Time: 2000's named the "Decade From Hell"

[Saint Cornelius]

Seriously if it weren't for the fact that Willco has but one setting and that's hysterical, I'd find that a funny.

[Saint Cornelius]

Although my switch seems to be stuck on "misanthrope" as of late and there's just no jostling it

[Boogie]

Uh, no.

Totally. Vietnam was an unpopular war at home, as was Iraq (and still is), and we suffered far more causalities in the battlefield, but it still pales in comparison to the hit in global credibility with foreign nations that we have taken with Iraq and Afghanistan (p.s. thanks for pulling out, Canada). I mean, American at least had the audacity to frame the Vietnam war as a war against communism, which was evil, right?

Whereas we were seen as pretty much aggressors and bullies this time around, much moreso than with Vietnam. A lot of heinous stuff America did during Vietnam wasn't really revealed until after Vietnam.

No.

Obviously you have covered off that in terms of the mere human cost, Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison to Vietnam.

But even in geopolitical terms, Vietnam was worse.  For one thing, Afghanistan was a necessary and proper response to the events of September 11th. (Initially.  I'm not isolationist, but I'm increasingly of the persuasion that today its unwinnable and we should pull out.)  Also, fuck you for the Canada jab.

So that's one for two.  And yes, Iraq was a textbook case of a bullshit and unnecessary war of choice.  Greatest strategic blunder of the past 30 years, strengthened Iran, weakened USA prestige and credibility, nobody's arguing that.

But still, Vietnam was worse.  It owes its sole existence to possibly the most bullshit foreign policy theory in history.  The Domino Theory.  The US fights in Vietnam for a decade, at the cost of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and LOSES, and......none of the negative consequences that were just about the sole purpose of fighting the war came to pass.  

And you think Iraq and Afghanistan have damaged American credibility more than Vietnam?  Vietnam was, essentially the first war America ever lost.  America went all in (or nearly so) in Vietnam for a decade, and LOST.  Biggest superpower in the world embarrassed and bloodied by a third-world country.

In comparison, America is half-assing it in Iraq and Afghanistan (which may be a reason for why those wars have gone so poorly), and if America "loses" in these two wars, it ain't no big thing.

(aside: how many major powers supported the US in Vietnam? None other than a bunch of dinky-ass southeast asian countries.  Iraq?  Britain jumped all in.  And don't forget Poland.  Afghanistan?  All major NATO powers have contributed troops, though obviously not all other than the USA, Britain and Canada are willing to put their troops in combat roles)

[Barry Egan]

Can you get a little more concrete in your examples here?  It sounds like you're just projecting some future catastrophe that won't even occur in this decade.

Uh, let's see. We pretty much single-handedly ruined the global economy (which may still get worse before it even attempts to get better), we destabilized two separate countries (and have created a general landmine of issues in that region), furthered an agenda that has already led to obtuse climate change and threatens to severely impact the entire globe, and failed to address the needs of developing countries, while making exorbitant amounts of income off of them.

Western civilization!

The only way you could possibly compare any of what you've listed to WWII is if you're anticipating the fallout that might come from those events, which again, would not even occur in this decade.  You've basically made up a future scenario that you've supposed will be worse than real atrocities that have actually happened.    

[Mandark]

And before you get any further, Arvie - I'm well aware you're referring to Israel.

... However, a Jewish state was already in formation prior to the Holocaust (or World War II). Zionism can trace its roots to the 1800s. Jews were flooding into Palestine before and during World War II; it's not as if they were air dropped into the region as a direct result of the Holocaust.

Israel's origins are deeper than basic elementary education, which usually consists of teachers telling students that Europe loaded Jews in wheelbarrows and dropped them off in the Middle East so they could have their own country.

Taken that way, you can't really say the 60's had the civil rights movement.

[The Fake Shemp]

Uh, we already have ruined the global economy this decade, we already have climate change this decade, we already destabilized two nations this decade, we've already created a mess of problems in that region this decade and we already have taken advantage of developing third-world countries this decade.

What world are you living in, Boogie?

... Boogie, I concede the fact that Vietnam was a far deadlier conflict than the ones we're engaged in today, but opposition to the war didn't even peak until the late '60s. That mass anti-war rally was what, '69? '68?

(I was just kidding about the pulling out comment, I'm well aware that Canadians had more casualties per capita than Americans.)

Your other argument is a personal opinion; that the foreign policy in question should not have dictated armed conflict. You're entitled to that belief, and it's something I don't necessarily disagree with. But there were others that backed a ground war, on the belief that it would lead to the spread of communism, which is a far more entertaining justification than our war with Iraq.

Much of the condemnation of the US presence in Vietnam from the international community had to do less with our presence and more with our tactics. We straight-out lied in order to occupy a foreign country this time around.

So yes, I will say that being caught not only as aggressors, but lying imperialists has taken a far greater toll on our international image than Vietnam did.

... Your last argument, or at least I think it's your last argument, is that America lost the war and dealt a blow to our national psyche. That's totally true. While pulling out of Iraq and Aghanistan will never come close to the domestic impact that occurred when we pulled out of Vietnam, I vehemently disagree that it's "no big thing".

[Madrun Badrun]

we already have climate change this decade, we've already created a mess of problems in that region this decade and we already have taken advantage of developing third-world countries this decade.

What decade don't all these happen in?

[The Fake Shemp]

Taken that way, you can't really say the 60's had the civil rights movement.

I would. The Holocaust really had little to do with the creation of Israel, because Jews had already begun securing the region as a Jewish state and had destabilized parts of it prior to World War II. It gained more refugees during World War II as the result of the Holocaust, but that's because the wheels were already in motion.

The civil rights movement traces its origins to the '50s, but civil rights were not only gained in the '60s, but owes its direct success to historical figures and events from the '60s.

Israel was pretty much an inevitability in the '40s. Do you think if it were not for the '60s, and everything that came with it, that civil rights would have necessarily been an inevitability during the decade?

[The Fake Shemp]

we already have climate change this decade, we've already created a mess of problems in that region this decade and we already have taken advantage of developing third-world countries this decade.

What decade don't all these happen in?

We've never seen climate change like this prior to the '00s (nor the blind ignorance to keep doing so), you carefully omitted us destroying the world economy (which is a pretty big fucking deal, Arvie), you also omitted us destabilizing two countries and I think it's safe to say we've never dealt with the range of issues, as a country, that we faced in the Middle East during the '00s any other decade.

Sure, that region is always in turmoil, and our dumb Reagan-era foreign policy has created a lot of the problems we deal with today, but outside of one or two countries, we've got problems across the board. Problems that directly effect our national security.

The only thing that's really true is that we have been screwing over third-world countries for decades.

[Boogie]

Uh, we already have ruined the global economy this decade, we already have climate change this decade, we already destabilized two nations this decade, we've already created a mess of problems in that region this decade and we already have taken advantage of developing third-world countries this decade.

What world are you living in, Boogie?

I was only taking issue with your comparison of the Vietnam war to Iraq and Afghanistan.  That other stuff was outside of my argument.

... Boogie, I concede the fact that Vietnam was a far deadlier conflict than the ones we're engaged in today, but opposition to the war didn't even peak until the late '60s. That mass anti-war rally was what, '69? '68?

What does that even mean?  So the Vietnam War spilled over to the 70s.  Iraq and Afghanistan are also going to spill over into the next decade.

(I was just kidding about the pulling out comment, I'm well aware that Canadians had more casualties per capita than Americans.)

I knew you were kidding, I just couldn't let it go without a comment.

Your other argument is a personal opinion; that the foreign policy in question should not have dictated armed conflict. You're entitled to that belief, and it's something I don't necessarily disagree with. But there were others that backed a ground war, on the belief that it would lead to the spread of communism, which is a far more entertaining justification than our war with Iraq.

Except both "stopping the spread of communism" and "eliminating WMDs" in Iraq were bullshit.  If they were both true, then both wars would be justified.  But neither was.

Much of the condemnation of the US presence in Vietnam from the international community had to do less with our presence and more with our tactics. We straight-out lied in order to occupy a foreign country this time around.



So yes, I will say that being caught not only as aggressors, but lying imperialists has taken a far greater toll on our international image than Vietnam did.

Fair argument.

... Your last argument, or at least I think it's your last argument, is that America lost the war and dealt a blow to our national psyche. That's totally true. While pulling out of Iraq and Aghanistan will never come close to the domestic impact that occurred when we pulled out of Vietnam, I vehemently disagree that it's "no big thing".

Yeah.  And, on a more broad argument, how much further ahead would America be if Johnson were able to devote more attention and resources to his Great Society project without Vietnam to distract him and suck up money? (and no, I don't need a response from you, JayDubya)

[Barry Egan]

Uh, we already have ruined the global economy this decade, we already have climate change this decade, we already destabilized two nations this decade, we've already created a mess of problems in that region this decade and we already have taken advantage of developing third-world countries this decade.

What world are you living in, Boogie?

I am not Boogie  

But, I mean, duh.  Yes, all that shit happened.  But does the fact that we've had climate change mean that the ice caps have melted?  No.  You only have it on your list because of something that might happen in the future.  Does an unstable economy really compare in any significant way to the holocaust?  No, unless you're predicting a wide-scale collapse that might happen in the future.

That's my point.  You've made the mistake of taking imagined catastrophes, which is basically a 21st century fetish at this point, and privileging them over horrible events that have *actually happened*.

[The Fake Shemp]

I was only taking issue with your comparison of the Vietnam war to Iraq and Afghanistan.  That other stuff is compelling.

Dude, I apologize. I meant to type Chipopo.

I should have separated my posts with quotes.

What does that even mean?  So the Vietnam War spilled over to the 70s.  Iraq and Afghanistan are also going to spill over into the next decade.

In regards to "worst decades ever", the opposition to the war came pretty late into the '60s. That's all I meant.

Except both "stopping the spread of communism" and "eliminating WMDs" in Iraq were bullshit.  If they were both true, then both wars would be justified.  But neither was.

You think the justification of war in Vietnam is bullshit, but it was never really a lie. There were people that genuinelybelieved they were stopping communism. Iraq was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts to engage in a war for special interests.

Yeah.  And, on a more broad argument, how much further ahead would America be if Johnson were able to devote more attention and resources to his Great Society project without Vietnam to distract him and suck up money? (and no, I don't need a response from you, JayDubya)

I don't know, that all smells an awful lot like communism socialism!

[The Fake Shemp]

But does the fact that we've had climate change mean that the ice caps have melted?  No.  You only have it on your list because of something that might happen in the future.

Uh, what. The ice caps are already melting.

Seriously, are you just ignoring this?

Does an unstable economy really compare in any significant way to the holocaust?  No, unless you're predicting a wide-scale collapse that might happen in the future.

Does an isolated incident of genocide really compare to a global economic recession, which puts millions of lives in jeopardy across the world? Especially when it's kick-started by, really, one country?

That's my point.  You've made the mistake of taking imagined catastrophes, which is basically a 21st century fetish at this point, and privileging them over horrible events that have *actually happened*.

Dude, you're crazy. Climate chance and economic recession are occurring now, not next decade. We kind of missed the boat with both.

The immediate impact of both are felt across the globe now, and our continuation to ignore climate change threatens the world - not a few million Jews.

[CajoleJuice]

Boston won way too many sports championships this decade.

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, what Cajole said.

[Barry Egan]

But does the fact that we've had climate change mean that the ice caps have melted?  No.  You only have it on your list because of something that might happen in the future.

Uh, what. The ice caps are already melting.

Seriously, are you just ignoring this?

Have they melted? Is New York underwater right now? No. 

Does an unstable economy really compare in any significant way to the holocaust?  No, unless you're predicting a wide-scale collapse that might happen in the future.

Does an isolated incident of genocide really compare to a global economic recession, which puts millions of lives in jeopardy across the world? Especially when it's kick-started by, really, one country?

Have millions of lives been lost as a result of the faltering economy?  No.

Dude, you're crazy. Climate chance and economic recession are occurring now, not next decade. We kind of missed the boat with both.

The immediate impact of both are felt across the globe now, and our continuation to ignore climate change threatens the world - not a few million Jews.

The question hasn't been whether these events are having an impact, but whether that impact compares to World War II without recourse to some future projection.  You haven't said anything that suggests that they do.

[The Fake Shemp]

Have they melted? No.

Now, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. So because we have not yet come to fully realize the events of The Day After Tomorrow or 2012, but rather just the likelihood that natural disasters such as Katrina were caused by climate change and the startling decrease of natural resources (necessary for human survival), we should ignore it?

Guh?

It's already an issue. Your argument that Earth has not swallowed us whole yet is pretty lame. We are already dealing with it, and it far outweighs the impact of the Holocaust.

And that's as of right now.

Have millions of lives been lost as a result of the faltering economy?  No.

Obviously not. And if you think the impact is isolated to just Africa, you're woefully misinformed. I won't even talk about simple things like programs to purchase nets to help stop the spread of malaria (which kills millions of Africans), which are not being funded because of the economic downturn.

Or the ghost towns that are beginning to appear in Europe, leaving folks homeless, bankrupt and starving. Dubai might be next on that list.

So yeah.

We're doing just dandy.

[Mandark]

Taken that way, you can't really say the 60's had the civil rights movement.

I would. The Holocaust really had little to do with the creation of Israel, because Jews had already begun securing the region as a Jewish state and had destabilized parts of it prior to World War II. It gained more refugees during World War II as the result of the Holocaust, but that's because the wheels were already in motion.

The civil rights movement traces its origins to the '50s, but civil rights were not only gained in the '60s, but owes its direct success to historical figures and events from the '60s.

Israel was pretty much an inevitability in the '40s. Do you think if it were not for the '60s, and everything that came with it, that civil rights would have necessarily been an inevitability during the decade?

The civil rights movement has roots way further back than that.

Jewish immigration to Palestine over a few years in the 30's was equal to the total immigration for half a century before that.  The immigration from 1948-50 was equal to the total immigration up to that point.  So there's an exponential increase around the time of WW2, which is a pretty direct result of 1) the conditions being created by the Nazis, and then 2) the support of the major powers for a Jewish state, which itself was largely motivated by the Holocaust.

My point is that both movements are similar in that they had been building for several decades, but made more progress towards their goals over a few critical years than they had in all the time before that.  I don't think the late successes make the early activism irrelevant, or vice versa.

I also think the triumph of the civil rights movement (against Jim Crow laws, anyway) was pretty inevitable.  Even by the 1940's, really explicit racial bigotry was becoming taboo.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I'm all in favor of calling my generation (Generation Y) as Generation XL.  Gen X I can understand but Y makes no sense other than being the next after X but on the other hand, we're all pretty fat as a whole and XL is a nice play of X.

I guess I'm not sure what is going on.  Are some people arguing that this decade is one of the worst?  This decade was child's play to the decades of the 20th century, except maybe the 1970s and 1990s.  Plus given the fact that Time seems to write exclusively towards middle class white suburbanites (see their 2006 person of the year), it is pretty obvious they never really put any thought into why this is the "decade of hell."

Iraq was a mistake but in terms of casualties, how many troops have been there, etc. this is one of the least deadly wars for us.  You might bring up civilian deaths but again, child's play.  In the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Soviets would tried to massacre an entire village to get at a few mujahideen.  Even that was pretty light compared to world war II or Mao's Great Leap Forward.  Time fails here as well.

It's a bad article but it works for their target audience, who is conscientious but ultimately ignorant of anything that happened that did not directly involve the US.

[The Fake Shemp]

I don't disagree that the Nazis were pushing Jews out of Europe, and that the influx of immigrants into Palestine was a result of that. But the people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation were already there, already destabilizing the region. Their numbers just increased.

And I would say that has more to do with the immigration policies of the Allies than the Holocaust; Jews had nowhere else to go, except for the one place that was already taking in Jews.

people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation just capitalized on the Holocaust to secure what was already in motion - namely the creation of a Jewish state. They would have secured independence by virtue of blood without the Holocaust, which was something they had to do anyway.

In fact, I would say had it not been for World War II, you would have seen a war of independence for a Jewish state before its actual creation. The war just delayed things, in my opinion. The end result was afterwards, their numbers only increased.

I agree that triumph of the civil rights movement was inevitable, but it owes directly to key historical figures and events of the '60s. I do not necessarily agree that civil rights would have been secured in the '60s without such people and events. Racial equality is something we're still working on to this day, even.

[drew]

eh not worth it

[drew]

i would love to live in a place that was more temperate and rainy in the summer, you can keep the humidity and tornadoes

did i mention we have 2 inch long wasps? we have 2 inch long wasps.

[The Fake Shemp]

Yeah, it's mind boggling. It's apparently not enough to dwindle the planet's resources, force species to extinction and create an environment that likely bears responsibility for some of the natural disasters that have plagued us. I mean, who cares if we've destroyed the eco-system, right?

I can still ride my SUV above water level!

... Just on an anecdotal level, as a Washingtonian (and I'm sure Mandark and Disposable White Guy can attest to this), it feels like winter is nothing like what used to be when I was a kid. And I'm not talking about a fluke season either. I can't really recall getting a ton of snow since the blizzard of '97.

[drew]

we got over 3 feet in one night here last year

you should move to toledo

[Don Flamenco]

chicago has been warm as hell this year.  we're just now getting to long sleeve shirt+pea coat weather.  Probably won't have snow for quite a while.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

It's fucking freezing where I live.  Not to mention having some of the coldest temperatures on record this year (-22 deg F)

[Mandark]

I don't see what would have made the establishment of Israel inevitable.  Some nationalist movements succeed but some don't, and putting together one using a diaspora seems trickier than normal.

Yeah they would have taken up arms themselves, but to assume that they'd win?  Decisively and repetitively enough to establish a stable nation?  Without powerful sponsor states or fear-driven waves of immigration to bolster them, that's very up in the air.

[The Fake Shemp]

They had already driven the British out, and were fighting low-intensity civil war. And it's not as if they didn't end up engaged in war, which they decisively and repetitively won, against its neighbors shortly after declaring independence.

Also, was the IDF given massive amounts of military hardware from sponsor states? I don't even recall hearing that. That might be the case now, but during its formation, they were a small-time organization.

Israel had the wherewithal to secure independence through armed conflict after World War II, and I have no doubt that the people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation could do so without it. Keep in mind, while their numbers doubled due to the Nazis, they still only represented like a quarter of the population in the region.

[Flannel Boy]

It's fucking freezing where I live.  Not to mention having some of the coldest temperatures on record this year (-22 deg F)

You think it's cold? Start where you live, then keep going north for over 1,000 km. Welcome to Winnipeg

[Mandark]

The US, UK, and France had an agreement to limit arm sales to the region after '48, the idea being to maintain the status quo.  The USSR cut an arms deal with Egypt in '55, at which point France began to supply Israel with advanced weaponry (and civilian nuclear tech).  The US started secretly doing the same a few years later.

The point of this isn't that Israel was the only beneficiary (US policy was also aimed at propping up Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and royalist Iran while maintaining equilibrium), but that the big western nations decided they wanted Israel on the map, and all their moves to shape the region reflected this.  That's a huge factor in the long-term survival of the country.

If they decided they didn't like the idea of Israel, or that heavily backing the Arab countries would pay big strategic dividends, the results could very well be different.

[The Fake Shemp]

So the IDF didn't receive advance military hardware until almost eight years after it declared independence, which it won with successive battles. I don't see how that makes much an impact on my argument.

Israel was gunning for independence, Western support or not. They had no qualms about giving the British fits, so I don't think the people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation really cared.

[Mandark]

You're not getting my point.

I'm not talking about whether Israel would have won the war in 1948 (without WW2, the war probably doesn't happen at that point anyway).  I'm talking about whether it would be able to maintain itself as an independent state.  The fact that it did owes a lot to big NATO countries making sure that Israel was better equipped than its neighbors.

We know that "Israel was gunning for independence."  Lots of other ethnic groups have, with mixed results.  I just don't get why anyone would think they'd inevitable succeed, unless they have a special destiny or something.

[The Fake Shemp]

You apparently haven't been reading your biblical text.

My point is that they sustained themselves without much support for years. I think the hypothetical, "Well what if they didn't get support years after the fact?" is kind of irrelevant.

It's not that I think the people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation are superior to ethnic groups with similar aims, it's just that everything leading up to and directly after their independence shows a strategic understanding of the region and their military strengths that most groups do not have.

[Boogie]

winnipeg 

 

[The Fake Shemp]

Willco does not know his Israeli history.

Please elaborate.

[The Fake Shemp]

You think people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation drove the British Empire out of Palestine in the 1920s?

The began to drive them out in the '20s, were successful in their attempts in the '40s.

[The Fake Shemp]

Look, by the time the late '20s had occurred, a British mandate was already in place to give the Jews their own homeland. Their rule had eroded with people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation clearly at odds with the Arabs. That was essentially fought with blood, with civil unrest. I don't know what is much stronger, other than the complete pullout in the '40s.

The used World War II leftovers, actually. Their planes were purchased from Czechoslovakia. It's not as if the British supplied them with much of anything.

[The Fake Shemp]

I apologize, I'm incorrect. That did occur in '40s, not the '20s as I had assumed.

The British, even as evident by that link above, did not support their independence, however. Israel fought the Arab-Israeli War with leftover German weapons as well, so that's like saying the Nazis also supported them.

[Van Cruncheon]

bolded for the lawlz

cosigned. lol.

Click on free time , group with sex life, gaming, gigs, playing football, going out, and sleep (basically "fun stuff") - drag to trash can. Confirm delete for next X years.

There's nothing idyllic about a screaming child at 4:30am in the moring when you've had no sleep and have to get up for work at 6am.

i love the XFE Jr to death but these first 9 months have been brutal - though waking up with him headbutting me in the chest whilst he's kicking the wife in the face has outstanding comedy value.


This decade has seen a lot of bullsh1t go down on a wider level, but general life has been good. 2000s can be summarised thus : Stess up.

pretty much agree on all counts. pissed all my free time away for a kid (whom i adore, and yes, they have awesome slapstick comedy value), my career took off, and the end result is STRESS AND OMG WHERE DOES THE TIME GO

[brawndolicious]

Abortion was basically illegal in the 1960's.  It would be disappointing to hear all that free love bullshit while having to wear a garbage bag on your wiener.

[Mandark]

Yeah, it's mind boggling. It's apparently not enough to dwindle the planet's resources, force species to extinction and create an environment that likely bears responsibility for some of the natural disasters that have plagued us. I mean, who cares if we've destroyed the eco-system, right?

I can still ride my SUV above water level!

... Just on an anecdotal level, as a Washingtonian (and I'm sure Mandark and Disposable White Guy can attest to this), it feels like winter is nothing like what used to be when I was a kid. And I'm not talking about a fluke season either. I can't really recall getting a ton of snow since the blizzard of '97.

Way to open yer big mouth, Federman!

*shakes fist*

[The Fake Shemp]

 

Speaking of, a friend of mine, who believes global warming is the largest hoax perpetrated by evil liberal scientists mocked me on my Facebook.

Will Federman preparing for SNOWMAGEDDON tomorrow.

John Talley Dont worry. Global Warming will kick in any day now and take care of all that.

[Mandark]

I saw that, and had to check his profile to figure out if he was a conservative or just a sarky liberal.

[The Fake Shemp]

No, he's a super conservative. He thinks I'm a dirty liberal for wanting any health care reform, financial transparency and accountability and environmental reform. Like, he yelled at me.

But - hey - he's a fun guy otherwise.

[Mandark]

... Just on an anecdotal level, as a Washingtonian (and I'm sure Mandark and Disposable White Guy can attest to this), it feels like winter is nothing like what used to be when I was a kid. And I'm not talking about a fluke season either. I can't really recall getting a ton of snow since the blizzard of '97.

Again!

I swear to God, Federman...

[Raban]

Decade from Hell? Bullshit. You can't generalize 10 years in human history, ever. Every single decade has ups and downs, and 00-09 wasn't even CLOSE to some of the worst times this world has faced.

Fucking hyperbolic, sensationalist articles.