Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

eta: They seem to prevent hot-linking, so click here:

cleek

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


eta: They seem to prevent hot-linking, so click here:

cleek

There aren't enough question marks on that. But the magic beans are a nice touch.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


eta: They seem to prevent hot-linking, so click here:

cleek

how come when Penske posted stupid photoshoped shit he was called a troll and he was asked to stop, but you can post stuff like this? is it open photoshop season again? penske keeps feeding me stuff he wants me to post.

[Atticus Grinch]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...ck=2&cset=true

• Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Note to self: Posting an lolcat jpeg won't win an argument with Hank, but keep it in mind if you ever disagree with Ty.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...ck=2&cset=true

• Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Note to self: Posting an lolcat jpeg won't win an argument with Hank, but keep it in mind if you ever disagree with Ty.

is it supporting evidence that I have not, and will not register, with latimes.com?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is it supporting evidence that I have not, and will not register, with latimes.com?

Me neither. Wow. Turns out I'm a conservative.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...ck=2&cset=true

• Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Note to self: Posting an lolcat jpeg won't win an argument with Hank, but keep it in mind if you ever disagree with Ty.

Liberals are the same thing as Conservatives. Both are groups of people that want to inflict their own views on others. They only differ in how they want to control people.

I usually immediately write off anything a person calling himself either has to say as too biased to be considered purely intelligent or rational. Which it is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• "The Vietnam experience left the military leadership feeling that they should advise against involvement in counterinsurgencies unless specific, perhaps unlikely, circumstances obtain -- i.e. domestic public support, the promise of a quick campaign, and freedom to employ whatever force is necessary to achieve rapid victory. In light of such criteria, committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America's military forces (and hence the country's national security), not just those involved in the actual counterinsurgency."

David Howell Petraeus, The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of military influence and the use of force in the post-Vietnam era, p. 305 (PhD Dissertation, Princeton University, 1987). link

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• "The Vietnam experience left the military leadership feeling that they should advise against involvement in counterinsurgencies unless specific, perhaps unlikely, circumstances obtain -- i.e. domestic public support, the promise of a quick campaign, and freedom to employ whatever force is necessary to achieve rapid victory. In light of such criteria, committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America's military forces (and hence the country's national security), not just those involved in the actual counterinsurgency."

David Howell Petraeus, The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of military influence and the use of force in the post-Vietnam era, p. 305 (PhD Dissertation, Princeton University, 1987). link

do you think we committed to fighting a counter insurgency?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you think we committed to fighting a counter insurgency?

In Vietnam?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you think we committed to fighting a counter insurgency?

Do you think we didn't commit to fighting a counter insurgency when we invaded Iraq?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Do you think we didn't commit to fighting a counter insurgency when we invaded Iraq?

At the time of the invasion we were committed to removing the flowers strewn in our path just as fast as a grateful Iraqi people could place them there, so as to maintain our ability to perform tactical manuevers should the need ever arise.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
At the time of the invasion we were committed to removing the flowers strewn in our path just as fast as a grateful Iraqi people could place them there, so as to maintain our ability to perform tactical manuevers should the need ever arise.

i remember some of these guys were posting back then. i presume if they could link to posts where they predicted that we would have seen it by now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• What’s most striking, Bard says, is how his students in his counterinsurgency and terrorism classes at Washington’s National War College, freshly returned from Iraq, testified to the paucity of strategic thinking on the ground.
  
  “This was a Special Forces colonel, a really sharp guy, he’s a guy who knew all this stuff on counterinsurgency. He said to me, ‘Let me give you a specific example: I’m on the tarmac at an airbase in Iraq, and up walks [then Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz. He says, “How’s everything going, Colonel?” And I say, “This is a pretty tenacious insurgency, Mr. Wolfowitz.” And Wolfowitz looks back and says, “This is not an insurgency.”’”
  
  At which point, Mr. O’Neill relates, his student “rolled his eyes, and said, ‘What can you say to someone like that?’”

link

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I don't know from that war thing you're all yammering about, but...

What the fuck is with Petraeus' hair? Is he trying for some Caesar look? It's awful.