Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

Load 25 of 150 older comments
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
  • I see the warmongers are out in full force
  • 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.
  • Maul555: Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.


    and Pick your battles...
  • Well we can't have NO wars, now can we? What did you think this was, the 70s?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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! .......
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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)?
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • Indubitably: To French


    This was my favorite short post of yours.
  • zzrhardy: If you do, then why are we (and France) in Afghanistan getting killed along with you?


    Obsequience?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Load 25 of 56 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.