so if anybody wants the taliban to not take over afghanistan by force, they have to abandon the so called peace process and actually get round to supporting the afghan military. a couple of points you made there the taliban are not a small fighting force and that they struggle to cope without international the afghan government forces struggle to cope without international support. can they hold back the taliban? i think that the afghan people will not accept the taliban easily. there will be resistance. what we are headed towards is civil war. the assumption that the taliban, just by being invited to the ritz carlton in doha, will agree to ending war has proven wrong. if i was one of the negotiators of that agreement, i would by now have resigned out of shame. but i think that the afghan people will eventually resist. the taliban are not going to have it as easy as they seem to be having right now. even if they establish control in parts of the country,
Rodman Philbrick to speak at Camp Beech Cliff - Mount Desert Islander
mdislander.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from mdislander.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Boatload of problems - The Ellsworth American
ellsworthamerican.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from ellsworthamerican.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
how do you address the fears that the government is going to take away assault rifles as you call them if you re talking about buybacks and banning? so i want to be really clear that that s exactly what we re going to do. americans will who own ar-15s, ak-47s will have to sell them to the government. in the wake of the latest mass shooting in his home state of texas, presidential candidate beto o rourke has been out front very explicitly making the case for a mandatory purchase by the government of every military style weapon in the country, a position we should note that is supported somewhat remarkably by 46% of the country, almost half the population. in response, some conservatives have argued that you can t do that because if you try to implement that policy, law-abiding good guy with a gun gunowners will resort to violence en masse. so this is what you re calling for is civil war.
and get off the talking points congratulations you did. i have to press you a little bit. beto o rourke is obviously a footnote in a completely mediocre and irrelevant character. it s not simply beto. elizabeth warren much more likely to be the nominee rather than joe biden in my opinion has also called for gun con i confiscation. what you are calling for is civil war. what you are calling for is an invitement to violence. something i wouldn t want to live mere when that happened, would you? to be clear i m not calling for that i would support confiscation only in the context of red flag laws. tucker: that s not what they are saying. that s not what you are saying. what you are saying and we can debate this a real debate if someone seems dangerous do we have to convict him before taking his guns away i think that s a legitimate debate i don t think what you are say something insane. what elizabeth warren is saying is these kinds of firearms are now illegal. anyone who possesses one