keed, I keed


And most of our wars have been started with a Dem in the WH.

15 Jan 2013 12:56 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy     

ferretman: A very important thing everyone has to remember....it's okay when Obama does it.


USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! .......

15 Jan 2013 12:58 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy     

12349876: ferretman: A very important thing everyone has to remember....it's okay when Obama does it.

Because Obama does it right. Like HW Bush and Clinton did. Dubya was a massive farkup.


So..... you're OK with invading sovereign states and killing brown people if it's done right?

15 Jan 2013 01:00 AM
Mock26     

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: FlashHarry: well, to be fair, the french sent troops to help liberate what was a third world country from the british about 240 years ago....

The New World actually had a higher standard of living than the Old World @ that point in time.

//Also, at least it isn't Asia.  Getting involved in another land war there should be grounds for involuntary commitment.


img.photobucket.comView Full Size

15 Jan 2013 01:03 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy     

varmitydog: Hector Remarkable: Maybe that's what they're fighting about.

Oil in north Mali, gold and uranium in southwest Mali. And a backup plan for Halliburton, KBR and that crowd just in case Afghanistan peters out. Yeah, beware the military industrial complex.


Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

15 Jan 2013 01:05 AM
Seth'n'Spectrum     

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So..... you're OK with invading sovereign states and killing brown people if it's done right?


Everyone, including the recognized government of the country in question, agreed it was the right thing to do.
Collective legitimization isn't perfect, but it's a good medium between an interventionist free-for-all and totally giving up the offensive to the assholes of the world.

15 Jan 2013 01:07 AM
zzrhardy     

JungleBoogie: they're not f--king with us, we should let 'em be.


"they're not f--king with us, we should let 'em be."

I wouldn't really put Al Queda in the "not farking with us" camp. If you do, then why are we (and France) in Afghanistan getting killed along with you?

15 Jan 2013 01:10 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy     

WTF Indeed: jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.
You can all eat shiat and die now.

Awww, someone is upset that the black guy has killed more terrorists than W ever did.


errrr..... was his statement factual? or not?

and don't you have anything other than name calling (implying racism)?

15 Jan 2013 01:13 AM
rka     

Johnny_Canuck: America how is that debt ceiling going?

Please stop stirring up shiat and going broke sending armies into areas where your spy service should be.


Well, we tried to depend on the Canadian spy service but that just led us to invade some poor ice floe in the middle of the Arctic. The only we found was a very confused seal, so we clubbed it to death.

Yet another reason against this.

The farking Canadians get confused as to who actually is stirring up shiat and blame it on the US.

New rule, the US only contributes up to, but not exceeding, the absolute dollar amount Canada contributes. And no, I don't give a crap about "per capita".

Let's see who can out cheap the other.

15 Jan 2013 01:17 AM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy     

Seth'n'Spectrum: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So..... you're OK with invading sovereign states and killing brown people if it's done right?

Everyone, including the recognized government of the country in question, agreed it was the right thing to do.
Collective legitimization isn't perfect, but it's a good medium between an interventionist free-for-all and totally giving up the offensive to the assholes of the world.


You give great nuance!

15 Jan 2013 01:17 AM
spacelord321     

zzrhardy: JungleBoogie: they're not f--king with us, we should let 'em be.

"they're not f--king with us, we should let 'em be."

I wouldn't really put Al Queda in the "not farking with us" camp. If you do, then why are we (and France) in Afghanistan getting killed along with you?


Geo-strategic positioning.

15 Jan 2013 01:20 AM
Wangiss     

Indubitably: To French


This was my favorite short post of yours.

15 Jan 2013 01:21 AM
rka     

zzrhardy: If you do, then why are we (and France) in Afghanistan getting killed along with you?


Obsequience?

15 Jan 2013 01:23 AM
Wayne 985     

ShannonKW: Wayne 985: I think there's a difference between The Taliban: Redux and a bunch of commies trying to change the economic and political leadership of their country. That difference being that the former is an atrocity in itself and the latter is just unfortunate.

That's odd. I think there's a difference between the two also, and the difference is that in point of atrocity Al Qaida doesn't even approach the Communists. Perhaps this is too far in the past to win your appreciation, the millions of people stripped of their possessions and sent trudging into oblivion to die of hunger or exposure or to be worked to death in labor camps. The works of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and their ilk put Bin Ladin's in the shade. Communism embodied a threat incomparably beyond the bumbling, ignorant religious freaks that so frighten the fat, comfortable Westerners of today. Al Qaida commands a primitive rabble with improvised explosives. The Commies together fielded the largest military force the world has seen, including nuclear subs, ICBMs, and the hydrogen bomb.

Yes, there is a difference in the magnitude of the threat. There is no difference in the willingness of certain people to menace the public with it in order to win support for their adventures. Neither is there any difference in the naive credulity of people who accept that such adventures are necessary (or even helpful) in gaining safety from the threat.


Stalin killed more than Hitler. Which was worth fighting? Vietnam is still a communist country and they're pretty milquetoast. The Taliban, by contrast...

This may not make us safer, but there's a fundamental moral obligation to try and stop people who mutilate and murder girls for going to school and publicly execute people for being gay or Jewish. When they try and form a government, that sh-- has to be nipped in the bud.

15 Jan 2013 01:25 AM
Wayne 985     

spacelord321: Wayne 985: ShannonKW: GAT_00: I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda. Communists

That would make Vietnam cool retrospectively. After all, opposing the Commies in Vietnam was as vital to national security as opposing Al Qaida in Outer Absurdia is today. We all know what would have become of our freedoms had the Reds taken over in 'Nam. And, of course, we can be sure that our government today is being as honest with the nation every time they cry "Al Qaida!" in order to justify intervention as they were 50 years ago when the cry was "Communists!"

I think there's a difference between The Taliban: Redux and a bunch of commies trying to change the economic and political leadership of their country. That difference being that the former is an atrocity in itself and the latter is just unfortunate.

You would be wrong. Changing the ecenomic and political leadership of these countries is exactly what the Islamic extremists are attempting. Religion is just the mechanism.


That's all they care about. They're fanatics whose primary goal is theocracy. The rest is largely incidental.

15 Jan 2013 01:26 AM
Fano     

Gyrfalcon: hasty ambush: GAT_00: I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda.

The U.S. is considering a range of options to help, including sending cargo aircrafts to lift more French ground troops into Mali, providing air refueling tankers for French air combat patrols, and offering intelligence gleaned from aerial surveillance.


Oh yeah, that's some real close involvement there.

That is how our involvement in Nam started.

"In November 1951, the US provided the French with an initial supply of 20 C-27s which would build to 116 by war's end in 1954. USAF crews delivered the aircraft, usually flying them in to Nha Trang, Vietnam from Clark AB, Philippines. These would be for tactical airlift. But France lacked the pilots and maintenance crews.

Since the French were short on pilots, the US turned to CAT, which by 1952, was owned by the CIA lock, stock and barrel. CAT pilots began flying a heavy schedule of transport missions for the French. These were combat missions flown by American civilians in every sense of the word. They routinely flew into combat zones, dropped supplies to the French, and dropped French paratroopers. They took their share of hostile fire.

The French also lacked the strategic airlift needed to get their troops form France to Vietnam. In April, the USAF's 62nd Troop Carrier Wing (TCW) flew French forces from France to Indochina aboard C-124 Globemaster IIs."

Link

Yep.

Even without the CIA hyperbole and domino theory nonsense that was prevalent back in 1952...the idea was that we were helping our allies in a bad situation and it couldn't POSSIBLY turn out badly because all we were doing was assisting the French fight an insurgency that had ties to Red China (nevermind that Ho Chi Minh's fighters helped us against the Japanese) and all we were doing was giving them a little support. And some advisors. Well, and some artillery and planes. Oh, and some extra personnel. And some backup to evacuate their wounded later on. And th ...


Sadly, getting sucked into the Vietnam conflict is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Dan Carlin Red Scare Podcast

It's hard to see how things would have gone differently. Eisenhower didn't want to screw it up, nor did Kennedy. We have a mythology that we wouldn't have gone to war if he wasn't assassinated, but I don't see how American involvement wouldn't have escalated in any case.

15 Jan 2013 01:30 AM
Wangiss     

Wulfman: I kinda wish we'd fight with a second-world nation once in a while, just to keep us on our toes.


Is this a joke? Because if it is, I got it.

15 Jan 2013 01:35 AM
Buffalo77     
WTF Indeed


jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.
You can all eat shiat and die now.

Awww, someone is upset that the black guy has killed more terrorists than W ever did.


Actually Americans are glad PBO followed Bush's policies once he got in.

15 Jan 2013 01:57 AM
Betep     
"JJ (unregistered) January 14, 2013, 15:44 quote
+9

France can't wait to steal Mali's Gold, for the Zionist New World Order, and
the IMF. Mali is the 3rd largest gold producer in Africa not to mention they
have Uranium Mines to loot too. France can't wait to steal it all. The UK will
be in there soon to steal what the French don't
And you know Zionists run the UK, that's common knowledge they have for
a long time"

http://rt.com/news/france-bombs-mali- intervention-954/comments/

Read the TRUTH! @ RT

/not really
//love the comments there

15 Jan 2013 01:59 AM
Deman     

Wulfman: I kinda wish we'd fight with a second-world nation once in a while, just to keep us on our toes.


Eh we just do that through proxy now. If we had ejected Romney on the other hand

15 Jan 2013 02:04 AM
varmitydog     
Oil in north Mali, gold and uranium in southwest Mali. And a backup plan for Halliburton, KBR and that crowd just in case Afghanistan peters out. Yeah, beware the military industrial complex.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.

15 Jan 2013 02:14 AM
casual disregard     
To contrast with my liberal fellows here, the actions in Mali are absolutely essential.

Deconstruct a bit here: an avowed Socialist government is waging war against a communist-terrorist revolutionary movement.

If the good guys lose here, we all lose what little progress we have made in Africa. We can't lose this one. We just can't.

15 Jan 2013 03:03 AM
PunGent     

jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.
You can all eat shiat and die now.


One of the many, many problems with invading Iraq was that Saddam, despite his later financial support for Muslim terrorists in Israel, actually killed more Muslim fundamentalists than all the neocon wetdream hardliners on the planet combined.

/exploit that Shia/Sunni split, get 'em to kill each other
//unless you can point to something useful Islam has done in the last few centuries

15 Jan 2013 03:34 AM
Wayne 985     

jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.
You can all eat shiat and die now.


You really went off the deep end after the election, didn't you?

15 Jan 2013 03:43 AM
muck4doo     

Wayne 985: jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.
You can all eat shiat and die now.

You really went off the deep end after the election, didn't you?


The Obamabots did. Keep on killing them brown people you used to pretend to care so much about.

15 Jan 2013 04:09 AM
muck4doo     

PunGent: jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.
You can all eat shiat and die now.

One of the many, many problems with invading Iraq was that Saddam, despite his later financial support for Muslim terrorists in Israel, actually killed more Muslim fundamentalists than all the neocon wetdream hardliners on the planet combined.

/exploit that Shia/Sunni split, get 'em to kill each other
//unless you can point to something useful Islam has done in the last few centuries


Libs just can't get enough killing.

15 Jan 2013 04:14 AM
ACallForPeace     

casual disregard: Deconstruct a bit here: an avowed Socialist government is waging war against a communist-terrorist revolutionary movement.

If the good guys lose here, we all lose what little progress we have made in Africa. We can't lose this one. We just can't.


As far as I know the "revolutionary movement" is just a bunch of radical Islamic fundamentalists.
The communists were more or less sidelined by the Islamists and "put down arms" not in the sense of de-militancy but cutting strategic losses.
And there are no "good guys:". There's imperialist powers using fighting terrorism as a casus belli to intervene and regain control of valuable resources fighting a bunch of deluded farkers killing people on behalf of fairy tails. I suppose a good unintended side effect would be a more secular society in the long run, but even then we're more likely to face radicalization and blowback.
But then again I'm not an "American liberal" (Democrat/conservative) or even a normal liberal. I'm a libertarian socialist.

15 Jan 2013 04:53 AM
mike_d85     
FTFA: Earlier Monday, Canada announced its intent to send a C-17 military transport plane to assist with the French campaign. The Canadians were careful to say their role will not include direct involvement in the conflict and that the aircraft is on loan for one week.

That's cute, Canada wants to be involved in foreign affairs. It's such a sweet ickle aid provider, isn't it?

15 Jan 2013 05:58 AM
Tat'dGreaser     
Why in the f*ck are we spending money on this sh*t?

15 Jan 2013 07:13 AM
HotWingConspiracy     
It's insane how quickly people on this site can become experts in north African politics and security. Smart bunch here.

15 Jan 2013 07:19 AM
YixilTesiphon     
Is there nothing Obama doesn't believe is his business, and no horrible policy of W's he won't expand?

15 Jan 2013 07:20 AM
Haliburton Cummings     
right on!
babies and civilians to kill!

oil up your rifle and get in there brainwashed morans!
you're a re a patriot!

15 Jan 2013 07:53 AM
Deep Contact     
Mali was once part of three famed West African empires which controlled trans-Saharan trade in gold, salt, slaves, and other precious commodities.[

15 Jan 2013 08:09 AM
Joe Blowme     

fusillade762: It's OK, we're just there as advisers.


And its a democrat sending the advisors.... whoops, just like last time.

15 Jan 2013 08:22 AM
Joe Blowme     

varmitydog: Oil in north Mali, gold and uranium in southwest Mali. And a backup plan for Halliburton, KBR and that crowd just in case Afghanistan peters out. Yeah, beware the military industrial complex.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.


Let me guess, the Jews own both parties right?

15 Jan 2013 08:25 AM
ThrobblefootSpectre     

ferretman: A very important thing everyone has to remember....it's okay when Obama does it.


And Europe.

Notice it's never a huge moral problem when European nations preemptively strike nations because they might maybe be a threat someday in the future. But America is the debil if we invade after already being attacked.

15 Jan 2013 08:29 AM
ccundiff     

Indubitably: This is Faux News...


Just because the agency has a political agenda doesn't mean that there aren't actual journalists there too. Most of what they do is just report the news. Most of what the company gets paid for is another story.

15 Jan 2013 08:41 AM
cervier     

revrendjim: bmeade73: Just Saying.....

Napolean? Charlemagne? Charles "The Hammer" Martel?


Don't bother with these clowns they all think they are comical geniuses because they regurgitate the same meme over and over again...

/My ignore list is now so long...

15 Jan 2013 08:53 AM
cynicalbastard     

sweet-daddy-2: miss diminutive: Can't they just send Cajuns and kill two birds with one stone?

But who would make our gumbo?


Wouldn't sending Cajuns just be another form of gumbo diplomacy?

15 Jan 2013 09:20 AM
hasty ambush     

PsiChick: You've seen some of our defense budget, right? Spent on things like a parking lot full of tanks the Army actually said they don't want and nuclear weapons we do not need in the slightest? Money doesn't have to grow on trees. We just need to stop trying to overfund the military.


Have you seen social spending. Only 30% of means tested welfare spending reaches the recipients 70% goes toward overhead (admin and regulating) Not to mention welfare money used in strip joints and to buy booze . Combined means tested welfare spending in 2012 (State+Federal) was almost $1 trillion dollars. MEDICARE (not means tested but should be) admits to loosing between $50 billion to $80 billion a year to waste fraud and abuse. But we must not reform any of those programs because it means starving people or some such nonsense according to some.

Snvieling about defense spending would be more credible if it was done in conjuction with all inefficient government spending.,

15 Jan 2013 09:25 AM
kvinesknows     

Deep Contact: Mali was once part of three famed West African empires which controlled trans-Saharan trade in gold, salt, slaves, and other precious commodities.[


thanks Cliff

15 Jan 2013 09:25 AM
spacelord321     

Wayne 985: spacelord321: Wayne 985: ShannonKW: GAT_00: I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda. Communists

That would make Vietnam cool retrospectively. After all, opposing the Commies in Vietnam was as vital to national security as opposing Al Qaida in Outer Absurdia is today. We all know what would have become of our freedoms had the Reds taken over in 'Nam. And, of course, we can be sure that our government today is being as honest with the nation every time they cry "Al Qaida!" in order to justify intervention as they were 50 years ago when the cry was "Communists!"

I think there's a difference between The Taliban: Redux and a bunch of commies trying to change the economic and political leadership of their country. That difference being that the former is an atrocity in itself and the latter is just unfortunate.

You would be wrong. Changing the ecenomic and political leadership of these countries is exactly what the Islamic extremists are attempting. Religion is just the mechanism.

That's all they care about. They're fanatics whose primary goal is theocracy. The rest is largely incidental.


What is a theocracy, if not a form of economic and political leadership bound together by religion? Do not underestimate your fellow humans by declaring crazy those with motivations you do not understand.

15 Jan 2013 09:28 AM
Showing 151-200 of 231 comments
Page 3 Refresh Page 5
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined