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.

(Business Insider)   In a world... where Kadaffi rules with an iron fist... the Libyan people cry out for a savior... that man... is George Bush   (businessinsider.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, U.S. President George Bush, no-fly zone, nations of the world, thou, fighters, elitisms, tyrants  
•       •       •

22167 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2011 at 4:00 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-03-04 09:28:04 AM  

YouNeedJesus: TomD9938: randomjsa: Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do.

As a RWDB, I see President Obama as doing as good a job as could be asked for in this event.

But to even out the derp-scale, I'd just add that Libya (or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Yemen, etc) 2011, wouldnt be happening if not for Iraq 2003.

notsureifserious.jpg


In a way, it's somewhat true. You had a major Mid-East country getting something resembling democracy for the first time while dictators in other countries oppressed the people.

Of course, it could have been done much more cleanly.
 
2011-03-04 09:28:27 AM  

YouNeedJesus: Crunch61: vaderstg: nekom: Bomb the planes?

BOMBS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
[newsmonster.jpg]

Iraqi (1991) and USAAF (1941) pilots would beg to differ

Oh yeah, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Don't you mean when the Russians bombed Pearl Harbor?


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2011-03-04 09:29:19 AM  
Notabunny

that's a man, baby

/i can tell by looking at his hands
 
2011-03-04 09:29:30 AM  

Thunderpipes: thamike: Thunderpipes: In all honesty,

If you weren't being facetious, you're an idiot.

Nah, I am just one of the few people on this board with a brain, and without his nose shoved up Obama's stinkeye.


Burying your head in your own ass is no better, son.
 
2011-03-04 09:35:08 AM  

Father_Jack: This situation is a rather simple flow chart for Teh Haturz:

if the US does nothing and the libyans are crushed, "the US is the Great Satan for leaving our freedom loving brothers unsupported! Obamas a puss, its bay of pigs all over again!

if the US does nothing and the libyans win "we missed an important chance to show solidarity with a new regime, Obama's a puss and should've acted!"

if the US intervenes and the Libyans still lose: "those meddling american imperialists, always being Globocop, why cant they just GTFO of everyone's business"

if the Us intervenes and the Libyans win: "The new regime is merely a puppet for the americans! theyre trying to extend their sphere of influence! the Libyans could've won their freedom on their own, this deligitimizes them!"


The best approach I've heard so far is for the US to publicly ask the Arab League if they'd like us to intervene, and if so, how.

Wouldn't solve anything, of course, but I am a fan of calling out hipocracy.
 
2011-03-04 09:35:58 AM  
Do they want an extra one also?
 
2011-03-04 09:37:43 AM  
I enjoyed this little tidbit from the comments:

"no way... i don't want him to resign and as a matter of fact, i'm probably gonna vote for the effer this time around

the way i see it, there's no way in the world that the can gets kicked to 2017... no way at all- we'll have massive hyperinflation in all commodities by then given our spending and money printing... as such, i desperately want obama to be prez when the US starts burning... i want history to record how inept, feckless, weak and pathetic he is and i want there to be no doubt about this"


This True Patriot is going to vote for Obama in the hopes that he will fail so miserably that the US collapses completely and then he can laugh at the democrats for destroying the country. I don't care for the man either, but I'll probably throw my vote away and go 3rd party if there is a decent candidate. I despised Bush by the end of his presidency, but I never wanted the country to "burn" just so I could justify my feelings.
 
2011-03-04 09:38:03 AM  
Just like how Bush saved the Darfuris?
 
2011-03-04 09:46:49 AM  
t3.gstatic.com

Bush? What next?!!!
 
2011-03-04 09:52:26 AM  
This is bad news...for Obama.

I thought the Libyan people would want zombie Reagan instead.
 
2011-03-04 09:52:45 AM  
way south 2011-03-04 06:40:21 AM

For every hour in the air a well maintained military plane spends twenty more on the ground.


Noob
 
2011-03-04 09:58:23 AM  

Marine1: YouNeedJesus: TomD9938: randomjsa: Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do.

As a RWDB, I see President Obama as doing as good a job as could be asked for in this event.

But to even out the derp-scale, I'd just add that Libya (or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Yemen, etc) 2011, wouldnt be happening if not for Iraq 2003.

notsureifserious.jpg

In a way, it's somewhat true. You had a major Mid-East country getting something resembling democracy for the first time while dictators in other countries oppressed the people.

Of course, it could have been done much more cleanly.


It is in no way true at all. American actions in Iraq did nothing except delay the inevitable uprising of the people of that region. Iraq didn't take the jobs they can't get away. It didn't take the freedom they want away. They never had those things to begin with. The Iraq war served as a distraction, which kept these dictators in power longer. And as far as something "resembling democracy" in Iraq, that's an even dumber argument. If I looked at Iraq, what with the rampant corruption, the 3 hrs of electricity a day, and everything else that goes on there, I'd do my best to have the opposite of whatever they're doing, because it obviously isn't working for their citizens. Which is why they've also been protesting.
 
2011-03-04 10:02:27 AM  
randomjsa 2011-03-04 04:14:49 AM
Alright, for the next five minutes Bush is president again...

What's he going to do about Libya?"


// Calm them with his money, experience and wisdom, coupled with a big gun.
At this point, its unclear if 0bama could fire a gun, or command an Army.
0bama was never in the Military, so most of the military issues whoosshh right over his head.

Aaand its telling, when everyone, Americans, foreigners, rebels, allies get in trouble, They are "missing Him Now"
0bama's gotta love that...

A part of "missing him now" is sentimental, but there is a grim truth to it.
We may have run out of presidential material, some time ago.
That is why we have a Kenyan President now.
The species "Presidentius Obnxxicus" is extinct in the USA, since Bush left.
 
2011-03-04 10:02:28 AM  
The hilarious thing is that we need Kadaffi's permission to stop him from killing his people.

If Bob was raping Alice, Charlie shouldn't need Bob's permission to hit Bob with a brick.

nekom: Bomb the planes?

BOMBS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
[newsmonster.jpg]


Psst... you can bomb them when they land. Planes have to land to refuel and rearm.

punistation

Go be stupid on DailyKOS, you're embarrassing us.
 
2011-03-04 10:04:16 AM  

YouNeedJesus: Marine1: YouNeedJesus: TomD9938: randomjsa: Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do.

As a RWDB, I see President Obama as doing as good a job as could be asked for in this event.

But to even out the derp-scale, I'd just add that Libya (or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Yemen, etc) 2011, wouldnt be happening if not for Iraq 2003.

notsureifserious.jpg

In a way, it's somewhat true. You had a major Mid-East country getting something resembling democracy for the first time while dictators in other countries oppressed the people.

Of course, it could have been done much more cleanly.

It is in no way true at all. American actions in Iraq did nothing except delay the inevitable uprising of the people of that region. Iraq didn't take the jobs they can't get away. It didn't take the freedom they want away. They never had those things to begin with. The Iraq war served as a distraction, which kept these dictators in power longer. And as far as something "resembling democracy" in Iraq, that's an even dumber argument. If I looked at Iraq, what with the rampant corruption, the 3 hrs of electricity a day, and everything else that goes on there, I'd do my best to have the opposite of whatever they're doing, because it obviously isn't working for their citizens. Which is why they've also been protesting.


No, its not true at all.

In every interview of actual Libyans I have had the pleasure of hearing on NPR every single one give the same answer when asked about where they want this to go or about foreign involvement.

Its always "We don't want another Iraq." Or "We don't want anarchy like Iraq." Or "We don't want help, we need to do this ourselves, otherwise look at Iraq, when will the foreigners go home?"

Iraq is and was an absolute detriment to all of these movements. The people feared that lack of a central government would send their country into an death spiral LIKE Iraq. They fear foreign involvement, even if they could really, really use it, because they don't trust us to actually leave afterward. The 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ongoing 8 years of civil war have given everyone much more pause about starting a revolution because they have been living in the same region as the absolute worst case scenario.
 
2011-03-04 10:06:34 AM  
I think its because obama wont make tough decisions and they know that he would support them in a minute, you have to look at it as the Few Good Men scenario. Sure you all despised nicholson's character but deep down you all know that having someone to make that decision with balls is better than having someone like cruise or demi making it.

In the end you cant have a pussy in charge and for all obamas tough talk he does seem like a pussy, unless hes talking about the bcs or nfl talks.
 
2011-03-04 10:09:20 AM  

apeiron242: The hilarious thing is that we need Kadaffi's permission to stop him from killing his people.

If Bob was raping Alice, Charlie shouldn't need Bob's permission to hit Bob with a brick.

nekom: Bomb the planes?

BOMBS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
[newsmonster.jpg]

Psst... you can bomb them when they land. Planes have to land to refuel and rearm.

punistation

Go be stupid on DailyKOS, you're embarrassing us.


No, we need permission from the people Qaddafi is actually bombing to intervene on their behalf. They themselves don't want it, at least not yet.
 
2011-03-04 10:09:20 AM  
Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.


Nice mind reading there, perhaps "Business Insider" can next tell me what Ghaddafi is thinking as well.

Like many of the above posters, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of Business Insider quoting Reuters or presenting it in proper context.

Also, what the Fark do I care what some rebel yells? Does that mean that the US should just jump into the middle of a civil war? I'm 100% behind the rebels and wouldn't mind seeing Ghaddafi getting the Mussolini/Cosceusceu treatment at the hands of his people, but quite frankly it's not our battle.

Lastly, I would note that it was the last Bush Administration that actually normalized relations with Libya (for the first time in 30+ years) and started all kind of trading deals that helped line Ghaddafi's pockets. From reports I've read, this included selling him some lower level military products. Not exactly a bunch of hard asses when it came to dealing with this POS dictator now where they?
 
2011-03-04 10:11:32 AM  
Notice they ask for H.W Bush ... even they know Dubya is a complete moron.
 
2011-03-04 10:12:46 AM  
This "Business Insider" feels like Huffington Derp. I demand answers!
 
2011-03-04 10:13:07 AM  
randomjsa
What's he going to do about Libya? Hrm? Really? What?

Invade Syria?

Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do.

One would think more conservatives would agree. I hope they're not all neocons yet despite the popularity of interventionist policy amongst Republicans these days.

21-7-b: err, the "article" was written by a banker. sorry if the current policy isn't lining your pockets as much as you think it could, old chap

Plus it's followed by an avalanche of derp in the comments. Nice site.
 
2011-03-04 10:15:26 AM  

Notabunny: 21-7-b: err, the "article" was written by a banker. sorry if the current policy isn't lining your pockets as much as you think it could, old chap

Reminds me of a girlfriend in college. She was Canadian. You wouldn't know her.


College! That pic just made me miss the good ole days. that entire picture would have been VERY relevant to my interests. Actually it still is who am I kidding.
 
2011-03-04 10:17:45 AM  

lawboy87: Lastly, I would note that it was the last Bush Administration that actually normalized relations with Libya


You can't have it both ways.

Many people rightly criticized Bush for not even being willing to talk to the Iranians or North Koreans. Bush and Blair worked to get something tangible from Qaddafi (ha, I don't even worry about spelling it wrong - is there a wrong?) and in exchange normalized relations.
 
2011-03-04 10:18:49 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: ...they have been living in the same region as the absolute worst case scenario.


Haha, Iraq currently is the "worst-case scenario"?

No.
 
2011-03-04 10:22:25 AM  

Father_Jack: if the Us intervenes and the Libyans win: "The new regime is merely a puppet for the americans! theyre trying to extend their sphere of influence! the Libyans could've won their freedom on their own, this deligitimizes them!"


Every commentator from the middle East that I've seen warns the latter but the Fark Tea Puppets from the middle west know better.
 
2011-03-04 10:22:55 AM  

steamingpile: I think its because obama wont make tough decisions and they know that he would support them in a minute, you have to look at it as the Few Good Men scenario. Sure you all despised nicholson's character but deep down you all know that having someone to make that decision with balls is better than having someone like cruise or demi making it.

In the end you cant have a pussy in charge and for all obamas tough talk he does seem like a pussy, unless hes talking about the bcs or nfl talks.


So they want the Bush that decided not to occupy Iraq because it would break the coalition instead of the Bush that invaded it. It doesn't take balls to send in someone else to die. But it takes brains to have restraint and know when to use force Mr. Internet Tough Guy.
 
2011-03-04 10:23:44 AM  

eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: ...they have been living in the same region as the absolute worst case scenario.

Haha, Iraq currently is the "worst-case scenario"?

No.


So your going to ignore the previous 8 years then is that it?
Ignore tens of thousands of civilian deaths?
Ignore lack of basic sanitation, power, water?
Ignore lack of political/economic freedom or opportunity?

You are right, in comparison to how it was, Iraq today is much better than right after we invaded. But car bombs are still going off. Insurgents are still active. And its far from being anywhere close to ideal.

I am just trying to clarify how far out of the stadium your moving the goalposts.

Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario. What else do you call eight years of intense civil war? A farking party?
 
2011-03-04 10:25:08 AM  

eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: ...they have been living in the same region as the absolute worst case scenario.

Haha, Iraq currently is the "worst-case scenario"?

No.


Yes.

I wouldn't wish what happened to them on anyone.
 
2011-03-04 10:26:22 AM  

YouNeedJesus: Marine1: YouNeedJesus: TomD9938: randomjsa: Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do.

As a RWDB, I see President Obama as doing as good a job as could be asked for in this event.

But to even out the derp-scale, I'd just add that Libya (or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Yemen, etc) 2011, wouldnt be happening if not for Iraq 2003.

notsureifserious.jpg

In a way, it's somewhat true. You had a major Mid-East country getting something resembling democracy for the first time while dictators in other countries oppressed the people.

Of course, it could have been done much more cleanly.

It is in no way true at all. American actions in Iraq did nothing except delay the inevitable uprising of the people of that region. Iraq didn't take the jobs they can't get away. It didn't take the freedom they want away. They never had those things to begin with. The Iraq war served as a distraction, which kept these dictators in power longer. And as far as something "resembling democracy" in Iraq, that's an even dumber argument. If I looked at Iraq, what with the rampant corruption, the 3 hrs of electricity a day, and everything else that goes on there, I'd do my best to have the opposite of whatever they're doing, because it obviously isn't working for their citizens. Which is why they've also been protesting.


The uprising that only took place after social networking sites popped up and made it possible? And again, I said it could have been done more cleanly.
 
2011-03-04 10:27:48 AM  
randomjsa
What's he going to do about Libya? Hrm? Really? What?

Invade Syria?

Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do."


// You are correct, so what is missing?
Is it the invisible mantle of Cock-Sure and Do or Die that every World Emperor must have handy?
US presidents are Required to do time as world emperor, want to or not.

The difference between a "president" and a "President":

When surgery is needed on vital innards, one would want an experienced, non shakey hand behind the scalpel and needle.
If he found a lizard in there, he'd know what to do.
Even if you had proof the inexperienced doctor could do a better job, most of the time.
You'd still choose Experience.
 
2011-03-04 10:29:19 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.


No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?
 
2011-03-04 10:31:09 AM  

YouNeedJesus: It is in no way true at all. American actions in Iraq did nothing except delay the inevitable uprising of the people of that region. Iraq didn't take the jobs they can't get away.


Iraq took away a major arms funneling route to almost all of the middle eastern nations that helped them keep the people down. You cant say Iraq had no effect on the region because it did, time will tell if its destabilization is a good thing or bad thing, Im hoping for good but at one time I thought all the bin laden people would just take over weak nations. Its looking more and more like that will not happen because the people wont allow it, for once muslim people are taking back their choice.
 
2011-03-04 10:32:38 AM  

eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.

No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?


We managed to surpass that number by a longshot. Yaaaaaay!
 
2011-03-04 10:33:05 AM  

eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.

No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?


Yeah, breakfast burritos before an audit is an awful, awful idea.
 
2011-03-04 10:33:15 AM  

eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.

No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?


When during the occupation was that?
 
2011-03-04 10:33:57 AM  

Fart_Machine: eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.

No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?

We managed to surpass that number by a longshot. Yaaaaaay!


Heh, yeah, in a few years.

"Car crashes kill more people than the Holocaust ever did! Automakers are worse than Hitler!"
 
2011-03-04 10:34:01 AM  
BUSH? You mean the same Bush that has the Saudi King's c*ck in his mouth? That Bush? Or the other one? The one tossing the king's salad?
 
2011-03-04 10:36:28 AM  

eudemonist: Fart_Machine: eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.

No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?

We managed to surpass that number by a longshot. Yaaaaaay!

Heh, yeah, in a few years.

"Car crashes kill more people than the Holocaust ever did! Automakers are worse than Hitler!"


More like a few hours.
 
2011-03-04 10:36:32 AM  

Alphax: When during the occupation was that?


Um, it wasn't? Are we limiting possible "worst-case scenarios" to scenarios that actually took place during our occupation? Seems like that would make it pretty easy to say our occupation is the "worst-case scenario." Tautologically easy, even.
 
2011-03-04 10:38:13 AM  

Alphax: More like a few hours.


When did we kill several thousand civilians in a few hours in Iraq?
 
2011-03-04 10:38:25 AM  

eudemonist: Alphax: When during the occupation was that?

Um, it wasn't? Are we limiting possible "worst-case scenarios" to scenarios that actually took place during our occupation? Seems like that would make it pretty easy to say our occupation is the "worst-case scenario." Tautologically easy, even.


I'm saying the deaths per DAY of the occupation were about that high.
 
2011-03-04 10:39:16 AM  

eudemonist: Fart_Machine: eudemonist: Wicked Chinchilla: Iraq WAS the worst-case scenario.

No. Remember Halabja? Fifteen thousand innocents gassed to death?

We managed to surpass that number by a longshot. Yaaaaaay!

Heh, yeah, in a few years.

"Car crashes kill more people than the Holocaust ever did! Automakers are worse than Hitler!"


Not sure if serious...
 
2011-03-04 10:39:35 AM  

eudemonist: Are we limiting possible "worst-case scenarios" to scenarios that actually took place during our occupation?


Why not list Cthulu in the 'worst-case scenarios'?
 
2011-03-04 10:39:49 AM  
This is a genuine, serious question. No bullshiat. I just want to know one thing, and maybe someone can help me understand.

What, exactly, is the mechanism or process by which bombing the shiat out of Iraq for mistaken reasons (and killing 100,000 people there) leads to a wave of democratic uprisings throughout the middle east 8 years later?

Second question: if most of these uprisings result in radical Islamist regimes 8 years from now, will George W. Bush still be the responsible party for what's going on there?
 
2011-03-04 10:43:02 AM  
Why don't we have a mandatory 4 year course [full hrs] explicitly for would be presidents, it would include mil boot camp and PE. Reading, writing, speaking, and rithmatic, Social Manners.
The job is at least as important as say, being an appraiser.
with proper training, we could start them out as young as 25 yo.
2 Year terms, repeatable 4 times, FTW.

We do have a national emergency on our hands, we have run out of presidential ore. The whole world is trying to tell us that.
We will be trying to survive on imported models...
That's why 2012 projected tickets are so revolting.
 
2011-03-04 10:43:10 AM  
That article is quite funny, particularly since Obama (unlike Bush Jr.) has actively sought Bush Sr.'s counsel on many matters.
 
2011-03-04 10:45:07 AM  

Alphax: I'm saying the deaths per DAY of the occupation were about that high.


Hmm, let's see, eight years, times 365 days equals 2920 days. At even 1,000 per day, you're talking about three million dead.

Yeah, no.

sprawl15: Why not list Cthulu in the 'worst-case scenarios'?


Well...because Hussein had more than once commited genocide on his people to keep them down, whereas Cthulu has yet to make an appearance in the Middle East?
 
2011-03-04 10:47:51 AM  

TomD9938: randomjsa: Why do I find myself in the strange position of defending Obama? He's done what he can do.

As a RWDB, I see President Obama as doing as good a job as could be asked for in this event.

But to even out the derp-scale, I'd just add that Libya (or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Yemen, etc) 2011, wouldnt be happening if not for Iraq 2003.


I believe that was the general idea from the beginning. Those purple thumbs that Iraqi voters eventually got to show were powerful, powerful images. Iraq, being where and what it is, is the geopolitical and cultural trendsetter for the non-Farsi Middle East.

Note I said non-Farsi. The real problem child is Iran (Persia), who still dreams the Imperial Dreams of Cyrus the Great and Xerxes.
 
2011-03-04 10:49:11 AM  

eudemonist: Well...because Hussein had more than once commited genocide on his people to keep them down, whereas Cthulu has yet to make an appearance in the Middle East?


Don't be too sure about that. (^)
 
2011-03-04 10:51:04 AM  
slykens,

You can exchange ambassadors, talk to a former enemy, etc. without engaging in commerce with them, particularly allowing the sale of ANY type of military equipment.
 
Displayed 50 of 208 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  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.

Report