Waxing_Chewbacca: Jesus farkin Christ! To the right I say this... The situation in Lybia Vs Iraq could not BE more different. We have a measured response in conjuvtiin with our allies. And secret ops... You farkin think!? Sort of standard. My support for this action and my opposition to Iraq are based on the exact same pragmatic reasons. Wipe the smug off your face... It's dribbling down your chin.

To my friends on the left... Grow a set and grow up. Nations have national interest that at times must be protected with blood.

So you admit this is about oil?

"President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday."

What part of SECRET do you Farkers not get?!?!

crispyone: Nickdude: GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.

I'm perfectly okay with that. And with assassinations. We have high caliber rifles that can fire a bullet accurately from a mile away and we cant land a headshot on some of these dictators?

I too am 100% fine with assasinations. Think how many lives would have been spared by a sniper talking off Saddams head.

And the actual range of todays sniper rifle is closer to 1.5 miles. Also, when the bullet is traveling at supersonic speeds it doesn't even have to be a head shot. A glancing abdominal shot will still spread the targets intestines all over the place.

Also if his location is know with any decent degree of certainty, I'm fine with ramming a Tomahawk up Ghadafi's arse and accepting the colateral damage as most of the colateral damage would be his lackey supporters.

Carter prohibited political assassinations. It also takes time to target cruise missiles and then have them travel.

YixilTesiphon: Waxing_Chewbacca: Jesus farkin Christ! To the right I say this... The situation in Lybia Vs Iraq could not BE more different. We have a measured response in conjuvtiin with our allies. And secret ops... You farkin think!? Sort of standard. My support for this action and my opposition to Iraq are based on the exact same pragmatic reasons. Wipe the smug off your face... It's dribbling down your chin.

To my friends on the left... Grow a set and grow up. Nations have national interest that at times must be protected with blood.

So you admit this is about oil?

Oil. The new democracies to the east and west of Lybia... Tunisia and Egypt. And yes... The possibilty of mass slaughter. ALL aspects must be considered and weighed and the response must be proportional to US interests threatened. Spreading democracy and keeping peace is an interest but not enough of one I'm and of itself to use combat forces.

So, how does Newt Gingrich's Open Fly Zone play into this? Does this mean Gingrich can now go back to having covert sex with lisbians?

Establish a no fly zone. Take out Gadaffi

No wait. Do NOT establish a no fly zone. Do NOT take out Gadaffi.

Which opinion does Newtie the Magic Penis have today?

Waxing_Chewbacca: YixilTesiphon: Waxing_Chewbacca: Jesus farkin Christ! To the right I say this... The situation in Lybia Vs Iraq could not BE more different. We have a measured response in conjuvtiin with our allies. And secret ops... You farkin think!? Sort of standard. My support for this action and my opposition to Iraq are based on the exact same pragmatic reasons. Wipe the smug off your face... It's dribbling down your chin.

To my friends on the left... Grow a set and grow up. Nations have national interest that at times must be protected with blood.

So you admit this is about oil?

Oil. The new democracies to the east and west of Lybia... Tunisia and Egypt. And yes... The possibilty of mass slaughter. ALL aspects must be considered and weighed and the response must be proportional to US interests threatened. Spreading democracy and keeping peace is an interest but not enough of one I'm and of itself to use combat forces.

Christ I hate typing on the iPhone.

Hell, we gave them an air force.

No fly zone, prevent civilian casualties, prevent Kdaffys troops from being assholes and attacking...

Nothing was said/done about preventing both sides from attacking anything. Obviously, this was done to get Kdaffy out of power. Blow up one side and not the other...what other conclusion could you make?

Personally, I would have said (with military might) "all you assholes, STOP. Gov troops, rebels, whomever. STOP and figure it out with no bloodshed.
We will enforce this if you push. Anything larger than a .22, we get to blow up"

/discuss among yourselves

Waxing_Chewbacca:
Oil. The new democracies to the east and west of Lybia... Tunisia and Egypt. And yes... The possibilty of mass slaughter. ALL aspects must be considered and weighed and the response must be proportional to US interests threatened. Spreading democracy and keeping peace is an interest but not enough of one I'm and of itself to use combat forces.

Oil
Spread democracy
Potential of mass slaughter (vs actual slaughter via poison gas)

Thank you George Bush for posting on fark. I would pay for your fark membership, but I suspect you could afford it yourself.

TheShavingofOccam123: So, how does Newt Gingrich's Open Fly Zone play into this? Does this mean Gingrich can now go back to having covert sex with lisbians?

Establish a no fly zone. Take out Gadaffi

No wait. Do NOT establish a no fly zone. Do NOT take out Gadaffi.

Which opinion does Newtie the Magic Penis have today?

why the thread jack (afraid of what people are realizing about obama?) does it matter what Newt thinks?

this is a thread about Obama's secret war.
If you want to post about Newt, start a thread about that.

crispyone: It's funny to see the roles totally reversed and see the same Dems that attacked Bush so openly now saying, "Hey, it's unpatriotic to question the Pres at a time like this".

It's called sarcasm numbnuts.

tenpoundsofcheese: Waxing_Chewbacca:
Oil. The new democracies to the east and west of Lybia... Tunisia and Egypt. And yes... The possibilty of mass slaughter. ALL aspects must be considered and weighed and the response must be proportional to US interests threatened. Spreading democracy and keeping peace is an interest but not enough of one I'm and of itself to use combat forces.

Oil
Spread democracy
Potential of mass slaughter (vs actual slaughter via poison gas)

Thank you George Bush for posting on fark. I would pay for your fark membership, but I suspect you could afford it yourself.

He wasn't wrong on the goals of US foreign policy... He was an absolute moron as to how to go about reaching those goals... You know... A moron like yourself.

/ Libs like you make me and every other member of the sensible wing of the democratic party look bad.

That's dumb, don't arm them. How hard can it be to bomb a path to Tripoli for some dudes with AK-47s so they can shoot Qaddafi, say "you're welcome!" to the Libyans, "hot potato!" to the Arab League/African Union, and then fly away into the sunset playing some bad-ass music?

WHY YOU....!!!!

tenpoundsofcheese:

this is a thread about Obama's secret war.
i>

SHHHHUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSS, it's a secret!

Tunisia. Egypt. Now Libya, Syria, Bahrain.

What would happen if the general population in Iran (the biggest kid on the block) were to go as anti-gov batshiat as in Libya. And Amadinnerjacket and the mullahs brought out the military and started blowing shiat up (much worse than last time).

Do we crank up a no fly zone over Tehran? A civilian protection zone?

WWOD?
WWND?
What would you do?

/I know its a hypothetical, but not that far out of possibilities
//WWYD
///discuss among yourselves

AdolfOliverPanties: crispyone: And one question....Why are no liberals screaming "No blood for oil"??? Anybody with half a brain knows that Britian and especially France were pushing for military action because they have huge oil interests in Lybia. Again the hypocrisy is so thick you need a chainsaw to cut through it all.

If this turns from air support and secret intel gathering into troops on the ground, I can assure you "the liberals" will be screaming about it.

Right now they are talking and openly criticizing the president over this little "squirmish," (something not many Repubs EVER did for the last POTUS.)

If this escalates, the liberalsphere will lose their farking shiat.

So in liberal eyes, war for oil is ok as long as no boots are on the ground?

I think my point still stands. If a republican president were doing the exact same thing as Obama is currently doing there would be protests on the mall and people calling the president a murderer.

The way I see it in the past ten years we've delt with 2 of the most incompetent presidendts in the history of America.

GAT_00 [TotalFark] 2011-03-30 04:47:29 PM
Ok, now this is starting to annoy me. As I said, wait until April before we break out the anti-war stuff since this was only supposed to be a week. If we actually get involved on this level this is going to eventually scale up to an actual war.

Hell, this could easily put a Republican in the White House....

// as early as next week, hopefully.
This shiat has gone too far, its nutz.
next thing we gonna hear is nukes being used over there
american nukes.
cmon Congress!
Impeach that pitt

crispyone: war for oil is ok as long as no boots are on the ground?

i>

You do realize that if there are planes in the air we got kids on the ground pointing lasers towards targets painting them for the planes?

You mean the CIA wasn't there already?! Saying there are CIA present in world hot spots is like saying the desert has sand. It doesn't really constitute a startling revelation or any sort of significant escalation.

I mean, really, spooks on the ground doing their job accomplish two things:
1. Help the side we openly support
2. Keep an eye on the side we openly support so we have a clue what we're dealing with

I hate to be a doomsayer, i think US troops -Openly- in Libya in about 2 weeks.
Major, unheard of unrest in ME soon after.
Then, Iran make its move.
Chance of nuke usage = 95%

IMPEACH NOW!

Panty Sniffer: crispyone: Nickdude: GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.

I'm perfectly okay with that. And with assassinations. We have high caliber rifles that can fire a bullet accurately from a mile away and we cant land a headshot on some of these dictators?

I too am 100% fine with assasinations. Think how many lives would have been spared by a sniper talking off Saddams head.

And the actual range of todays sniper rifle is closer to 1.5 miles. Also, when the bullet is traveling at supersonic speeds it doesn't even have to be a head shot. A glancing abdominal shot will still spread the targets intestines all over the place.

Also if his location is know with any decent degree of certainty, I'm fine with ramming a Tomahawk up Ghadafi's arse and accepting the colateral damage as most of the colateral damage would be his lackey supporters.

Carter prohibited political assassinations. It also takes time to target cruise missiles and then have them travel.

What Carter did can be undone and I realize the time limits of a cruise missile. I'm talking more about intel that, "He's staying here for the night" not, "Well, he may be here for a few hours."

YouPeopleAreCrazy: What would happen if the general population in Iran (the biggest kid on the block) were to go as anti-gov batshiat as in Libya. And Amadinnerjacket and the mullahs brought out the military and started blowing shiat up (much worse than last time).

Do we crank up a no fly zone over Tehran? A civilian protection zone?

Unlikely on all counts. Geopolitics and the advancement of national interests are no place for some absurd, imagined philosophical consistency that ignores the importantly differing realities of specific circumstances (despite some surface similarities). Constructing that fiction is important to "lol, ur obama fellating hypocrite" trolling however.

webthing01: Obama in 2002: Toppling Brutal Dictator a 'Dumb War'


President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a "dumb war" and should be opposed.

The "dumb war" Obama was criticizing was the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein. Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power.

News Link (new window)

Iraq was actually a stabilizing force keeping Syria and Iran in check. Our interests were best served by isolating him. Gaddafi has the ability to destabilize a region on the brink of democracy. That is the little extra that makes this so very different than Iraq. Plus we are doing it with allies and the support of the world community. Bush 1 had his was with Iraq right... Complete the mission at hand and GTFO. His boy? Not so much.

Nuance is foreign policy and the far right and the far left are simple children when faced with understanding that.

What "Secret Missions"?

/Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare seeing is believing?

//There was nothing there. There is nothing to see. There will be nothing to see.

///Now walk away.

//// This administration makes me laugh like Max Cady.

GAT_00: crispyone: It's funny to see the roles totally reversed and see the same Dems that attacked Bush so openly now saying, "Hey, it's unpatriotic to question the Pres at a time like this".

It's called sarcasm numbnuts.

It's called "I was not referring to you specifically" numbnuts. I thought that would have been obvious. Unless you happen to be a democrat that bashed Bush and are now saying it's unpatriotic to speakout against Obama. But I'd have no way of knowing that, would I? So obviously, I was not referring to you limpdik.

Rashnu: Unlikely on all counts.

What? The Iranian populace going as nuts as Egypt and Libya? Why is that so far fetched?

Egypt has (so far) been OK. Mubarak realized the situation, and left before shiat got really weird. We shall see what happens in the next year or two.
Libya has not gone so well. Kdaffy seems determined to hang on, even in the face of a strong US/NATO military force blowing all his (and not the rebels) shiat up. Even trying to get him specifically (yeah, tell me that blowing up his personal compound was not trying to blow him up).

When Kdaffy eventually gets pushed out or killed, which I think is likely, tell us why the Iranian population would not feel emboldened to not do the same and get the mullahs and Ahmadinnerjacket out.
Then tell us why they would NOT use their substantial military to try to put down the rebellion. Will they go quietly into the night?

Obviously they are different situations. But what will we do when (not if) that happens?
What will NATO and the US do?

thesubliminalman: crispyone: war for oil is ok as long as no boots are on the ground?

i>

You do realize that if there are planes in the air we got kids on the ground pointing lasers towards targets painting them for the planes?

So is it still ok? And you do understand a hypothetical question don't you?

IF no boots are on the ground is it still ok to shed blood for oil?

Sandsnake: You mean the CIA wasn't there already?! Saying there are CIA present in world hot spots is like saying the desert has sand. It doesn't really constitute a startling revelation or any sort of significant escalation.

I mean, really, spooks on the ground doing their job accomplish two things:
1. Help the side we openly support
2. Keep an eye on the side we openly support so we have a clue what we're dealing with

Of course there's no CIA there, Obama has admitted he gets his intelligence information from CNN.

Mark my words,
Whatever y'all think Bush did wrong,
This 0bama Dude will exceed 100 times over.
Farg'n Caligula in the white-house,
now getting stained with blood.
Again

invading libya the same way we invaded vietnam. backing into it reluctantly. this won't work at all.

Thank you nobel peace prize.

Apparently if you win the nobel peace prize you get to kill as many people as you want and they don't count.

cuz yer the democrat messiah.

Barakku: Iirc we're not in actual declared wars in afghanistan or iraq either

You recall incorrectly. No lesser authority than the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a Congressional authorization to use force is a declaration of war. Since there were Congressional authorizations passed for both Afghanistan and Iraq, those are, indeed, declared wars.

it's a good thing we don't kill our citizens who disagree with...

oh, nevermind...we don't even wait for them to do anything.

anyone remember waco, or are y'all too young?
the UN should have called for slick willie's ouster.

You call that support??

Fark that! I'm sending them a couple of Jedi Knights!

/the lightsabers can stop bullets and mortar shells too
//it just works that way

Wow, how original. This doesn't seem to happen in, say, every conflict we've ever been in, does it?

The hypocrisy of the Obama nuthuggers is so farking epic. Seriously, I'm laughing so farking hard I'm going to wake up sore.

GaryPDX: This little nugget FTFA is interesting...

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Same shiat going on in Pakistan.

We probably coulda saved a lot of money and troops lives if we had just taken this covert activity stance with Iraq and Afghanistan instead of sending 150K people over at 2 billion a month.

meanwhile, obama the admitted pot smoker continues to allow the neo-nazi police state to storm into pot smokers' homes and kill them and their pets.

c'mon man!

tenpoundsofcheese:
this is a thread about Obama's secret war.
If you want to post about Newt, start a thread about that.

But every time a I post a thread about Newtie, the mods refuse to green-light it. They say "Too penisy."

Besides, Newtie was supporting a war in Libya. Then he wasn't. I just felt maybe Newtie could stop banging someone else's wife long enough to clarify his current position on supporting Libyan opposition.

Call me old-fashioned.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Rashnu: Unlikely on all counts.

What? The Iranian populace going as nuts as Egypt and Libya? Why is that so far fetched?

Sorry, I was referring to the specific responses you mentioned in your hypothetical. I don't know what our response would be in Iran, but I can tell you a pair Security Council members would veto any kind of comparable UN backed "no-fly/civilian-protection zones" for one thing and I wouldn't anticipate us declaring war on Iran for humanitarian reasons alone.