Saturday, January 14, 2012

This Pretty Well Sums It Up

For Hillary and Leon and the Bamster and all of the rest of the bleeding heart main-stream media:

Unless You Walk In Their Shoes STFU!

Dead is dead. You don't get more dead by someone acting upon your body. Stupid is stupid, but that's all it is.


Anonymous said...

This Video should be shown to every troop being sent to the Sandbox.


How to win their hearts and minds.

It is incredibly instructional, is is not?


MSgt B said...

Listening to morning talk radio Friday, and all the call-ins followed the same vein as Col West's sentiments.
Of course, I'm here in Virginia, about 15 mins from Quantico. That could explain a lot.

Robman said...

People, do you realize the size and scope of this problem?

Since the early 1980s, Saudi Arabia alone has been putting some $2 billion a year - year in and year out - towards a massive propaganda campaign. The money goes into countless universities, endowing "Chairs of Middle Eastern Studies", where they pick who teaches the classes and what is taught.

The money goes to countless think tanks that pay big bucks to hire prestigious former government officials to spew their line, to lend credibity to their grabage. One Saudi democracy activist in D.C. told me to my face: "They [the Saudis] own this town [D.C.]."

The money goes to media organizations, especially national-level ones like CNN and even FOX (a Saudi sheik owns a big chunk of them).

The agenda of the Saudis involves several elements. First and foremost, the want to demonize Israel, and make it next to impossible for Israel to justify defending themselves. But this has effects that go far beyond this issue. The enemy Israel fights is pretty much the same one we fight, except that for Israel, "Afghanistan" is right next door. Remember back when we called terrorists terrorists? But that make Israel's enemies seem to "bad" in the public eye, so the petrodollar prostitute media started calling them "militants"....and now that term is used EVERYWHERE.

The Saudis are at the center of a dying civilization. They are stuck in the middle ages and are falling farther an farther behind the rest of the world. Their actual "ruling class" are clerics who are absolutely clueless as to how to effectively run their societies. They keep their people ignorant and backward.

Yet, they are rational enough to see that the effects of trade, communication, etc., with the "Infidel" will have effects on their populations, such that the legitmacy of their role as the ruling class will be questioned. Like any threatened ruling class at any time or place in history, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their power and privelege.

They cannot compete with us militarily as we understand this in conventional terms. They cannot compete with us economically; the "oil weapon" is of limited use. They have to sell us the oil or they go broke. It is all they have.

So, they fight us with the only weapons they have: terrorism and bribery. By turns, on the one hand, they fill the heads of their poeple (the men, mostly) full of nonsense about the "threat" we pose to their way of life ("The women might get uppity! Egads!"). They grow all manner of radical terrorists with their "Madrasas", and so on. Then, using the free money they get from a commodity we developed for them, they corrupt our media, our universities, and our government through what amounts to bribery, so that we won't even defend ourselves. In this way, they "make the world safe" for their sorry, barbaric "civilization".

This incident is just one minor example of the influence they wield, directly or indirectly, on public discourse. They practically installed Obama in the White House, their crowning achievement...but their infranstructure runs much deeper than this.

We need to wake up already as a country and take our nation back from these barbarians.

hitman said...

Was it 'Bull" Simon who said:"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"? I like his version better than Leftfoots'.

Anonymous said...


The war that Col Simons was referring to... Did we win that one?

I don't think being the Stars of the lates AQ/Taliban recruiting video is a very smart move on the part of these Marines

I do hope they get NJP rather than a GCM since conviction of the latter would make them "Prohibited Possessors" and these men may want a firearm handy for the rest of their lives. I also think that it would be best if the Marine Corp made sure these men made an early exit from the service for the good of the service.


hitman said...


Yes, we did win that one, but then Goldwater, and the rest of the Liberals gave it back to the North.
Kind of the same thing they're trying to do now. I agree with LTC West.

Ed Rasimus said...

Yes, Leadfoot, we undoubtedly did win that one. We lost 58,000, the other side lost (estimates vary) between 1.5 and 3 MILLION. If that is victory you must be keeping score the wrong way. When the military got to operate without your pacifist, pandering, left-wing friends standing in the way, it took 11 days (18-29 December '72) to get a signature on the peace treaty and get our POWs home.

And, if you look at Vietnam today they are a capitalist, free-enterprise power-house following the business path of S. Korea (and China). If you travel to Hanoi,you can stay at an actual Hanoi Hilton where the ad says "every room comes with a free American breakfast."

Yeah, we won. We could have done it faster, more effectively, with less national angst if the liberal pantywaists you love so much had simply stood aside.

Anonymous said...

"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. 'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'"
—Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr. and Colonel Tu, April 1975, described in the book "On Strategy."

The true blame for the loss of South Vietnam lies with the South Vietnames Gov't which was riddled with corruption. The key question one must ask when assisting another in a counter-insurgency is... "Is this guy worth it?"



Ed Rasimus said...

While that is a pithy comment, "is this guy worth it", it really is fundamentally incorrect. Reducing global policy to whether a supported leader is "worth it" is a badly flawed choice.

Is it "worth it" to support Sadat after Nasser? In the greater scheme, yes. Is it worth it to support the Saud royal family? Considering global ramifications of alternatives, damned right! Peron? Mubarak? Reza Pahlavi?

The issue in SEA was spread of global communism. The policy was alliances to isolate them. That meant support for some less-than-pristine governments.

Anonymous said...

Ed, why don't you tell us about the history of the Vietnamese conflict including the non election in 1956. I'll start it off with what Ike said in his book "Mandate for change"

President Eisenhower echoed senior U.S. experts[89] when he wrote that, in 1954, "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh" over Emperor Bảo.

Only Americans get free elections eh?


Ed Rasimus said...

Did you miss the part about French colonial rule, Lead? How about Ho's COMINTERN training in evolution in Moscow? Bao was a vestige of the colonial occupation. Ike could have stabilized the situation in 1952-54 with serious support for the French in a managed transition. History takes place in a stream, not in singular snapshots or memoir quotes.

Robman said...

No, Ed, we don't want to support the Saudi royal family. They play us for fools.

They are not the same as say, the Shah of Iran. The Shah was not proclaiming himself to be our "friend"..while growing terrorists to kill us.

According to the State Dept's own cables exposed by Wikileaks, the Saudi monarchy is the primary - PRIMARY - funder of Sunni Moslem-based extremist terror organizations.

Yes, if they were overthrown by Al Queda, that would be worse in a short-term, day-to-day sense. But it would actually be a blessing in disguise, as we could then proceed to treat Saudia as the enemies they actually are, no holds barred. They wouldn't last very long, then.

OBL actually was hoping to provoke that with 9-11, thinking that then he'd "defeat" us the way his "mujahadeen" did the Soviets in Afghanistan. He forgot, however, that without the billions in both U.S. and Saudi aid, plus the help of Pakistan, plus all the weaponse we sent them (e.g., Stinger missiles), the Soviets would have crushed them.

Had we invaded Saudia in the wake of 9-11, he'd have received no such outside support. Not many mountains there to hide behind. By all accounts, including my own personal experience in the U.S. army working with Saudi exchange officers, they can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

I'd like to recommend two books for you, Ed:

"Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West's Fatal Embrace", a collection of scholarly essays on the subject edited by Sarah N. Stern.

"The Arab Lobby", by Mitchell Bard

I remember an old cartoon by Gary Laron ("The Far Side"). I'd bet that's your kind of humor.

A man is standing in his living room. His living room window is broken. He has just picked up a rock that was obviously the cause of this little problem. A note is attached to the rock, which reads:

"Broken windows? Call Al's Glass Repair!"

That's kind of like what our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia is like.