Noisy neighbors to the north acting up again. o,0

[Coito ergo sum]

The Iraq War is won. The invasion itself in 2003 was unparalleled in its success.

"Afghanistan? Easy to get in, difficult to get out" That was the advice the incumbent Prime Minister got from one of his generals in 1847. Apparently, the lesson has not been learnt by the Soviet Union or by other powers in regard to other wars.

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time. The Soviets had about 55,000 wounded - 90% of which were left disabled (so we're not talking about wholly repairable wounds, for the most part).

Admitted material losses were:

451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters)
147 tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery guns and mortars
11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks.

Nothing like that is happening in Afghanistan now.

If you hold countries to the standard sought to be placed on the US, then we'd conclude that Caesar lost the Gallic Wars and the Allies lost World War 2.

[Blondie]

No worries. I've done some top secret-level calculations, and I've deduced that the most likely possibility for the future of Korea is that Japan will re-invade in a lightning-fast campaign at the request of China, and will turn Korea into a colony once more. Casualties will be minimal, though you may have to learn Japanese at some point. I could be wrong, but time will tell.

Will they also re-bomb Pearl Harbour?? OMFG!

[Warren Dew]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

[Ian]

No worries. I've done some top secret-level calculations, and I've deduced that the most likely possibility for the future of Korea is that Japan will re-invade in a lightning-fast campaign at the request of China, and will turn Korea into a colony once more. Casualties will be minimal, though you may have to learn Japanese at some point. I could be wrong, but time will tell.

Will they also re-bomb Pearl Harbour?? OMFG!

No no no... the Filipinos will be the next to bomb Pearl Harbor. But we'll beat them back just like we did with Japan.

[JimC]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

And, just as importantly, nothing in the current situation suggests progress in the forseeable future to a stable situation where coalition forces could leave, and the Taliban would not quickly overrun a corrupt and inept Afghani government and military...

[Trolldor]

No worries. I've done some top secret-level calculations, and I've deduced that the most likely possibility for the future of Korea is that Japan will re-invade in a lightning-fast campaign at the request of China, and will turn Korea into a colony once more. Casualties will be minimal, though you may have to learn Japanese at some point. I could be wrong, but time will tell.

Will they also re-bomb Pearl Harbour?? OMFG!

No no no... the Filipinos will be the next to bomb Pearl Harbor. But we'll beat them back just like we did with Japan.

What are they going to bomb it with? Bootleg copies of Warcraft?

[Ian]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

The US was a bit distracted for several years prior, no thanks to our former President's blunder into Iraq.

A bit of a train of thought: strategically, the US won the Afghanistan war back in November 2001. The US wins so long as the Taliban and especially al Qaeda loses. And al Qaeda's strategic objective is not retaining political control over Afghanistan (something they'd have a hard time re-achieving even if the US up and left overnight right now), but to incite populist, widespread uprising across the Islamic world with the end result of taking down regional governments and establishing a new Caliphate. They've utterly failed at that; muslim governments are assisting the US in targeting al Qaeda to various levels, and none of them are under immediate threat of populist theocratic insurrection. The ultimate goal of US foreign policy in the arab/Islamic world is not to stabilize it, but to essentially de-stabilize it. There are a couple dozen nations that are dominated by Arabic-speaking Sunni muslims - so long as they remain a couple dozen nations rather than a united Caliphate, American/western strategic interests are not much at risk. //End train-of-thought.//

[Coito ergo sum]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

It's still not nearly the same situation. Our losses are light, our ownership of the skies 100%. It's no quagmire. We'd love for the "nation building" thing to go a little better - but we're not starting with Germans or Japanese here. We've got Afghans - and it's an entirely different culture. Unfortunately, it's going to take time.

One of the reasons we're there is almost always left unstated, and has little to do with making Afghanistan a garden of Eden. A huge reason the US maintains its presences in Iraq and Afghanistan is simple geography. Both places border Iran, and we're there so that we have a massive force at the ready to obliterate the command, control and communications of Iran in hours. Having these forward assault points available there makes things much easier than they were with Iraq - we had to fly around Turkish air space -- send shit up from Deigo Garcia, and have massive air refueling systems as our bombers started their runs 1/2 way around the world. Iran has to remain concerned that we are right there - were literally a few minutes flight to Tehran. So, you can bet it's worth it to the US to have a tussle or scuffle here and there with some jackalopes in Afghanistan to keep those valuable forward positions.

[Ian]

No worries. I've done some top secret-level calculations, and I've deduced that the most likely possibility for the future of Korea is that Japan will re-invade in a lightning-fast campaign at the request of China, and will turn Korea into a colony once more. Casualties will be minimal, though you may have to learn Japanese at some point. I could be wrong, but time will tell.

Will they also re-bomb Pearl Harbour?? OMFG!

No no no... the Filipinos will be the next to bomb Pearl Harbor. But we'll beat them back just like we did with Japan.

What are they going to bomb it with? Bootleg copies of Warcraft?

No, thousands of Imelda Marcos' former shoes!!!
It will be a true horror, but the American people will rise up in fury and smash the Empire of the Philippines. We'll carpet-bomb Manila with millions of Jersey Shore DVDs, and they will surrender within days.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You clowns is flirtin' with blasphemy.

[Trolldor]

The threat alone will cause a cessation of any hostile activity... and possibly mass suicides at the thought of having to deal with sooky.

[Ian]

The threat alone will cause a cessation of any hostile activity... and possibly mass suicides at the thought of having to deal with sooky.

It think she's "Snooki", but that's besides the point.
It might be called a war crime, but it will be incredibly effective. The Filipino emperor himself will fall to his knees and beg us to stop the bombing.

[Robert_S]

Just thought I'd let you all know, the Jersey Shore episode of South Park is available online now.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... rsey-thing

[Trolldor]

The threat alone will cause a cessation of any hostile activity... and possibly mass suicides at the thought of having to deal with sooky.

It think she's "Snooki", but that's besides the point.
It might be called a war crime, but it will be incredibly effective. The Filipino emperor himself will fall to his knees and beg us to stop the bombing.

Sooky is an 'inside' refereance... apparently.

To be a sook: Excessive whining little shit.

[Blondie]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

Exactly. This coming from a soldier serving in Afganistan.