Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Liberals are taking our liberties you ignoramus

And exactly what liberties are the "liberals" taking from you?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

How did the "war on drugs" work out for you?

Why do you bring up shit we're not supposed to be discussing on here?

I'll say this generally about LIBERALS and "wars on ______________" ...

(fill in the blank with whatever suits your fancy) ....

... to avoid "wars" they simply pretend the "enemy" doesn't exist ... or ..

... is so "junior varsity" and "insignificant" they are not worthy of attention OR

... they just "legalize" it .... "end of problem"!!!!!

What does a Liberal do with 12 million ILLEGAL ALIENS .... LEGALIZE THEM!

What does a Liberal do about the terrorists killing people .... MARGINALIZE THEM!

Obaminable has a problem:

He can't use the military in the U.S. and he's disarming and trashing the police.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You really need to upgrade with an app for that. Geeezzz.

roflmao. ...good one LL!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And exactly what liberties are the "liberals" taking from you?

I'm trying to take nevergaveitathought ' s ignorance on subject matters and replace it with informative information but he clings to his guns and ignorance like Rock Hudson did to a nut sack full of jizz!



.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why do you bring up shit we're not supposed to be discussing on here?

I'll say this generally about LIBERALS and "wars on ____Afghanistan Iraq __________" ...

(fill in the blank with whatever suits your fancy) ....

... to avoid "wars" they simply pretend the "enemy" doesn't exist ... or ..

... is so "junior varsity" and "insignificant" they are not worthy of attention OR

... they just "legalize" it .... "end of problem"!!!!!

What does a Liberal do with 12 million ILLEGAL ALIENS .... LEGALIZE THEM!

What does a Liberal do about the terrorists killing people .... MARGINALIZE THEM!

Obaminable has a problem:

He can't use the military in the U.S. and he's disarming and trashing the police.

Whoosh, over your head again lexie, you are really making a ass of yourself.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why do you bring up shit we're not supposed to be discussing on here?

We can speak in general terms about the failed war on drugs. Jeez. Just like we can talk about the failed war on poverty and the failed war on terror.


.



.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And exactly what liberties are the "liberals" taking from you?

Don't expect a coherent answer from any of these jolly jokers.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

But, getting back to the hearts and minds argument, what do you do when the populace is ALREADY aligned against you?

If the Afghan population is willing to look the other way when AQ or the Taliban train in their country and then launch attacks outside their country, then their hearts and minds have already been lost. At that point, might it be the case that the only way to get them to change their behavior is "smoking ruins and crying widows"?

I don't think the Afghan populace is wholly or necessarily aligned against us. Many of them don't know what is going on. When we tried to explain 9/11 to illiterate Afghan villagers a decade ago, most of them had no idea what we were talking about. They don't like the Taliban but there is little security outside the local village and tribe so they go along to get along.

The whole picture is different depending on whether you are trying to win over a population that is concentrated or dispersed, urban or rural, located in mountains, desert towns, or jungles. That's a quick & dirty explanation of why our successful counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq's Anbar Province back in 2006 could not be easily duplicated in Afghanistan.

ISIS makes the Afghan Taliban look like choir boys. They aren't subtly trying to win hearts and minds in Syria and Iraq. They are slaughtering thousands of non-Sunni Muslims, forcing adults to cower in fear while they brainwash the young. In doing so, ISIS is sowing the seeds of its own demise, but it won't happen if the world does nothing.

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And exactly what liberties are the "liberals" taking from you?

"Free speech, freedom of religion and guns," speedy.

Houston's Mayor subpoenas pastors’ sermons in gay rights ordinance case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...88d_story.html

‘Fairness’ is censorship

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the dim-retard leadership are so certain they are right to support the “Fairness Doctrine,” why not bring a measure - any measure - to a floor vote? For a year, Mrs. Pelosi and friends have prevented movement on one Republican measure to kill this Orwellian “doctrine” idea once and for all. They do this because they know the House would act sensibly given the chance. The House showed its intent last summer, when a majority of 309 approved a one-year Fairness Doctrine moratorium attached to a financial-services bill, over the dim-retard leadership’s opposition. It is censorship, and ordinary House members are rightly having none of it.

.... top dim-retards have said repeatedly that they would like to bring the Fairness Doctrine back. Sen. Dick Durbin (D) told the Hill newspaper a year ago that “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. … I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) said around the same time that because “talk radio is overwhelmingly one way,” she would be “looking at” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

Why radio should be singled out among all our many media options, or whether government should be making these purely editorial decisions, are questions these would-be censors never explore. Americans have probably never previously enjoyed so much political news and opinion as they do now thanks to the rise of the Internet coupled with older modes such as cable television, radio and print. Some of it is “liberal,” some of it is “conservative.” Radio happens to be predominantly conservative. But the notion that there exists a “scarcity of airwaves” which requires the regulation of content is downright laughable. Never justified, it is exponentially more absurd today than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...is-censorship/

“If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Old-T, you mean “populace” (noun) not “populous” (adjective).

I have no problem with trying to learn from Che Guevara or Ho Chi Minh and understand how they thought. I do have a problem with calling Che a “winner”. His efforts during the 1960s to export the Cuban revolutionary model to the rest of Latin America were an abject failure. He badly misjudged the societies of many Latin countries as being ripe for Marxist upheaval. He was a megalomaniac who died an inglorious death in the jungles of Bolivia. The only “hearts and minds” he won were posthumously in US academia and leftist mythology.

Regarding ISIS, I question how much of its success was a result of driving a wedge between the government and the populace. I think it was a simple case of expanding into vacuums where the governing authority was already weak or absent. Assad abandoned large swaths of Syria. Malaki never controlled Anbar. In places like Raqqa and Mosul, ISIS now is the government. The insurgents are in charge. Should we therefore act as insurgents – bombing and disrupting food, water and power to convince people that ISIS can't protect them or keep them from starving? Winning hearts and minds is tricky and fleeting in a culture where everyone practices deceit. I'm not sure how to win but I know ISIS is vulnerable because most Sunnis in Syria and Iraq don't want to live under its strict and brutal Sharia rules. We must figure it out fast before ISIS entrenches itself. I agree we need to understand the culture - that's a cliché. It didn't help our learning curve when we stupidly pulled out of Iraq in 2011 and abandoned the relationships we had so carefully cultivated with the Anwar tribes who expelled al queda during the 2006 Awakening. Why did we throw all that away? Oh yeah – domestic politics.

I am not overly concerned about Col. Peters. I certainly don't regard him as a “very dangerous man” who advocates “mass killing of civilians”. That's a complete distortion. He is right when he scorns Obama's handling of the situation. Even you said we need to make (unspecified) changes in our approach. The POTUS should not be poring over surgical strike options. He should be working on the politics of rebuilding our ties to Iraqi Sunnis, leveraging the Kurds, and pressuring the Turks to do the right thing. It is a delicate task and one that Obama is clearly not up to.

Thanks for responding, although I still don't see how the teachings of Che Guevara are of much use in defeating ISIS. Perhaps I need the long version.

+1

Batista lost Cuba when he lost Eisenhower.

[Old-T]

Lusty, agree with your points on both Afghanistan and ISIS.

We took far too long to understand what makes Afghan tribal societies tick, and when we finally had people start to understand, we reacted by convincing ourselves "that can't be the way they think--we don't think that way". And we continued to speak concepts they did not understand, did not care about, or was inapplicable to their culture. And as a result we made little to no progress. They don't wish to be a central Asian US.

And with ISIS, the stupidest thing we can do is act indiscriminately brutal and make ISIS look like not so bad an alternative. We don't need to drive people to begrudgingly accept ISIS because they see us as even more scary. But first we need to have a realistic vision of a desired end state. Bush bought into C Rice's unrealistic utopia of an Iraq in our image and likeness. Obama has no discernable vision at all. So we have 14 years of either doomed policy or no policy. Wow, what a choice that is. If you want to start to truly fight ISIS, start with three things. They aren't sufficient but they are necessary.

1. Depoliticise it at home. Make the Muslim radicals understand they can no wait out a US regime change and get a win by default.

2. Reconstitute a massive PR campaign based on understanding the target population--similar to Radio Free Europe, etc.

3. Start building good relations with the Kurds.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Free speech, freedom of religion and guns," speedy.

.

And please tell us exactly how the LIBERALS have taken away your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and guns.

I can say pretty much anything I want unless it is considered libel or dangerous to others, such as yelling "Fire" in a movie theater.

I practice the religion of my choice openly and freely.

No, you do not have the absolute freedom concerning guns that you would like. However, the majority of the people are very content with gun control as it stands today. According to the Gallup poll, 85% of the people polled believe that the laws covering sales of firearms should be stricter (47%) or kept the same (38%). So I guess 85% of the people must be Liberals.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And please tell us exactly how the LIBERALS have taken away your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and guns.

I can say pretty much anything I want unless it is considered libel or dangerous to others, such as yelling "Fire" in a movie theater.

I practice the religion of my choice openly and freely.

No, you do not have the absolute freedom concerning guns that you would like. However, the majority of the people are very content with gun control as it stands today. According to the Gallup poll, 85% of the people polled believe that the laws covering sales of firearms should be stricter (47%) or kept the same (38%). So I guess 85% of the people must be Liberals.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

85% liberals ???
I hope not. I believe a good number of that 85% are ignorant and vote with their emotions and not their intellect.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[timpage]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Until this administration, it's followers and supporters recognize who the real enemy is nothing is going to change.

Shit! They think the Christian Right is a greater threat than radical Islam.
That the Tea Party Patriots are the enemy instead of ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, et al.

They're all 180 degrees out of phase. Wake the fuck up!

You're an idiot and this post exemplifies it.

Do you really think that anybody but the brain-damaged posters on here take bizarre sweeping utterly untrue generalizations like these seriously?

Fuck off back to the shallow end of the pool moron.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And please tell us exactly how the LIBERALS have taken away your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and guns.

I can say pretty much anything I want unless it is considered libel or dangerous to others, such as yelling "Fire" in a movie theater.

I practice the religion of my choice openly and freely.

No, you do not have the absolute freedom concerning guns that you would like. However, the majority of the people are very content with gun control as it stands today. According to the Gallup poll, 85% of the people polled believe that the laws covering sales of firearms should be stricter (47%) or kept the same (38%). So I guess 85% of the people must be Liberals.

Already posted the evidence, speedy. Your failure to appreciate its meaning is wholly your problem, speedy.