Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Just curious what you all think of this?

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    Default Just curious what you all think of this?

    Retired Colonel Allen West is the real deal. He is from southern Florida, a bastion of the Democratic Party. He was just elected in November 2010 to Congress from Florida .

    This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq . He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured.
    At the same time his men had captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men. Knowing that time was crucial and his interrogators were not getting anywhere with the prisoner, COL West took matters into his own hands.
    He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken. The prisoner refused so COL West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired.
    Then, the COL told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss. So the prisoner said he would show where the American service members were being taken. The Americans were rescued.
    Someone filed a report on incorrect handling of prisoners. COL West was forced to retire. During the elections he was part of a panel on how to handle or how to relate to Muslims.
    YouTube - Sura 9:5 says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them
    "You start the game with a full pot o’ luck and an empty pot o’ experience...
    The object is to fill the pot of experience before you empty the pot of luck."

    Quote Originally Posted by XxStacksxX View Post
    Do you have testicles? If so, learn to bet like it
  2. #2
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,423
    Location
    house
    it is unfortunate that in order to fight an extremism group of people that this man became an extremist himself.
  3. #3
    "Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't" is a very real nature of life. I believe there is no right answer other than realizing there is no right answer. This then means that analyzing the subject does not succeed in broad brushes, but in trying to understand the details and implications and making the best judgment you can

    It's the whole "make the little mistake to avoid the big mistake", yet there's no telling which one is which
  4. #4
    This all seems pretty standard.

    The Col. being forced to retire is necessary as to completely turn a blind eye to something like that when it gets out would be pretty much an endorsement from the establishment. The Col. was obviously acting on excellent information, however if there was a precedent for action like that going unpunished, there would be many cases of that sort of strategy being incorrectly applied.

    He simply sacrificed himself to save one of his men, albeit he sacrificed himself to the establishment.

    I can't see this playing out any differently to how it did.
  5. #5
    he prisoner refused so COL West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired.
    Then, the COL told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss.
    is it clear what this means? didn't watch the youtube link due to internet issues
  6. #6
    I think the Colonel's behavior was right on, and a great solution to the problem. The only difference between how he handled it and how a Shiite militia commander would have handled it, is that the prisoner is still alive. He should get a commendation and be leading a seminar at West Point. WTF is wrong with the politically correct appeasers in his chain of command? It's ridiculous.

    Times have changed. When I was in the army, our BC would regularly have us form up and kneel down while he prayed to God that we would kill our enemies in battle, and that was typical of 82nd commanders. Nowadays, when the idiot pastor in FL wanted to burn the Koran, which is totally his right as an American, Petraeus himself reached out and asked him not to. How about just killing the enemy, general? Ever since Vietnam, politicians have gotten the idea that our military is some super charity we dispatch to 'win hearts and minds' and make friends. That's not how we won ww2.
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by couriermike View Post
    Nowadays, when the idiot pastor in FL wanted to burn the Koran, which is totally his right as an American, Petraeus himself reached out and asked him not to. How about just killing the enemy, general? Ever since Vietnam, politicians have gotten the idea that our military is some super charity we dispatch to 'win hearts and minds' and make friends. That's not how we won ww2.
    As cool as your aspirations to badassery are, the "hearts and minds" approach to warfare is a very valid tactic. It's acknowledged as much by your Department of Defense.

    Glossary of Relevant Terms & Acronyms

    I don't think you can dispute, given the extreme worldwide media coverage, that the moron's act of burning the Koran would have inspired at least 1 suicide bomber and turned at least 200 of the civilian populace of a US-occupied Muslim country against the USA, and the cost of this happening to American soldiers would have been a non-zero amount of American lives. In which case Petraeus is doing what all good generals do by tactically protecting his troops.
  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash256 View Post
    As cool as your aspirations to badassery are, the "hearts and minds" approach to warfare is a very valid tactic. It's acknowledged as much by your Department of Defense.

    Glossary of Relevant Terms & Acronyms

    I don't think you can dispute, given the extreme worldwide media coverage, that the moron's act of burning the Koran would have inspired at least 1 suicide bomber and turned at least 200 of the civilian populace of a US-occupied Muslim country against the USA, and the cost of this happening to American soldiers would have been a non-zero amount of American lives. In which case Petraeus is doing what all good generals do by tactically protecting his troops.
    Seriously, look up the word appeasement.
  9. #9
    I did, what's your point?
  10. #10
    'The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.'

    Do you really not get the point?
  11. #11
    The Arab world is a completely different environment to European countries. In WW2, close to 100% of the adult civilian populace of the warring European countries were militarised. Furthermore, sans small pockets of resistance, national identities and warring countries were very clearly defined.

    Arabic nations on the other hand are much more of a clusterfuck, and as far as I'm aware, dividing enemy countries down religious/tribal lines is a tactic routinely used by the Allies in Iraq.

    What I'm saying is that whilst in WW2 the civilian populace were militarised with clear identities, the Middle East is a much more delicate and complex situation, requiring a lot of sensitivity. It's so ridiculously important that civilians in Ally-occupied countries do not feel that they are the enemy of the USA, and that the USA is on a crusade against Islam. Were that to ever happen, all US interests in the Middle East would be permafucked IMO.
  12. #12
    The Middle East is increasingly coming under the control of Islamists who really do hate us and really do want to destroy Western society and install an Islamist theocracy everywhere. They are quite clear about this and they mean it.

    If we let our military do what it was designed to do, instead of trying to be diplomats or police, then the Middle East would be exactly like Germany and Japan after WWII, in rubble. Then we could do with the Middle East exactly what we did with Germany and Japan, rebuild those nations as democratic societies with personal and economic freedoms for everyone. This would be a million times better for world peace in the long run than trying to placate mullahs who will always want to kill us.
  13. #13
    The "mullahs" wanna kill us because we kill them for their oil

    WW2 changed everything. Post-WW2 United States saw it was losing oil and that it needed more of it to maintain its newfound place at the tip top of the world. The FDR Admin allied with the House of Saud, exchanging their oil for our military. We fought USSR for decades over oil. Every thing the US military has done since WW2 is based in oil

    If we went all D-day on the Mideast and tried to create a new Europe, we could, but we would have to give up sooooooooooo much oil, and the US would no longer be a superpower. Reason and diplomacy is the only method. Energy policy that keeps us from killing poor brown people is the one and only thing that will bring peace to the Mideast

    Look at Saudia Arabia as a microcosm of this. The House of Saud has not had any power for half a century other than what the US guarantees them. The entire nation is one of the most oppressive and backasswards regimes on the planet because of this theocratic dictatorship that their US buddy buddies guarantee. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi revolting from US/Saud dictatorship

    That all the problems of the Middle East ride on the back of the United States' thirst for oil (as well as the thirst of the rest of the industrialized world that uses US military to get that oil via proxy) is not a secret. Them hating us isn't some kind of elusive mystery. Camel jockeys are normal humans just like you and me. The difference is that they have a priceless resource, while we have all the guns
  14. #14
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The "mullahs" wanna kill us because we kill them for their oil

    WW2 changed everything. Post-WW2 United States saw it was losing oil and that it needed more of it to maintain its newfound place at the tip top of the world. The FDR Admin allied with the House of Saud, exchanging their oil for our military. We fought USSR for decades over oil. Every thing the US military has done since WW2 is based in oil

    If we went all D-day on the Mideast and tried to create a new Europe, we could, but we would have to give up sooooooooooo much oil, and the US would no longer be a superpower. Reason and diplomacy is the only method. Energy policy that keeps us from killing poor brown people is the one and only thing that will bring peace to the Mideast

    Look at Saudia Arabia as a microcosm of this. The House of Saud has not had any power for half a century other than what the US guarantees them. The entire nation is one of the most oppressive and backasswards regimes on the planet because of this theocratic dictatorship that their US buddy buddies guarantee. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi revolting from US/Saud dictatorship

    That all the problems of the Middle East ride on the back of the United States' thirst for oil (as well as the thirst of the rest of the industrialized world that uses US military to get that oil via proxy) is not a secret. Them hating us isn't some kind of elusive mystery. Camel jockeys are normal humans just like you and me. The difference is that they have a priceless resource, while we have all the guns
    ^This the whole way. If these guys want to install islamic theocracies, it's because they see it as better than the US installing "democracies" and robbing their land of its natural wealth.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 02-11-2011 at 06:06 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by couriermike View Post
    If we let our military do what it was designed to do, instead of trying to be diplomats or police, then the Middle East would be exactly like Germany and Japan after WWII, in rubble. Then we could do with the Middle East exactly what we did with Germany and Japan, rebuild those nations as democratic societies with personal and economic freedoms for everyone. This would be a million times better for world peace in the long run than trying to placate mullahs who will always want to kill us.
    1) Are you still in favour of installing democracies in countries whereby the likely majority in their parliament would be an extremist Muslim anti-American party?
    2) Do you honestly think the USA could defeat the Middle East in a war, without Israel getting annihilated in the process?
    3) Do you think the USA could financially afford a war with the Middle East?
  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash256 View Post
    1) Are you still in favour of installing democracies in countries whereby the likely majority in their parliament would be an extremist Muslim anti-American party?
    2) Do you honestly think the USA could defeat the Middle East in a war, without Israel getting annihilated in the process?
    3) Do you think the USA could financially afford a war with the Middle East?
    1. Not at all. Only in countries that have declared themselves enemies of the US. The point isn't, 'we must have democracies everywhere' but 'this is how we deal with our enemies.'
    2. Israel could defeat the Middle East in a war without being annihilated, with or without US help. So, yes, certainly.
    3. Easily.
  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The "mullahs" wanna kill us because we kill them for their oil
    Wuf, this just isn't true. The US has repeatedly risked the lives of American troops to make sure that the oil is freely available on the open market, something that benefits all nations. We have never taken control of the oil fields for ourselves, though we easily could have.
  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by couriermike View Post
    Wuf, this just isn't true. The US has repeatedly risked the lives of American troops to make sure that the oil is freely available on the open market, something that benefits all nations. We have never taken control of the oil fields for ourselves, though we easily could have.
    We did in Iraq the second time around.

    What you say about Americans dying for free market oil is largely true, but it actually agrees with what I said. The way we get that oil is dictatorial

    Our ties with Israel are very strong because we need the regional ally and control, we give Mubarak billions and train Egyptian military for the same purpose. We beat up Iraq the first time because they threatened Saudi Arabian oil, the second time for their oil and for regional control next to Iran and protecting Saudi from Russia and Caspian region. Same with Afghanistan except for protection and control against China and India as well.

    The Bush Admin's plan was to invade Iran. Iraq and Afghan were necessary steps in prep for that invasion. Regardless, an invasion wouldn't work. That would be like Vietnam 2.0. Iran has way too many people and way too big. US barely even got away with Iraq, but Iran would produce like 5x the US casualties

    And Israel couldn't take out the ME without nuclear total war. US couldn't even beat Iran in a conventional war. We'd have to bomb them to Mars like we did to Japan, yet even then we were preparing for land invasion on Japanese shores with projected deaths estimating in the millions
  19. #19
    Huge fan of Allen West.

    I had heard that story before and shows his dedication to his men.

    Its very interesting to hear him speak about strategies for fighting terrorists and the new battleground we're fighting on. I believe that he argues that terrorists do not have the benefit of being protected by the geneva conventions because they don't fight under uniform (of a specific nation).

    Radio interview with Allen West:
    for those that are interested, skip to 9:00 to hear Allen West on rules of engagement.
    Example at 10:40 is pretty interesting imo
    YouTube - Allen West: Rules of Engagement & the New Battleground


    America is always the bad guy? Orly
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •