Nice shot, Mr. President

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Knowing that the righties were secretly praying that the Captain held hostage by pirates would get his brains blown out... Knowing that the right would've plastered the President with, "I told you so!"... Knowing that the right wouldn't even acknowledge our triumph Sunday, today...

I want to take a moment to say, "Nice shot, Mr. President!". Thank you for giving the order to end the lives of those pirates. Thank you for bringing home "one of our own". Thank you for letting that region know what to expect from us over the next 8 years.

America WILL be safe under Obama.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
funny how you thank a man with no military training 10,000 miles away and you offer not one word of gratitude to the NAVY SEAL Snipers that took them out, in your post

you thanked Obama three times, commended him on a "nice shot" when he didn't shoot, and did not even mention the actual brave Navy Seals who actually put their lives on the line

talk about using anything at your disposal for political purposes...you are just as bad as those "righties".

but also, i have a question...

if you said "nice shot Mr. President" for the Seals nailing three terrorist/pirates, why didn't you say "bad shot Mr. President" when one of our missiles killed a pro-government tribal Pakistani leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child, back in late January?

save your silly posturing.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
yet you didn't bother to congratulate them at all, "jackass" until you were called on it. You thanked the president three times and commended him on the "shot" and did not mention the seals...once.

and btw, Obama did not "give the order"..."jackass"

Commander Frank Castellano who was the Skipper on the Ship gave the order on the spot to take them down when he saw an opportunity..he had received prior approval from the President to attempt a rescue of Captain Richard Phillips by force if his life appeared to be in imminent danger.

the Commander of the ship and the Seal sniper units did it...not the President.

you simply used it to try and needle those "righties" on here for political purposes.

spare me the "altruistic" nature of your post
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy-
you are being a jerk.

In fact, yes, Obama gave the order that the seals could use lethal force.

In fact, YES, the right was pillorying OBAMA for "doing nothing" and calling him names, while Obama simply instructed the Captain to make sure that the situation was optimal before authorizing seal action.

Yes, it was the Seals who executed the operation.

But the point of the OP was that no one on the right was criticizing the Seals' ability. No one was criticizing the Captain for dragging his feet...
No, They were criticizing Obama and the 'left' as being too weak to decisively use military force when faced with just such a situation.

Of course, this is not the first time they have jumped to finger wagging only to have Obama make them look like morons because Obama prefers to PLAN an effective response rather than make a lot of noise about it.


Notaguru's post was directed at the CRITICISM of the president by the Right wingers...

They DID criticize him. He countered that critique.



And you come out claiming that you have deciphered, that his true intent was just to slap back at the right wing?

wow... I am totally underwhelmed at your penetrating ability to discern the obvious.


And saddened that you don't seem to comprehend that neither the Captain nor the Seals would have done shit without the direction and consent of the President.

I suppose you would have taken the position that Churchhill and Roosevelt had no part in the victory in WWII, Or that Lincoln had no impact on the Civil war.

Are you as likely to absolve Johnson for culpability for greenlighting the escalation in indochina?
Or suggest that Bush had nothing to do with the decisions that led us into the morass of iraq?

The indictment of the right was that Obama would turn down military action in favor of 'negotiation"... or that he would fuck up any military action...


That's not what happened. Unlike Bush, he listened to the advice and counsel of the experts under his command (rather than firing any generals whose opinions are not the same as his ) and Obama actively pressed for a decisive solution that gave the pirates nothing.

Sorry, Flashy... The Captain and the Seals did precisely what they were trained and competent to do.
That they got the order to do it, and that that particular plan, out of perhaps half a dozen, was chosen is entirely the President's victory.
 
Last edited:

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
terrorist/pirates? pirates yes, terrorist only in the vain of terrifying shipping in general but you got the word terrorist in the post. congrats.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
funny how you thank a man with no military training 10,000 miles away...

yes, just like you thanked a drunken crook with no military training for keeping us safe for 8 years....................... when in fact we were attacked on his watch!!!

time for you to :bryce:
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
oh and how very nice that President Obama remained calm, quiet and reserved throughout this ordeal - never grandstanding for the cameras, never taking credit, never announcing "mission accomplished", never uttering the word "terrorist"

This is a president that makes me feel safe, and proud.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy-
you are being a jerk.
hmmmm yes...because lauding the president and thanking him 3 times instead of any mention whatsoever of the Seals was an appropriate way to celebrate the resolution of the situation :rolleyes:

Right wingers - Bad
Obama - Amazing
Seals - Huh? Oh...right...the shooters...yeah...Awesome! But Obama...wow...that is *TRIPLE* Awesome. Thank you! Great Shot Obama! All that time in sniper school really paid off!



In fact, yes, Obama gave the order that the seals could use lethal force.
In fact, no, Obama authorized the use of lethal force *IF* there was imminent danger *ONLY* to the captain

In fact, YES, the right was pillorying OBAMA for "doing nothing" and calling him names, while Obama simply instructed the Captain to make sure that the situation was optimal before authorizing seal action.
I do not care what the "right" was doing...he did not instruct the captain make sure the situation was "optimal"...he instructed the use of lethal force if there was *IMMINENT DANGER* to the Captain.

He did not "simply instruct" the captain to make sure the situation was "optimal"

If the instructions had been for "optimal" that would have meant they could shoot or assault at any time they saw an "optimal" opportunity...

big difference in tactics and rules of engagement between Optimal opportunity and waiting for imminent danger.

Optimal means taking an opportunity that presents itself to assault
Imminet Danger means waiting till the situation can no longer continue without the prospect for immediate harm to the hostage and death or injury is imminent.

this is perfectly illustrated, that you are wrong from Admiral Gortney's Q&A

ADM GORTNEY: I want to make one thing perfectly clear, that the on-scene commander determined that the captain was in imminent danger. If he was not in imminent danger, they were not to take this sort of action they were supposed to let the negotiation process work it out.

The on-scene commander took it as the captain was this imminent danger and then made that decision and he had the authorities to make that decision and he had seconds to make that decision.







So, Phil, in fact, Obama was more than willing to keep negotiating and do nothing...he did not in fact give the Seals authorization to act in an "Optimal Situation".








Yes, it was the Seals who executed the operation.

But the point of the OP was that no one on the right was criticizing the Seals' ability. No one was criticizing the Captain for dragging his feet...
No, They were criticizing Obama and the 'left' as being too weak to decisively use military force when faced with just such a situation.
the point of the OP has nothing to do with whatever some a-holes on the Right were doing. Besides...considering that the a-holes on the left made undermining and criticizing everything Bush did no matter what a crusade, can you blame the right for criticizing Obama?



The OP thanked the president three times, and said "nice shot Mr. President"...while not even bothering to mention that it was three SEAL sharpshooters, who, in the dark, 75 feet away, on the deck of a pitching destroyer, each put three bullets into the three respective heads of three pirates on another pitching boat.

one might think a little thanks might be directed *THEIR* way without any prodding, and certainly, in the absence of the thanks from the OP, at least crediting *THEM* with the nice shot, instead of the president would be more appropriate.

or, Phil, maybe you could take a jog down to Coronado, to the Amphibious Base, and hold up a sign saying "Thanks Mr. President....Nice Shot"

after all, he should be thanked for it.


Of course, this is not the first time they have jumped to finger wagging only to have Obama make them look like morons because Obama prefers to PLAN an effective response rather than make a lot of noise about it.
I do not care what the idiots on the right do...but tell me something Phil...how exactly did Obama authorizing the use of lethal force by special forces designed exactly for these situations, amount to "planning an effective response" rather than making noise about it?

do you think Obama had a little map on his desk and was saying..."okay" i want the seals stationed on the aft deck...and i want to make sure...blah blah blah.

spare me the nonsense...

George W. Bush may be the biggest retard in the history of the Oval Office, but President's do not plan an "effective response" to these types of temporary crisis situations...they give orders to the military command, that either authorizes the use of force or does not, through rules of engagement.

No president or leader plans an "effective response" to these situations...all special forces in almost every situation are in control on the ground, and they virtually always receive authorization beforehand to assault if there is a point in time when there is either

A. An absolutely optimal moment to attempt to end the siege, which is very uncommon.

or


B. An absolutely vital moment when the hostages or captives are in imminent and immediate danger of being harmed or have already begun to be harmed.

Operational Control and the authorization of force are two totally different things.


Notaguru's post was directed at the CRITICISM of the president by the Right wingers...

They DID criticize him. He countered that critique.
funny...he countered that "critique" by claiming, with absolutely no knowledge, that Obama's critics secretly wanted the captain to have his brains blown out.

yes...talk about unfair criticism.

he managed to

1. Accuse critics of wanting the prisoner to be killed
2. Thank the president three times, even though he was busy most of yesterday doing photo ops with the portuguese water dog.
3. Commend the President for the "Nice Shot"
4. Not thank or praise the Seals, or the on site commander, who actually are the real heroes, at all.


And you come out claiming that you have deciphered, that his true intent was just to slap back at the right wing?

wow... I am totally underwhelmed at your penetrating ability to discern the obvious.
I never deciphered it...it was pretty obvious that the OP had no intention of actually simply resting on the facts of the situation

And saddened that you don't seem to comprehend that neither the Captain nor the Seals would have done shit without the direction and consent of the President.
Completely incorrect. Even without Obama's "consent" if the pirates had begun to attempt to execute the hostage, before any formal authorization, the SEALs would rightly shoot to kill before receiving authorization.

Special Forces operate under certain guidelines, at all times, with the absence of direct orders from the White House. No Special Forces Unit would allow hostages to be killed while waiting for the president to give them "direction"

the fact that this was a protracted situation, allowed for time to frame the rules of engagement that the President's military advisors presented to the president and that he approved


I suppose you would have taken the position that Churchhill and Roosevelt had no part in the victory in WWII, Or that Lincoln had no impact on the Civil war.
On an operational military level?

Absolutely not.

Commander In Chief is not an official military rank. Presidents do not plan operations, they are not generals. they are given options through the chain of command, and are asked to authorize military force.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Are you as likely to absolve Johnson for culpability for greenlighting the escalation in indochina?

Or suggest that Bush had nothing to do with the decisions that led us into the morass of iraq?
You are suggesting that authorizing a massive war is somehow the same as simply allowing special forces to do what they are trained to do in hostage situations? Hostage events are situational, they are not long term strategic goals.

in a hostage situation, there are decided outcomes and they form a combination of potential endings

1.The hostage(s) are released/escaped/killed.Attacker(s) taken or surrender
2. The hostage(s) are released/escaped/killed.Attacker(s) are killed
3. The hostage(s) are released/escaped/killed.Attacker(s) escape

The indictment of the right was that Obama would turn down military action in favor of 'negotiation"... or that he would fuck up any military action...
kindly show me where the entire "right" had indicted Obama on those terms...

and as a matter of fact, he did turn down military action in favor of negotiation...he authorized the use of force only in the case of the imminent danger of the hostage.

so until they turned even more violent and threatening, he was in favor of negotiation.

as proven above by the comments of the admiral as to what the orders were....

keep negotiating no matter what, unless there was imminent danger.


That's not what happened. Unlike Bush, he listened to the advice and counsel of the experts under his command (rather than firing any generals whose opinions are not the same as his ) and Obama actively pressed for a decisive solution that gave the pirates nothing.
hmmmm.... i see...so now you are back to Bush...so tell me, when was the last time Bush had to deal with a hostage situation like this?

just a tad different scenario...but don't let that stop you.


Sorry, Flashy... The Captain and the Seals did precisely what they were trained and competent to do.
why is that something to be sorry about? what they were trained and "competent" do, is one of the most difficult and unpredictable tasks possible.



That they got the order to do it, and that that particular plan, out of perhaps half a dozen, was chosen is entirely the President's victory.
you are completely laughable...

the "particular plan" out of "half a dozen" was chosen and was the president's victory?

what are you, retarded as well as a know-it-all now phil?


so tell me Phil, what were the other "half a dozen" plans?

what total nonsense. the president did not "choose" the plan. The President authorized force *ONLY* if the hostages life was in imminent danger.

the "plan" did not consist of anything other than Snipers on the back deck of the ship, who, as in almost all hostage situations, keep up continual surveillance and readiness.

what were the other assault plans Phil? The boat was held in tow, 75 feet away...any movement towards the boat, would have brought the killing of the hostage, as was seen in the threats they made when initial approaches wre made towards the boat by the Navy.

Obama did not "choose" the plan.

the snipers were on full alert to fire in case of imminent danger. Fortunately, the pirates were dumb enough to stick their head and shoulders above the level of obstruction.

was that in Obama's "Plan"?

Obama is not an operational commander. He is at the top of the chain of command...plans on the operational level are planned and carried out by commanders based on the situation, not by the president, unless it is a large pre planned raid, that has political factors, or violates sovereign territory.

the president never approves operational level plans at the tactical level...he approves courses of action, which are carried out at the operational level.




you are totally absurd at times, Phil...as i said....take a jog down to Coronado...

ask them if this was "the President's Victory".


So let us stress this again Phil...the President was not on the phone with the commander of the Bainbridge *EVER*

he never approved some 1 plan out of 6 as you absurdly stated.

it was a *STANDING ORDER* as confirmed by Admiral Gortney

Obama never authorized a rescue at all. that is a fact.


but Obama is truly truly amazing...wow...great shot mr. president.
 

sparky11point5

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
471
Media
0
Likes
85
Points
173
Location
Boston
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy, dude, you are over reacting.

The OP was about the politicization of the hostage situation by Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. The right wing deserves a bitch slap for betting on some disaster, and they are just getting it.

Who gave the order, the Seals, etc are just distractions here. As long as the right continues to try to politicize every issue -- like Gingrich calling the coverage of Bo the Whitehouse dog 'stupid' or criticizing Obama for appearing on Leno -- they will continue to look bad. Sure, they might score some political points, but is it worth it?
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy, dude, you are over reacting.

The OP was about the politicization of the hostage situation by Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. The right wing deserves a bitch slap for betting on some disaster, and they are just getting it.

Who gave the order, the Seals, etc are just distractions here. As long as the right continues to try to politicize every issue -- like Gingrich calling the coverage of Bo the Whitehouse dog 'stupid' or criticizing Obama for appearing on Leno -- they will continue to look bad. Sure, they might score some political points, but is it worth it?

to be perfectly honest sparky, you are certainly one of the posters i have alot of respect for here, but i find the"policitizing" of the hostage situation no worse in this regard than what democrats did to Bush on countless hundreds of occasions with regards to military situations.

can you blame the right for putting Obama in their firing line?


The OP, started this "non-political" thread about Bush...

Fuck Bush and his "ally" Pakistan.

http://www.lpsg.org/111779-pakistan-no-friend-u-s.html?highlight=Bush


now, considering that Obama policy in Pakistan has not changed one iota from the Bush Policy, can you really blame those on the right for criticizing this administration so harshly?

As i have stated i find tons of things to disagree with on both sides of th aisle...but when a side who has spent the past 8 years viciously attacking and politicizing everything Bush has done, even the most trivial things, can those same folks in all honesty get so up in arms when turnabout is fair play?

There were folks on here ripping Bush that he had started drinking again and all sorts of vile highly politicized speech, that many could dub "unfair" or overly harsh...

when the chickens come home to roost, can their honestly be any complaints from one side or the other who chooses to behave the same way?

Republican or Democrat, you reap what you sow. Now it is the democrats turn and it will likely continue to get worse and nastier of the next 4 or 8 years.

neither party has the right to point a finger at those meanies across the aisle.

as for the right continuing to "politicize" every single issue, well, doesn't the left do that too?



as for the coverage of the White House Dog...well, yes, it is rather stupid. That is one thing i agree with Gingrigh on.

I love dogs...and it is always cute to see the presidential pets, like when Buddy the retriever was first introduced to that asshole, Socks The Cat.

but let's face it...it is stupid.

it does not matter whether it is Bo with his absurd hawaiian leis, or Socks the asshole, or Barney and Ms. Beazley, or Millie etc...

people love dogs, but come on...it is exceptionally stupid, no matter what party or what pet is in the White House.

If the media devoted as much time to engendering public outrage over a despicable federal government that has spent this country into insolvency over the past 40 years and shows no signs of stopping, as it does to Bo, the hypo-allergenic new first pet, maybe things would get better in this country.


As it is, the nonsense by both the OP and the "righties" he decries, are justifiably in my opinion, critiqued properly by me, as totally absurd.

just two nasty, unproductive, partisan ideologies with no interest in fact and only interest in sniping at each other.

both the OP, and those on the right are exactly the same person.

they bring nothing of substance to the table, cheer every little tidbit of news or bullshit they can spin to their advantage, all the while thumbing their nose across the aisle on their mirror images.

this forum is merely a microcosm of that, and the ugliness gets worse every day.

it is precisely because of people like the OP and those who mirror him on the other side, that this country is so far fucked beyond belief.

it makes me sick.

they would much rather snipe than solve and i find both equally loathsome.

the only problem is that now with the new folks in power, they are complaining loudly about being treated with incredible cruelty and shabbiness, by those out of power, after they did the exact same thing when roles were reversed for the previous 8 years.

It is hypocrisy and stupidity at its highest, most obnoxious, most rancid levels.

sorry for ranting. you are not the focus of my ire, sparky.
 

sparky11point5

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
471
Media
0
Likes
85
Points
173
Location
Boston
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy, I guess my point is that there is a difference between politics as usual (as old as human communities) and politicizing an ongoing hostage crisis or the trivial. I hate to think what would have been said about a liberal commentator, if there were a conservative President in a similar situation.

For the record, presidential dog stories, are stupid, but part of our culture. Gingrich should have just said, "nice dog" and moved on. If at 10 years old, I acted like Gingrich, my Nana would have gotten the willow switch for bad manners.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Knowing that the righties were secretly praying that the Captain held hostage by pirates would get his brains blown out...

No that's the left a la "Iraq is a failure" still saying we "lost" that.

Thank you for giving the order to end the lives of those pirates. Thank you for bringing home "one of our own". Thank you for letting that region know what to expect from us over the next 8 years.

He didn't give the order, he ok'd the action. The FBI, military and others pulled everything together, Pres Obama ok'd the use of force and the recommendations presented to him. It was a good call, regardless. Good to see he is realizing you can't "talk" and "negotiate" with the pirates.

America WILL be safe under Obama.

I hope you're right. Even though this was thousands and thousands of miles away from America. But since you are keeping score, an American ship should of never been captured in the first place, no?
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
In fact, no, Obama authorized the use of lethal force *IF* there was imminent danger *ONLY* to the captain

I do not care what the "right" was doing...he did not instruct the captain make sure the situation was "optimal"...he instructed the use of lethal force if there was *IMMINENT DANGER* to the Captain.

So, Phil, in fact, Obama was more than willing to keep negotiating and do nothing...he did not in fact give the Seals authorization to act in an "Optimal Situation".
You are splitting hairs here Flashy. Obama gave the order for the pirates to be killed if the Captain was judged by the captain of the Bainbridge to be in imminent danger of being killed. Which, of course, could be seen as being true at any point.

As soon as an order like that is given in such a situation, it's only a matter of time. It's tantamount to saying "Take them out ASAP and end it". The captain had been in "imminent danger" from the get go.
 
M

Mr Ed in Mass

Guest
yes, just like you thanked a drunken crook with no military training for keeping us safe for 8 years....................... when in fact we were attacked on his watch!!!

time for you to :bryce:

He was a fighter pilot,why don't you tell use about YOUR military experience?
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
yes, just like you thanked a drunken crook with no military training for keeping us safe for 8 years....................... when in fact we were attacked on his watch!!!

time for you to :bryce:


where did i thank George Bush for that, please? I think george w. bush is the worst president in history. our intelligence services, special forces and military deserve credit for keeping us safe. Not George W. Bush.

and certainly not Barack Obama.

if you are going to tell someone to shut up, you could at least get the facts right.

-George W. Bush did in fact have military training...or is being trained and able to fly a Delta Dagger F102 fighter plane not military training? i would say that qualifies as military training, wouldn't you genius? You are in fact far dumber than George W. Bush...which is quite a feat.

-Do you have proof that in the last 8 years, George W. Bush was a "drunken crook"?
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
He was a fighter pilot,why don't you tell use about YOUR military experience?

Gays and lesbians are barred from serving in the military. If he'd been allowed to serve, chances are he would have at least considered it. The GI bill/ROTC is nothing to sneeze at: who wouldn't want an education, excellent job training and a big help up with one's first mortgage in exchange for three or four years of one's life? It's how my dad did it.