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.

(Think Progress)   From the you have got to be kidding me files: Fox News Praises George W. Bush's Ability To Anticipate Problems In Iraq   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Martha MacCallum, Prime Minister of Iraq, Andrew Card, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, world leaders, Maliki, President George W. Bush, U.S. military  
•       •       •

5065 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2014 at 4:15 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-17 07:11:02 PM  
FOX News praises FOX News on FOX News' praising of FOX News praising...
 
2014-06-17 07:11:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: Neither party is going to save you, me or us because neither party has in any interest in saving anything, nor do they work for anybody who does.

Ooh ooh is this another thread where you fail to get anyone to believe that both sides are the same, and bought (or not bought, depending on the post) by corporations?


I feel for the poor guy. Despair is a sorrowful mistress.
She's kinda fat, and ugly, too.
 
2014-06-17 07:13:11 PM  
Fox News praises Fark.com's readers for posting original, cogent remarks then moving on.
 
2014-06-17 07:18:19 PM  
got to re-write history somehow I suppose
 
2014-06-17 07:37:31 PM  

fartacus: "Think Progress"

[c2.staticflickr.com image 250x272]


I thought you stopped reading in the third grade.
 
2014-06-17 07:40:44 PM  

RyogaM: svanmeter: I agree with your analysis ryogaM. I believe that Obama would be fine with allowing ISIS to "fester" as you say, but their festering in a highly valuable OIL area will result in Obama taking action.

One question I have is whether Obama can have his Nobel peace prize revoked for using violence to further his OIL interest$.

I agree that Iran has been the Iraqis' puppet master since 2008, but I also feel that their threat of involvement caused Obama to send in aircraft carriers. In this way, Obama has added himself to Iran's stable of puppets.

No, you really don't get it. We were attacked by al Qaeda in Afghanistan, an oil poor country and Obama has used and will use drones on al Qaeda proper members in areas regardless of whether the area is oil rich or poor.  ISIS has made itself a legitimate target be being too extreme for al Qaeda, beheading people for Youtube and generally being asses.  That they may control oil rich land at this point will not inform Obama's reason to use drones, as his main consideration is, and always will be, to attack al Qaeda linked groups that may pose a threat to to Americans, at home and abroad.

As for Iran, the fact that their enemies at this time also happens to be a legitimate potential threat to U.S. interests certainly is lucky for them, but since the only other option is to let them gain strength and potentially pull off another 9/11, it hardly makes us Iran's puppet to kill them now.  It actually serves a nice warming to Iran, that our interests will always be paramount.

But, I could be wrong.  If Obama uses military force on ISIS, all you got to do is find one poll that says the majority of Americans think it was because of oil, not because ISIS appears to be a threat.  Good luck.


Well ryogaM you're not following the news apparently. Obama has sent in the first ground troops:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/16/iraq-insurgency/1 0 569133/

You would love it if Obama could kill remotely with ObamaDrones, but now he has sent in the first troops.

He said he wouldn't get involved, then he changed course and sent aircraft carriers. He said he wouldn't send in ground troops but now he has.

Why the change?

OIL, OIL, OIL

Iran threatened to get involved and he couldn't allow their influence to cross the Iraqi border... Sooo he gets involved. Now he's Iran's fool.

You claim he's protecting US interests, but if that was the case he wouldn't have pulled out.

Now he looks worse than Bush, because his motive$ are even less pure: OIL, OIL, OIL
 
2014-06-17 08:00:37 PM  
Fox Praises Brownie for Doing a Heck of a Job.
 
2014-06-17 08:18:37 PM  
Faux News praises James O'Keefe for his honesty and fairness in journalism.
 
2014-06-17 08:20:20 PM  

tbeatty: Well, compared to what we have now, Bush was frickin' psychic (okay, he only has to be reasonably competent to outpace this administration).  Bush looks better and better everyday Obama is president.  Yesterday, half the apologists for Obama claimed no one could have seen this coming when he pulled troops out and the other half said it's obvious that the absence of Saddam left a huge power vacuum that would lead to this.   Somehow "unpredictably obvious" is something Joe Biden or John Kerry might say as a legitimate response to incompetence.


You obviously DNRTFA.  You claim "Bush was a frickin' psychic" because he predicted that their would be increased violence and instability in Iraq if US troops were withdrawn and after that psychic insight he signed an agreement that legally bound the US to withdraw its troops.  If Bush was indeed psychic- then his agreement to withdraw troops borders on treason.
 
2014-06-17 08:29:56 PM  

stan unusual: tbeatty: Well, compared to what we have now, Bush was frickin' psychic (okay, he only has to be reasonably competent to outpace this administration).  Bush looks better and better everyday Obama is president.  Yesterday, half the apologists for Obama claimed no one could have seen this coming when he pulled troops out and the other half said it's obvious that the absence of Saddam left a huge power vacuum that would lead to this.   Somehow "unpredictably obvious" is something Joe Biden or John Kerry might say as a legitimate response to incompetence.

You obviously DNRTFA.  You claim "Bush was a frickin' psychic" because he predicted that their would be increased violence and instability in Iraq if US troops were withdrawn and after that psychic insight he signed an agreement that legally bound the US to withdraw its troops.  If Bush was indeed psychic- then his agreement to withdraw troops borders on treason.


Ask Valerie Plame about treasonous acts under Bush.
 
2014-06-17 08:38:34 PM  

tbeatty: Well, compared to what we have now, Bush was frickin' psychic (okay, he only has to be reasonably competent to outpace this administration).  Bush looks better and better everyday Obama is president.  Yesterday, half the apologists for Obama claimed no one could have seen this coming when he pulled troops out and the other half said it's obvious that the absence of Saddam left a huge power vacuum that would lead to this.   Somehow "unpredictably obvious" is something Joe Biden or John Kerry might say as a legitimate response to incompetence.


Republicans made a farking mess.  STFU while adults are cleaning it up.
 
2014-06-17 08:45:42 PM  
If you want the news, watch Fox News. If you're interested in barry's golf score, watch the other 3 networks. According to them, obama is doing a super job as President, nothing to see here, just move along.

Apparently, hard hitting journalism at abc, cbs and the presidents propaganda ministry nbc, means asking the White House what they should report on.
 
2014-06-17 08:48:51 PM  

Launch Code: If you want the news, watch Fox News. If you're interested in barry's golf score, watch the other 3 networks. According to them, obama is doing a super job as President, nothing to see here, just move along.

Apparently, hard hitting journalism at abc, cbs and the presidents propaganda ministry nbc, means asking the White House what they should report on.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-17 08:55:59 PM  

svanmeter: RyogaM: svanmeter: I agree with your analysis ryogaM. I believe that Obama would be fine with allowing ISIS to "fester" as you say, but their festering in a highly valuable OIL area will result in Obama taking action.

One question I have is whether Obama can have his Nobel peace prize revoked for using violence to further his OIL interest$.

I agree that Iran has been the Iraqis' puppet master since 2008, but I also feel that their threat of involvement caused Obama to send in aircraft carriers. In this way, Obama has added himself to Iran's stable of puppets.

No, you really don't get it. We were attacked by al Qaeda in Afghanistan, an oil poor country and Obama has used and will use drones on al Qaeda proper members in areas regardless of whether the area is oil rich or poor.  ISIS has made itself a legitimate target be being too extreme for al Qaeda, beheading people for Youtube and generally being asses.  That they may control oil rich land at this point will not inform Obama's reason to use drones, as his main consideration is, and always will be, to attack al Qaeda linked groups that may pose a threat to to Americans, at home and abroad.

As for Iran, the fact that their enemies at this time also happens to be a legitimate potential threat to U.S. interests certainly is lucky for them, but since the only other option is to let them gain strength and potentially pull off another 9/11, it hardly makes us Iran's puppet to kill them now.  It actually serves a nice warming to Iran, that our interests will always be paramount.

But, I could be wrong.  If Obama uses military force on ISIS, all you got to do is find one poll that says the majority of Americans think it was because of oil, not because ISIS appears to be a threat.  Good luck.

Well ryogaM you're not following the news apparently. Obama has sent in the first ground troops:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/16/iraq-insurgency/1 0 569133/

You would love it if Obama could kill remotely wit ...


The Peshmerga have seized a key northern area of oil production and transport and Obama hasn't said anything at all about rolling that back and won't- it gives the Kurds a more defensible border, preserves their autonomy, and grants a de facto share of the oil wealth that al Maliki and his allies agreed to share with them (just as they agreed to share with the Sunni tribes of the Sunni Awakening too) promises his government has largely reneged on.  Bush knew what a duplicitous character al Maliki was and how beholden he was to Iran long ago.  He gave Ahmadinejad  a royal welcome at the same time he was poking Bush in the eye over negotiations over power sharing, autonomy and federalism with the Sunnis and Kurds.  al Maliki is the one responsible for the mess Iraq finds itself in now, but like the little kid in the old shake and bake commercial W can proudly exclaim "and I helpt!"   http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/02/iraq.ahmadinejad/index.html

The ground troops aren't a large force to roll back ISIS, the Peshmerga or to prop up al Maliki- they're there to secure the embassy and any potential evacuation of Americans and allies if Bagdad falls to the Sunni militias and/or ISIS.
 
2014-06-17 08:58:21 PM  

Launch Code: If you want the news, watch Fox News. If you're interested in barry's golf score, watch the other 3 networks. According to them, obama is doing a super job as President, nothing to see here, just move along.

Apparently, hard hitting journalism at abc, cbs and the presidents propaganda ministry nbc, means asking the White House what they should report on.


Eh. I give it three out of ten idiots.
 
2014-06-17 09:00:03 PM  

stan unusual: The ground troops aren't a large force to roll back ISIS, the Peshmerga or to prop up al Maliki- they're there to secure the embassy and any potential evacuation of Americans and allies if Bagdad falls to the Sunni militias and/or ISIS.


Logic won't work on idiots like that.
 
2014-06-17 09:09:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Launch Code: If you want the news, watch Fox News. If you're interested in barry's golf score, watch the other 3 networks. According to them, obama is doing a super job as President, nothing to see here, just move along.

Apparently, hard hitting journalism at abc, cbs and the presidents propaganda ministry nbc, means asking the White House what they should report on.

Eh. I give it three out of ten idiots.


*shrug* . Five potato.
 
2014-06-17 09:10:45 PM  
This is a great time to be a hajib maker in Iraq.  Lousy time to be a razor blade salesman.
 
2014-06-17 09:14:01 PM  

Launch Code: If you want the news, watch Fox News. If you're interested in barry's golf score, watch the other 3 networks. According to them, obama is doing a super job as President, nothing to see here, just move along.

Apparently, hard hitting journalism at abc, cbs and the presidents propaganda ministry nbc, means asking the White House what they should report on.


Launch Code Praises Failure And Calls Success In The Markets, Employment Rate, Killing Bin Laden In A Place They Wouldn't Touch, Not Having Thousands Of Americans Dying And Other Things In Reality "Propaganda"
 
2014-06-17 09:24:38 PM  

BKITU: Epic Fap Session: Fox News praises Bud Dwyer for his decisiveness keeping his head together during a scandal.


Nice!
 
2014-06-17 09:25:55 PM  

svanmeter: Diogenes: svanmeter: All the finger pointing at this point amounts to taking your eye off the ball. The true question here is Obama acting to protect OIL interest$, or is he being played for a fool by the Iranians to attack their Sunni enemies for them?

So you're refocusing us by pointing a finger at Obama?  I'm really not following your post at all.

If you think Obama is relevant to the ongoing unraveling of Iraq at this point you're really deluding yourself.

There would have been a strong possibility of this happening even if we had fully committed ourselves to Operation Enduring Occupation.  Regardless of who sits in the White House.

I am refocusing by pointing out IRAN's role in forcing Obama's hand. They threaten involvement, which caused Obama to rethink his initial impulse to stay out and blame Bush. Obama changed his mind and then said he "would consider all options" (while he sent in Aircraft carriers). He wanted to do nothing, but the specter of Iranian action caused his reversal. Now Iran can sit back and laugh while Obama does their dirty work against ISIS. Does this clarify it for you or are you still confused? Are you one of those who doesn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq? Let me spell it out for you again... Obama is motivated by protecting OIL interests in the region and he is being played for a fool by the Iranians.


Its always been about oil interests. You aren't sharing anything that is new or shocking to us.
 
2014-06-17 09:28:22 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Whee, 200 comments mocking Fox News for noticing that Dubya's foreign policy prevented the invasion now roiling Iraq.

/keep right on filling your echo chamber with bile
//ain't making Obama's "smart diplomacy" work any better
///just like mocking Sarah Palin didn't make Mrs. Clinton smart enough to keep Putin out of Crimea


BS.

Bush's foreign policy is what allowed Al Qaeda to establish a presence in Iraq which then blossomed into ISIS.

If you're going to lie, can you at least make it sound believable?
 
2014-06-17 09:29:35 PM  

stan unusual: svanmeter: RyogaM: svanmeter: I agree with your analysis ryogaM. I believe that Obama would be fine with allowing ISIS to "fester" as you say, but their festering in a highly valuable OIL area will result in Obama taking action.

One question I have is whether Obama can have his Nobel peace prize revoked for using violence to further his OIL interest$.

I agree that Iran has been the Iraqis' puppet master since 2008, but I also feel that their threat of involvement caused Obama to send in aircraft carriers. In this way, Obama has added himself to Iran's stable of puppets.

No, you really don't get it. We were attacked by al Qaeda in Afghanistan, an oil poor country and Obama has used and will use drones on al Qaeda proper members in areas regardless of whether the area is oil rich or poor.  ISIS has made itself a legitimate target be being too extreme for al Qaeda, beheading people for Youtube and generally being asses.  That they may control oil rich land at this point will not inform Obama's reason to use drones, as his main consideration is, and always will be, to attack al Qaeda linked groups that may pose a threat to to Americans, at home and abroad.

As for Iran, the fact that their enemies at this time also happens to be a legitimate potential threat to U.S. interests certainly is lucky for them, but since the only other option is to let them gain strength and potentially pull off another 9/11, it hardly makes us Iran's puppet to kill them now.  It actually serves a nice warming to Iran, that our interests will always be paramount.

But, I could be wrong.  If Obama uses military force on ISIS, all you got to do is find one poll that says the majority of Americans think it was because of oil, not because ISIS appears to be a threat.  Good luck.

Well ryogaM you're not following the news apparently. Obama has sent in the first ground troops:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/16/iraq-insurgency/1 0 569133/

You would love it if Obama could kill remotely wit ...

The Peshmerga have seized a key northern area of oil production and transport and Obama hasn't said anything at all about rolling that back and won't- it gives the Kurds a more defensible border, preserves their autonomy, and grants a de facto share of the oil wealth that al Maliki and his allies agreed to share with them (just as they agreed to share with the Sunni tribes of the Sunni Awakening too) promises his government has largely reneged on.  Bush knew what a duplicitous character al Maliki was and how beholden he was to Iran long ago.  He gave Ahmadinejad  a royal welcome at the same time he was poking Bush in the eye over negotiations over power sharing, autonomy and federalism with the Sunnis and Kurds.  al Maliki is the one responsible for the mess Iraq finds itself in now, but like the little kid in the old shake and bake commercial W can proudly exclaim "and I helpt!"   http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/02/iraq.ahmadinejad/index.html

The ground troops aren't a large force to roll back ISIS, the Peshmerga or to prop up al Maliki- they're there to secure the embassy and any potential evacuation of Americans and allies if Bagdad falls to the Sunni militias and/or ISIS.


The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any. You will recall that the Vietnam war began with President Kennedy sent in a small force of Green Berets as "trainers". Your Peshmerga info is bang on, but it's not a precise correlation as to the ISIS issue. The Kurds have been selling oil and are not likely to discontinue selling oil to the West. You will agree that ISIS are unlikely to sell to us even in the best scenario... There in lies the rub... Obama is protecting OIL and is acting in the interests of ISIS' enemies Iran. As a consumer I should be happy Obama is protecting gas prices, but I have a son in uniform and Obama's reckless foreign policy is a cause of great concern. The fact that he is now Iran's stooge is also deeply disturbing.

/Obama should hand back his Nobel Peace Prize.

You seem fairly well informed. I'll give you the last word.
 
2014-06-17 09:30:19 PM  
Fox News praises bunner's dedication to commenting in this thread, despite bring repeatedly ignored by Farkers.
 
2014-06-17 09:34:58 PM  
Fox News praises The Great Khali for his superb wrestling.
 
2014-06-17 09:35:42 PM  
Holy crap, there are still people delusional enough to defend Bush's war.
 
2014-06-17 09:46:38 PM  
Fox News praises Miley Cyrus for bringing Osmond-like wholesomeness back to pop music.
 
2014-06-17 09:51:04 PM  

svanmeter: The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any. You will recall that the Vietnam war began with President Kennedy sent in a small force of Green Berets as "trainers". Your Peshmerga info is bang on, but it's not a precise correlation as to the ISIS issue. The Kurds have been selling oil and are not likely to discontinue selling oil to the West. You will agree that ISIS are unlikely to sell to us even in the best scenario... There in lies the rub... Obama is protecting OIL and is acting in the interests of ISIS' enemies Iran. As a consumer I should be happy Obama is protecting gas prices, but I have a son in uniform and Obama's reckless foreign policy is a cause of great concern. The fact that he is now Iran's stooge is also deeply disturbing.


Realizing "Hmm...maybe my gut reaction isn't the best." seems like a sign of a good leader to me, unlike...say...signing a pledge to not raise the debt ceiling no matter what.

Am I happy that military action is being pondered in favor of a country that can only barely be called an "ally" in any sense of the word?  No.  However, the fact that our interests and Iran's might line up in favor of us taking that action does not mean they're cracking the whip on us, it means we're probably going to do something we don't want to do but need to, and they'll happen to benefit from it too.
 
2014-06-17 09:51:46 PM  
Fox News praises Kent Hovind's flawless scientific rigor.

/actually, they probably would do that.
 
2014-06-17 09:55:30 PM  

svanmeter: Now he looks worse than Bush, because his motive$ are even less pure: OIL, OIL, OIL


Oh look, somebody who actually believed Bush's contrived BS reasons.

When the US does anything in the middle east it's always about oil.
 
2014-06-17 09:56:23 PM  
Fox News praises Microsoft on creating an "iPod killer" with its new Zune digital music player.
 
2014-06-17 10:00:48 PM  

Arumat: svanmeter: The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any. You will recall that the Vietnam war began with President Kennedy sent in a small force of Green Berets as "trainers". Your Peshmerga info is bang on, but it's not a precise correlation as to the ISIS issue. The Kurds have been selling oil and are not likely to discontinue selling oil to the West. You will agree that ISIS are unlikely to sell to us even in the best scenario... There in lies the rub... Obama is protecting OIL and is acting in the interests of ISIS' enemies Iran. As a consumer I should be happy Obama is protecting gas prices, but I have a son in uniform and Obama's reckless foreign policy is a cause of great concern. The fact that he is now Iran's stooge is also deeply disturbing.

Realizing "Hmm...maybe my gut reaction isn't the best." seems like a sign of a good leader to me, unlike...say...signing a pledge to not raise the debt ceiling no matter what.

Am I happy that military action is being pondered in favor of a country that can only barely be called an "ally" in any sense of the word?  No.  However, the fact that our interests and Iran's might line up in favor of us taking that action does not mean they're cracking the whip on us, it means we're probably going to do something we don't want to do but need to, and they'll happen to benefit from it too.


I'm glad as FARK that my husband is on the down side of being medically retired. He was deployed more than home the last 10 years with the JSTARS. The war mongerers are welcome to volunteer to serve or offer their children up to serve. Those that have actually done it the last decade are worn plumb out.
 
2014-06-17 10:13:01 PM  

freetomato: I'm glad as FARK that my husband is on the down side of being medically retired. He was deployed more than home the last 10 years with the JSTARS. The war mongerers are welcome to volunteer to serve or offer their children up to serve. Those that have actually done it the last decade are worn plumb out.


If he was with the JSTARS I might have known him.  I was with the 116th from 2003-2009.
 
2014-06-17 10:14:38 PM  
Everyone pitches in to help retards.
 
2014-06-17 10:22:30 PM  
Fox news praises Whitney Houston for her ability to hold her breath.
 
2014-06-17 10:48:14 PM  

Arumat: freetomato: I'm glad as FARK that my husband is on the down side of being medically retired. He was deployed more than home the last 10 years with the JSTARS. The war mongerers are welcome to volunteer to serve or offer their children up to serve. Those that have actually done it the last decade are worn plumb out.

If he was with the JSTARS I might have known him.  I was with the 116th from 2003-2009.


Highly likely. He flew his ass off during that time. I was TG in the same unit, and retired in Jan of this year FINALLY thank God. Quite likely we know the same people,
 
2014-06-17 10:55:41 PM  

svanmeter: stan unusual: svanmeter: RyogaM: svanmeter: I agree with your analysis ryogaM. I believe that Obama would be fine with allowing ISIS to "fester" as you say, but their festering in a highly valuable OIL area will result in Obama taking action.


<snip>

The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any. You will recall that the Vietnam war began with President Kennedy sent in a small force of Green Berets as "trainers". Your Peshmerga info is bang on, but it's not a precise correlation as to the ISIS issue. The Kurds have been selling oil and are not likely to discontinue selling oil to the West. You will agree that ISIS are unlikely to sell to us even in the best scenario... There in lies the rub... Obama is protecting OIL and is acting in the interests of ISIS' enemies Iran. As a consumer I should be happy Obama is protecting gas prices, but I have a son in uniform and Obama's reckless foreign policy is a cause of great concern. The fact that he is now Iran's stooge is also deeply disturbing.

/Obama should hand back his Nobel Peace Prize.

You seem fairly well informed. I'll give you the last word.


We've done the training bit the chances that we'd return to it are slim and none.  I agree with you on Kurdish oil- they will continue to sell it to the West- and events might make Turkey rethink their hostility to the Kurds and conclude it's worth the risk of Kurdish unrest in Turkey to have the de facto Kurdish state as a buffer between them and the Sunni-Shia proxy war to the south.  Obama hasn't committed to the US doing any fighting on behalf of Iran and the shiite faction in Iraq on one hand or the Iraqi Sunni militias backed by the Saudis and their Gulf allies who've entered a marriage of convenience with ISIS on the other.  We'd be hard pressed to use airpower or insert significant numbers of troops on the ground to directly aid any Iranian forces that might try to prop up al Maliki since the bases those strikes would come from and where troops ground troops would stage from are in Sunni gulf states and/or the Kingdom.  The Ayatollahs aren't about to allow the Great Satan any military forces to be stationed on their territory and there's no reason to aid the Sunni militias while they're in bed with ISIS.  The best we can do is try to keep the fighting contained to Syria and Iraq and let Iran, the Kingdom and their allies know that if they're eager for a renewed struggle to declare once and for all what is "the true faith" of Islam they'll have to do it with their own blood and treasure and be prepared for the US and western allies to cry "a pox on both your houses."

I hope I'm right and I hope your son (and everyone else's) isn't thrust into the middle of this thankless mess.
 
2014-06-17 10:55:56 PM  

freetomato: Arumat: freetomato: I'm glad as FARK that my husband is on the down side of being medically retired. He was deployed more than home the last 10 years with the JSTARS. The war mongerers are welcome to volunteer to serve or offer their children up to serve. Those that have actually done it the last decade are worn plumb out.

If he was with the JSTARS I might have known him.  I was with the 116th from 2003-2009.

Highly likely. He flew his ass off during that time. I was TG in the same unit, and retired in Jan of this year FINALLY thank God. Quite likely we know the same people,


Small world, but if he was a flier it would be more likely I'd have run into you.  The only time I saw the fliers in uniform was when I was moving equipment to help get the planes off the ground.
 
2014-06-17 11:05:02 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Fox News praises bunner's dedication to commenting in this thread, despite bring repeatedly ignored by Farkers.


ytimg.googleusercontent.com
"Except for you.  You took a hit for the Farkers.  The true Farkers."

/And the ascii atheists bust people's balls about THEIR imaginary friend.
//Mother of moose this place is a bad sitcom.
/// Not a good one.  A bad one with crappy writers.   :  )
 
2014-06-17 11:08:50 PM  

Arumat: freetomato: Arumat: freetomato: I'm glad as FARK that my husband is on the down side of being medically retired. He was deployed more than home the last 10 years with the JSTARS. The war mongerers are welcome to volunteer to serve or offer their children up to serve. Those that have actually done it the last decade are worn plumb out.

If he was with the JSTARS I might have known him.  I was with the 116th from 2003-2009.

Highly likely. He flew his ass off during that time. I was TG in the same unit, and retired in Jan of this year FINALLY thank God. Quite likely we know the same people,

Small world, but if he was a flier it would be more likely I'd have run into you.  The only time I saw the fliers in uniform was when I was moving equipment to help get the planes off the ground.


If you haven't, join the 116th FB group. Fun and nostalgic.

/might know you
 
2014-06-17 11:13:58 PM  
Fox News praises Lindsay Lohan for her chastity, sobriety and modesty.
 
2014-06-17 11:17:29 PM  

jso2897: If Bush knew what was going to happen all along, why did he invade in the first place?
Yeah, I know. Dumb question.


granted; we're all working on the assumption that he wanted to avoid these problems...
 
2014-06-17 11:20:57 PM  

svanmeter: stan unusual:

The ground troops aren't a large force to roll back ISIS, the Peshmerga or to prop up al Maliki- they're there to secure the embassy and any potential evacuation of Americans and allies if Bagdad falls to the Sunni militias and/or ISIS.

The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any.


I could swear there's been an awful lot of biatching and moaning about us not having adequately secured our consulate in Benghazi. Does that ring a bell at all? But here you are saying we shouldn't send any troops to secure the embassy in Baghdad because Obama said he wouldn't send any. That is truly brilliant.
 
2014-06-17 11:31:28 PM  
Fox News praises Kirstie Alley on maintaining a successful diet plan.
 
2014-06-17 11:44:09 PM  

freetomato: Arumat: freetomato: Arumat: freetomato: I'm glad as FARK that my husband is on the down side of being medically retired. He was deployed more than home the last 10 years with the JSTARS. The war mongerers are welcome to volunteer to serve or offer their children up to serve. Those that have actually done it the last decade are worn plumb out.

If he was with the JSTARS I might have known him.  I was with the 116th from 2003-2009.

Highly likely. He flew his ass off during that time. I was TG in the same unit, and retired in Jan of this year FINALLY thank God. Quite likely we know the same people,

Small world, but if he was a flier it would be more likely I'd have run into you.  The only time I saw the fliers in uniform was when I was moving equipment to help get the planes off the ground.

If you haven't, join the 116th FB group. Fun and nostalgic.

/might know you


Dropped an e-mail to your ultrafark.
 
2014-06-17 11:49:07 PM  

Arumat: svanmeter: The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any. You will recall that the Vietnam war began with President Kennedy sent in a small force of Green Berets as "trainers". Your Peshmerga info is bang on, but it's not a precise correlation as to the ISIS issue. The Kurds have been selling oil and are not likely to discontinue selling oil to the West. You will agree that ISIS are unlikely to sell to us even in the best scenario... There in lies the rub... Obama is protecting OIL and is acting in the interests of ISIS' enemies Iran. As a consumer I should be happy Obama is protecting gas prices, but I have a son in uniform and Obama's reckless foreign policy is a cause of great concern. The fact that he is now Iran's stooge is also deeply disturbing.

Realizing "Hmm...maybe my gut reaction isn't the best." seems like a sign of a good leader to me, unlike...say...signing a pledge to not raise the debt ceiling no matter what.

Am I happy that military action is being pondered in favor of a country that can only barely be called an "ally" in any sense of the word?  No.  However, the fact that our interests and Iran's might line up in favor of us taking that action does not mean they're cracking the whip on us, it means we're probably going to do something we don't want to do but need to, and they'll happen to benefit from it too.


Nah no whip cracking necessary. All Iran needed to do was hint that they would get involved and Obama lurched into action sending aircraft carriers. He can't afford to have the Iranians anywhere near those oil fields. Obama took the bait.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/world/middleeast/as-sunni-milita n ts-threaten-its-allies-in-baghdad-iran-weighs-options.html?_r=0&referr er=
 
2014-06-17 11:58:13 PM  

DrBenway: svanmeter: stan unusual:

The ground troops aren't a large force to roll back ISIS, the Peshmerga or to prop up al Maliki- they're there to secure the embassy and any potential evacuation of Americans and allies if Bagdad falls to the Sunni militias and/or ISIS.

The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any.

I could swear there's been an awful lot of biatching and moaning about us not having adequately secured our consulate in Benghazi. Does that ring a bell at all? But here you are saying we shouldn't send any troops to secure the embassy in Baghdad because Obama said he wouldn't send any. That is truly brilliant.


Nope you couldn't be more wrong. I'm not opposed to protecting our people. I'm opposed to a president who says he won't get involved then he does, only because he doesn't want the Iranians to fill the void:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/world/middleeast/as-sunni-milita n ts-threaten-its-allies-in-baghdad-iran-weighs-options.html?_r=0&referr er=

Now he looks like Iran's biatch. I wish he would come clean and confess that all he is interested in are the OIL fields that ISIS would control. He also worries that Iranian involvement would endanger OIL production from those same fields. Violence in the name of OIL is not becoming of a Nobel Prize Winner.
 
2014-06-18 12:05:51 AM  
"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn't.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn't have.  ...  Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more," he said. "This must end now. Now can't we come together on that?"

- Glenn Beck 6/17/14

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/glenn-beck-iraq-war_n_55054 24 .html
 
2014-06-18 12:14:32 AM  
Puh-leeze, everytime Bush goes to take a leak Fox News drops to their news and starts salivating.
 
2014-06-18 12:15:13 AM  

svanmeter: DrBenway: svanmeter: stan unusual:

The ground troops aren't a large force to roll back ISIS, the Peshmerga or to prop up al Maliki- they're there to secure the embassy and any potential evacuation of Americans and allies if Bagdad falls to the Sunni militias and/or ISIS.

The point is not the mission of the force on the ground, it's the fact that Obama told us he wouldn't send any.


I could swear there's been an awful lot of biatching and moaning about us not having adequately secured our consulate in Benghazi. Does that ring a bell at all? But here you are saying we shouldn't send any troops to secure the embassy in Baghdad because Obama said he wouldn't send any. That is truly brilliant.

Nope you couldn't be more wrong. I'm not opposed to protecting our people. I'm opposed to a president who says he won't get involved then he does, only because he doesn't want the Iranians to fill the void:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/world/middleeast/as-sunni-milita n ts-threaten-its-allies-in-baghdad-iran-weighs-options.html?_r=0&referr er=

Now he looks like Iran's biatch. I wish he would come clean and confess that all he is interested in are the OIL fields that ISIS would control. He also worries that Iranian involvement would endanger OIL production from those same fields. Violence in the name of OIL is not becoming of a Nobel Prize Winner.


Oh? I'm only going by your own comments. And in response to someone pointing out the purpose of the forces being sent in, you pretty clearly stated that you didn't care why they were there, and that it was a problem no matter what because he said he wouldn't send any troops.

So now you say you do want him to protect the embassy and US citizens there, just not with any troops? You're not making a whole lot of sense. Or if you are, you're being painfully inconsistent in trying to do so.
 
Displayed 50 of 446 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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