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.

(Fox News)   The United States is preparing to send troops to a third-world nation in order to support the French army. Nothing like this has ever ended badly before in the history of ever   (foxnews.com) divider line 231
    More: Stupid, French Army, United States, Special Warfare, French forces  
•       •       •

10509 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2013 at 8:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-15 09:39:02 AM

varmitydog: 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.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.


Ya think? Gosh, wouldn't the American People see that?

durbanvilleproperties.co.za

Actually, I could have several possible responses to your post. Which ones do you think would be most PC and in keeping with the visual issues faced by this poor little dog? I was gonna suggest "Do you think it might be the Jews?" but I see this has already been covered by one of our meme-spouting, stereotype-loving Fark Liberals.
 
2013-01-15 09:55:55 AM
See? SEE?

You let Mansa Munsa be a friend early game because, hey, he's no Montezuma! But then all that money starts rolling into his coffers and he keeps there quite-like.. So when you are busy with that frakkin' war with frikkin' Suryvarman suddenly BAM! You hear that horn sound and Mansa's placid kindly face pops up all angry and you are at War. Next thing you know your lightly defended city 'far away' from the fronline is up to its ass with a stack of knights and trebuchets.

Farkin' Malis! We should NEVER have signed an Open Borders with you!
 
2013-01-15 09:57:51 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Why in the f*ck are we spending money on this sh*t?


Because you need to save me. America come protect me. What have I ever done to you?
 
2013-01-15 10:02:09 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: varmitydog: 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.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ya think? Gosh, wouldn't the American People see that?

[durbanvilleproperties.co.za image 250x199]

Actually, I could have several possible responses to your post. Which ones do you think would be most PC and in keeping with the visual issues faced by this poor little dog? I was gonna suggest "Do you think it might be the Jews?" but I see this has already been covered by one of our meme-spouting, stereotype-loving Fark Liberals.


Joe Blowme is a Liberal?
 
2013-01-15 10:07:23 AM

Koman Coulibaly: Tat'dGreaser: Why in the f*ck are we spending money on this sh*t?

Because you need to save me. America come protect me. What have I ever done to you?


"Ask not what you have done to America, ask what America can make you do for it."
 
2013-01-15 10:12:35 AM

cynicalbastard: sweet-daddy-2: miss diminutive: Can't they just send Cajuns and kill two birds with one stone?

But who would make our gumbo?

Wouldn't sending Cajuns just be another form of gumbo diplomacy?



media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-15 10:14:34 AM

spacelord321: Koman Coulibaly: Tat'dGreaser: Why in the f*ck are we spending money on this sh*t?

Because you need to save me. America come protect me. What have I ever done to you?

"Ask not what you have done to America, ask what America can make you do for it."


OK. OK. Next time I'll swallow the whistle.

/though it was an obvious call.
 
2013-01-15 10:20:24 AM

spacelord321: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: varmitydog: 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.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ya think? Gosh, wouldn't the American People see that?

[durbanvilleproperties.co.za image 250x199]

Actually, I could have several possible responses to your post. Which ones do you think would be most PC and in keeping with the visual issues faced by this poor little dog? I was gonna suggest "Do you think it might be the Jews?" but I see this has already been covered by one of our meme-spouting, stereotype-loving Fark Liberals.

Joe Blowme is a Liberal?


I assumed so, since his "Let me guess, the Jews own both parties right?" seemed to be a shot at the normal hate-filled fascist kkkonservative obsession that Teh Jooooz are at fault for everything bad in the world.
 
2013-01-15 10:25:39 AM

Joe Blowme: fusillade762: It's OK, we're just there as advisers.

And its a democrat sending the advisors.... whoops, just like last time.


I had no problem with going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam . Killing commies , Islamic facists or brutal dicators is never a bad thing even if not the primary reason. My complaint was not in fighting the wars but how they were fought.

Vietnam we played prevent defense. Did not try to win but only tried not to lose. Our military was forced to fight with one hand behind its back.

He will win who has the military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. - Sun Tzu

Afghanistan - Should have stuck with what worked in 2001.. Use Special Ops and Marines (who have good history with this sort of thing) working with/paying off the various tribes to fight the Taliban. The concept of Afghanistan as a modern nation is stupid. Should have installed the monarchy and paid the various wraloads and tribal leaders to remain loyal (cheaper in the long run). The surge was a stupid idea. Afghanistan is not Iraq on so many levels to apply a similar solution to both speaks of a high degree of miiltary incompetence for my money.

Iraq, Should have gone for partioning inot Kurdish , Shia and Sunni nations. These people cannot play well together.  Or just handed the whole thing over to theTurks who have way of keeping Arabs under control.
 
2013-01-15 10:43:08 AM
img856.imageshack.us

/Just saying...
 
2013-01-15 10:50:20 AM

Koman Coulibaly: spacelord321: Koman Coulibaly: Tat'dGreaser: Why in the f*ck are we spending money on this sh*t?

Because you need to save me. America come protect me. What have I ever done to you?

"Ask not what you have done to America, ask what America can make you do for it."

OK. OK. Next time I'll swallow the whistle.

/though it was an obvious call.


I hope you and yours are far removed from the fighting. From one human to another, good luck.

That said, any veiwpoints you wish to share about this would be appreciated by myself, and likely others.
 
2013-01-15 11:42:21 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: revrendjim: Okay, how about William of Normandy.

Clearly a Viking.

Look, France has its heroes too, you just have to dig a bit deeper. Louis XIV? If not Napoleon, then many of his generals were tactically brilliant and quite French. I seem to remember a couple standouts in the Thirty Years' war as well, but my history fails me there. Charles the Bold had the ball rolling for a while, too, before he got cocky.


Marshal Ney.

/ American ( & British) ignorance about this stuff is very irritating
 
2013-01-15 11:42:38 AM

hasty ambush: PsiChick: You've seen some of our defense budget, right? Spent on things like a parking lot full of tanks the Army actually said they don't want and nuclear weapons we do not need in the slightest? Money doesn't have to grow on trees. We just need to stop trying to overfund the military.

Have you seen social spending. Only 30% of means tested welfare spending reaches the recipients 70% goes toward overhead (admin and regulating) Not to mention welfare money used in strip joints and to buy booze . Combined means tested welfare spending in 2012 (State+Federal) was almost $1 trillion dollars. MEDICARE (not means tested but should be) admits to loosing between $50 billion to $80 billion a year to waste fraud and abuse. But we must not reform any of those programs because it means starving people or some such nonsense according to some.

Snvieling about defense spending would be more credible if it was done in conjuction with all inefficient government spending.,


citationneeded.jpeg
 
2013-01-15 12:14:50 PM

MinkeyMan: [img856.imageshack.us image 610x448]

/Just saying...



It's hard to believe that, if that guy were to open his mouth, French would probably come out.
 
2013-01-15 12:59:42 PM
The United States is preparing to send troops

Where does it say that, subby?
 
2013-01-15 01:28:43 PM
Fine, whatever.
If you asshats insist on funding a supremely bloated military, then you damn well better use it.

The only thing worse than paying for a suspersized military we don't need, is paying for one we don't need and isn't doing anything.

So sure, invade whatever. Kill whatever. If you won't let me stop paying for it, then at least give me some value for my money.

\Serious
\\American, so I don't have to care about other countries.
 
2013-01-15 01:44:03 PM

PsiChick: hasty ambush: PsiChick: You've seen some of our defense budget, right? Spent on things like a parking lot full of tanks the Army actually said they don't want and nuclear weapons we do not need in the slightest? Money doesn't have to grow on trees. We just need to stop trying to overfund the military.

Have you seen social spending. Only 30% of means tested welfare spending reaches the recipients 70% goes toward overhead (admin and regulating) Not to mention welfare money used in strip joints and to buy booze . Combined means tested welfare spending in 2012 (State+Federal) was almost $1 trillion dollars. MEDICARE (not means tested but should be) admits to loosing between $50 billion to $80 billion a year to waste fraud and abuse. But we must not reform any of those programs because it means starving people or some such nonsense according to some.

Snvieling about defense spending would be more credible if it was done in conjuction with all inefficient government spending.,

citationneeded.jpeg



"In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion. Total spending from all sources reached $927 billion.

$927 billion amounts to $19,082 for each American defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau. However, since some means-tested assistance goes to individuals who are low-income but not poor, a more meaningful figure is that total means-tested aid equals $9,040 for each lower-income American (i.e., persons in the lowest-income third of the population).

If converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to bring the income of every lower-income American to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, roughly $44,000 per year for a family of four. (This calculation combines potential welfare aid with non-welfare income currently received by the poor.)

However, this simple calculation can be misleading because many persons with incomes above the official poverty levels also receive means-tested aid. Although programs vary, most means-tested aid is targeted to persons in the lowest-income third of the population. Thus, a more accurate sense of average total welfare spending per recipient can be obtained if total welfare aid is divided among all persons within this larger group. Dividing total means-tested aid by all persons in the bottom third of the income distribution results in average welfare spending of $9,040 per person in 2011, or around $36,000 for a family of four

79 Assistance Programs

The 79 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. The federal welfare state includes:

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent over the same period.

Means-tested spending on cash, food, and housing increased more rapidly (196 percent) than Social Security (174 percent). The growth in means-tested medical spending (448 percent) exceeded the growth in Medicare (376 percent).[2] The growth in means-tested aid greatly exceeded the growth in government spending on education (143 percent) and defense (126 percent).

Another way of examining spending levels is to look at welfare spending on families with children. In FY 2011, total means-tested spending was $927 billion. About half of this spending ($462 billion) will go to families with children. (Around one-third of this spending went to medical care.)

If the $462 billion in welfare spending were divided equally among the lowest-income one-third of families with children (around 14 million families), the result would be around $33,000 per low-income family with children"

" 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the
poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving
the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies
supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private
charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar
donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to
recipients. Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), the
newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by
various criteria and supply that information to the public on their
web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated
spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services
they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent.
The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample
was only 10.3 percent.

Link

Link
 
2013-01-15 01:57:00 PM

hasty ambush: PsiChick: hasty ambush: PsiChick: You've seen some of our defense budget, right? Spent on things like a parking lot full of tanks the Army actually said they don't want and nuclear weapons we do not need in the slightest? Money doesn't have to grow on trees. We just need to stop trying to overfund the military.

Have you seen social spending. Only 30% of means tested welfare spending reaches the recipients 70% goes toward overhead (admin and regulating) Not to mention welfare money used in strip joints and to buy booze . Combined means tested welfare spending in 2012 (State+Federal) was almost $1 trillion dollars. MEDICARE (not means tested but should be) admits to loosing between $50 billion to $80 billion a year to waste fraud and abuse. But we must not reform any of those programs because it means starving people or some such nonsense according to some.

Snvieling about defense spending would be more credible if it was done in conjuction with all inefficient government spending.,

citationneeded.jpeg


long-ass quotes ...


The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank, not an actual research group, and their information therefore cannot be counted as up to the standards of a legitimate research group. I linked to the wiki, but I'm sure you can find that out by clicking on their homepage.

I'm not even going to bother explaining why a  self-titled Journal of  Libertarian Studies has the same problem, since it should be damn well self-explanatory.

Perhaps I should have said  validcitationneeded.jpeg.
 
2013-01-15 01:59:17 PM

ACallForPeace: casual disregard: Deconstruct a bit here: an avowed Socialist government is waging war against a communist-terrorist revolutionary movement.

If the good guys lose here, we all lose what little progress we have made in Africa. We can't lose this one. We just can't.

As far as I know the "revolutionary movement" is just a bunch of radical Islamic fundamentalists.
The communists were more or less sidelined by the Islamists and "put down arms" not in the sense of de-militancy but cutting strategic losses.
And there are no "good guys:". There's imperialist powers using fighting terrorism as a casus belli to intervene and regain control of valuable resources fighting a bunch of deluded farkers killing people on behalf of fairy tails. I suppose a good unintended side effect would be a more secular society in the long run, but even then we're more likely to face radicalization and blowback.
But then again I'm not an "American liberal" (Democrat/conservative) or even a normal liberal. I'm a libertarian socialist.


Awesome. I'm a progressive minarchist. I wonder what the overlap is.
 
2013-01-15 02:00:59 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: spacelord321: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: varmitydog: 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.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ya think? Gosh, wouldn't the American People see that?

[durbanvilleproperties.co.za image 250x199]

Actually, I could have several possible responses to your post. Which ones do you think would be most PC and in keeping with the visual issues faced by this poor little dog? I was gonna suggest "Do you think it might be the Jews?" but I see this has already been covered by one of our meme-spouting, stereotype-loving Fark Liberals.

Joe Blowme is a Liberal?

I assumed so, since his "Let me guess, the Jews own both parties right?" seemed to be a shot at the normal hate-filled fascist kkkonservative obsession that Teh Jooooz are at fault for everything bad in the world.


I know him as a "glass parking lot" kinda guy, not normaly a liberal stance. I'm sure there is more to him than that, but he presents that mentality often.
 
2013-01-15 02:43:56 PM

MinkeyMan: [img856.imageshack.us image 610x448]

/Just saying...


DIdn't realize The Rock was French.

/though the lack of Emma Watson in the pic made him hard to identify.
 
2013-01-15 03:41:37 PM

varmitydog: 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.
Just Another OC Homeless Guy :
Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power?


Obama pretty much HAD to keep Kharzai, the same way Nixon pretty much had to keep whatever schmuck Johnson had propped up in 'Nam.

Not saying it was a good call, just that perhaps it was the least-shiatty call possible.

Personally I think the nation-building is a waste of time and money, no matter which party is in charge, so you're right to that extent, certainly.
 
2013-01-15 03:53:06 PM

spacelord321: Wayne 985: 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.

What is a theocracy, if not a form of economic and political leadership bound together by religion? Do not underestimate your fellow humans by declaring crazy those with motivations you do not understand.


They're not clinically insane, but their logic is fundamentally absent. Demanding monetary equality is a far cry from believing that a sky bully has commanded you to bury a woman up to her neck in sand and stone her to death for showing too much leg.
 
2013-01-15 04:09:18 PM

Wayne 985: spacelord321: Wayne 985: 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.

What is a theocracy, if not a form of economic and political leadership bound together by religion? Do not underestimate your fellow humans by declaring crazy those with motivations you do not understand.

They're not clinically insane, but their logic is fundamentally absent. Demanding monetary equality is a far cry from believing that a sky bully has commanded you to bury a woman up to her neck in sand and stone her to death for showing too much leg.


I think the point is that they haven't killed tens of millions of people in a matter of decades like certain other groups. Killing tens of millions of people for non-compliance to arbitrary rules that change within days is scarier to me than killing a few thousand people for not following rules that are centuries (or admittedly even sometimes only decades) old.
 
2013-01-15 11:36:18 PM
So much outrage over training some French troops.
 
2013-01-16 12:51:57 AM

Wangiss: I think the point is that they haven't killed tens of millions of people in a matter of decades like certain other groups. Killing tens of millions of people for non-compliance to arbitrary rules that change within days is scarier to me than killing a few thousand people for not following rules that are centuries (or admittedly even sometimes only decades) old.


The Viet Cong killed "tens of millions of people"? When? The comparison people made was to Vietnam, which was asinine.
 
2013-01-16 10:46:06 AM

Wayne 985: Wangiss: I think the point is that they haven't killed tens of millions of people in a matter of decades like certain other groups. Killing tens of millions of people for non-compliance to arbitrary rules that change within days is scarier to me than killing a few thousand people for not following rules that are centuries (or admittedly even sometimes only decades) old.

The Viet Cong killed "tens of millions of people"? When? The comparison people made was to Vietnam, which was asinine.


The Viet Cong were puppets for the people who killed tens of millions. You can do this thinking thing; I have faith in you.
 
2013-01-17 12:12:47 PM

Wangiss: The Viet Cong were puppets for the people who killed tens of millions. You can do this thinking thing; I have faith in you.


Invading Vietnam was stopping Red China and the Soviet Union from starving people? This is the stupidest thing I've seen in recent memory, and I read Fark daily.
 
2013-01-17 12:26:07 PM

Wayne 985: Wangiss: The Viet Cong were puppets for the people who killed tens of millions. You can do this thinking thing; I have faith in you.

Invading Vietnam was stopping Red China and the Soviet Union from starving people? This is the stupidest thing I've seen in recent memory, and I read Fark daily.


Well, congratulations, because you wrote it, not me.
 
2013-01-17 12:37:09 PM

Wangiss: Well, congratulations, because you wrote it, not me.


You have no point, friend. You've moved the goal posts and changed the comparison a few times over.
 
2013-01-18 01:52:03 AM

Wayne 985: Wangiss: Well, congratulations, because you wrote it, not me.

You have no point, friend. You've moved the goal posts and changed the comparison a few times over.


Man! And I was trying to change the world with Fark! I guess I'll have go back to Sunrider.
 
Displayed 31 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report