September 28, 2006
Civilian Contractor Attack Videotaped
Check out this report from tonight's Nightline. It's pretty disturbing. Here's the transcript, in case you can't view the video.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
In a nutshell, the video was taken by a Halliburton contractor named Preston Wheeler last September with his digital camera. He was driving truck five in a convoy that got lost near Balad in the Sunni Triangle.
The video shows teenagers throwing rocks at the convoy as the trucks headed down a dead end road. When the convoy had to turn back, the enemy was waiting for them. A bullet hole suddenly appears in Wheeler's windshield. A roadside bomb explodes, a truck driver is killed and his truck overturns. Wheeler's truck is disabled, and his Humvee escort continues driving.
Small arms fire is heard. Wheeler, now alone, is eventually hit by a couple of rounds as he hides under the dashboard. Inexplicably, he is unarmed. He also witnesses another truck driver taken out of his truck and shot dead by the enemy.
The Nightline report also shows predator footage of another Halliburton driver's body being desecrated by the enemy.
After 45 minutes, helicopters arrive and the cowardly insurgents scurry off, no doubt reverting to innocent civilian status.
I don't understand why the civilian drivers were not armed. I don't understand why that village was not carpet bombed immediately afterwards. It's maddening.
Posted by: annika at
12:19 AM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.
1
FuckÂ’em Annika,
Civilians doing the work our military should be doing for extraordinary pay get no sympathy from me. We are an invading force, committing illegal and inhumane acts daily against a civilian population to further the goals of AMERICA in Iraq. All that befalls our expeditionary force and its highly paid mercenaries is the price we pay for this poorly executed, criminal invasion of a deeply flawed but sovereign nation that DID NOT ATTACK America.
All the chaos and despair that stems from this blighted tree of bullshit, lies and self-serving policy is not surprising. Why are you still shocked to see resistance, cowardice and jubilation? No one has their heart in the fight except those who are committed to freeing their country from the boot of the US and its Christian values, militarism and thirst for oil.
Posted by: strawman at September 28, 2006 06:35 AM (tuy00)
2
Wow. Is that you, Markos Zoonigas?
I'm surprised that Annie has given you her respect for this long.
Posted by: reagan80 at September 28, 2006 06:48 AM (dFOlH)
3
I usually ignore the very small group of retards who post here. Some things can't be ignored, and the words of this fool need to be taken down. He is a traitor who steals the food he eats, and sleeps under the blanket that another man provides. Shun him.
As for those poor fuckers selling their collective asses for a buck in the dirt world, that's some pretty hard-earned cash. If you're going to sail out into harms way, you'd be well advised to do it with men who won't flinch at pulling a trigger, and avoid the company of the nancy-assed bitches of the Virginia National Guard.
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2006 06:50 AM (Z2ndo)
4
Sure, Casca, I need a blanket to protect me from Iraqi's. Get you head out of your ass and smell the sand dunes. We are toast in this "conflict" We have no heart to win because the cause is false and our leader warrants no respect. He talks to the country in his 8th grade speak and only neanderthals like yot with blood in their eye, anybody's blood, get a hard on. Get off your belly, take the sock out of your mouth, W's cock out of your ass and clean your upper lip. Try saving your son. Tell him freedom and liberty are causes worth dying for but only when they are really threatened and that Iraq is not the battlefield where that is happening.
Posted by: strawman at September 28, 2006 07:20 AM (tuy00)
5
Straw,
Your comments above are those of a sociopath. You do not know the motives of those civilian men killed. Their payscale is fucking irrelevant - not that you even have a clue about what they were paid. That post was the most vile garbage I've ever read on this site because I know you are serious. Perhaps you could send your thoughtful bit of prose to the wives and children of these people. Maybe that would turn around their thinking and help them understand that daddy was just a monster working for monsters. Actually, there is no need because AQ and their many cloned Islamo-fascist groups send out the same communication on a daily basis. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a line about the Jews just to round it out.
You should be ashamed. I would never, though, asked that your trash be banned from this site. People need to see that folks like you really exist so they can better understand the psychosis of the enemy.
Posted by: blu at September 28, 2006 07:58 AM (TVuWZ)
6
y'all should do what Casca says as far as the shunning...
...I'd say don't respond to people who post anonymously. If they can't say what they're gonna say with their identity behind 'em, than fuck 'em, cuz they are fuckin around anyways. I don't know what kind of shit stain thinks it'll be fun to spend gobs and gobs of their own time to purposefully say stupid things, but that shit stain goes by the name strawman...and for me that applies to any other anonymous poster.
Posted by: Scof at September 28, 2006 08:02 AM (a3fqn)
7
SCof,
You are anonymous, I am not. My web address is well know and there for any to see.
I am fed up with the sactimonious crap that passes for commentary. A hundred thousand or more dead and we should get down on our knees and weep for a few guys and their families who went for the money? Bullshit. I wonder what they thought of their wives and children that they could play so fast and loose with their lives. People make bad choices all the time. Nobody twisted their arms. I am sorry they are dead, they did not deserve to die and their families suffer but they were there of their own free will and were there to support an illegal invasion and the concomitant death and destruction heaped upon this country and its people. They are participants in a grand and evil scheme purpetrated by grandiouse and evil men. Men who should be hauled off and rendered to a country that will torture them for thier deeds just as they do to those unconvicted "terrorists" Canadians we capture.
Blu, what is a scandalous and sickening event, not words, is what is taking place EVERY FUCKING HOUR in Iraq. Not at all comparable to my angry and unsympathetic words.
Posted by: strawman at September 28, 2006 08:22 AM (tuy00)
8
Sorry, only people that I email see my real name. Besides, I'm sure Annie can probably see it in her IP logs and stuff.
However, Strawman has posted under his real name before. You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/h4ms8
Posted by: reagan80 at September 28, 2006 08:23 AM (9Bjo9)
9
reagan80, on whatever site I'm on, I make exceptions for folks I know are regular posters, i.e. those who have a genuine interest in whatever the discussion may be and don't act like children pushing buttons...speaking of that:
Straw you are such a damn idiot, you know full well all you have to do is click on "scof" to see my website, and thus see who I am, but instead you just, again, purposefully say something stupid -- i.e. that I'm anonymous.
As for the rest of your drivel, I'll simply let the shunning begin...or as Willie the groundskeeper says, the shinnin!
Posted by: Scof at September 28, 2006 09:27 AM (a3fqn)
10
Keep spewing, Straw. We are all learning something about your character. Che would be very proud of you.
Interesting how you have little sympathy for men trying to bring freedom and the 21st century to a country that had suffered a brutal dictatorship for decades, but you'll cry huge crocodile tears over the death of "civilians" (read: terrorists) in Lebanon and "Palestine."
You weep for the wrong people, Straw.
p.s. I wasn't going to bring this up, but it's fucking burning me up inside: Bringing Casca's son into the debate was way below the belt. You wouldn't have the balls to say that to his face, so don't take the cowards road and write it knowing you'll never have to face the consequences. I know this is just an internet debate, but still be a fucking man.
Posted by: blu at September 28, 2006 09:44 AM (j8oa6)
11
1000 pardons sire, I clicked after my post. You are in plain sight as am I so don't be so fast on the draw for all you, damn idiot, had to do was the same.
I set out ot push no buttons. Your placement of said buttons is your choice. There is no one around here who does not know that I am vehemently opposed to this choice of solution(s) to the Islamic problem. Not news. Get over it if you can't hear a voice that does not click his heels and spout the party line.
Do you think those kids who threw rocks at the convoy or the dead driver were our ememy before we invaded? Do you think many of them as they get older will pick up an AK or ask an older boy how to make an IED? How many of them might decide that traveling to England or France or America reinvigorating themselves and their new craft is a good idea? DO you think that boy might otherwise have followed in his fathers footsteps and become a baker or a car mechanic or oilfield worker had his country not been destroyed by Americans which all the while lied to him about why they came? How about his anger and suffering when he no longer had a school to go to each morning and the day his older brother and father were blown up in the bakery by a bomb during the invasion, or an errant 155 round as his town was occupied.
Tell me, anyone why this effort is valid, protective of America, or should be applauded by the Iraqi's? And please spare me the purile crap about their precious freedom and their blue thumbs as if voting is the consumate act which allows people to go to their graves happy.
Posted by: strawman at September 28, 2006 09:51 AM (tuy00)
12
Blu,
I would say it to any father who contemplated the cosequences of a son who chose a soldiers life. I have a 21 year old son. I would say it to his face for what man could hate someone that wanted his son to live. I say it as a man who would die for his country were it besieged. I would say it to him as a father and a man whose father fought in WWII (AF master sgt Julius Bernstein) I would say it as a man who would not kill men who were not my enemy in Vietnam, I say it as an American who is ashamed of his army occupying Iraq. America, that wise an gullible fool that bought into the saber ratteling of an old ally, a sick psycopath who we armed to the teeth with conventional and unconventional weopons when he would do our bidding but now was rebeling against our grip. We are engaged in making a "new world" against its will and the price is terribly high and the outcome in serious doubt.
I would rather characterize my remark as a high blow, a blow to consience of a man, a soldier, who I would hope could come to see the folly of this campaign and might come to see the criminality of the administration that fabricated the need for this adventure.
Casca, if you read my remark as some attempt to denigrate you or your son, my apologies, I only want what you want: Grandchildren, a painless dotage and a free America that stops promoting spineless leaders who are too afraid not to fight.
Posted by: strawman at September 28, 2006 10:20 AM (tuy00)
13
"Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
They'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed."
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2006 11:22 AM (Z2ndo)
14
Shit Blu, if you'd a just STFU'd, I wouldn't even know, since I don't read postings from self-loathing leftists. There is a steak of madness there, that is best given a wide birth. Hatred like theirs is satanic.
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2006 11:37 AM (Z2ndo)
15
Casca,
Empty words. Empty thoughts by militarists that have esprit de corps, blind obeisance and little intellectual courage.
Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2006 11:39 AM (tuy00)
16
> I don't understand why that village was not carpet bombed immediately afterwards.
But that is what Saddam would have done. We deplored him for such actions; should we become the enemy ourselves?
Posted by: will at September 28, 2006 12:11 PM (h7Ciu)
17
"committing illegal and inhumane acts daily against a civilian population"
Bullshit. Before spewing, get your facts straight.
Idiot. You're falling for lies. And you have the gall to accuse us of that. You're the one with the incorrect worldview here.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at September 28, 2006 12:21 PM (ySDyN)
18
"But that is what Saddam would have done."
If that's what Saddam would have done, and Iraq was better off under Saddam...
just sayin.
Posted by: annika at September 28, 2006 12:31 PM (zAOEU)
19
Getting back to the topic that the idiotic Strawman - such an appropriate name, given his arguments - diverted us from:
Anyone military here who can answer this? I think I remember reading somewhere that convoys are instructed to push through ambushes and not stop as a whole, but that's as a group. Shouldn't some of the escort stop to render aid? Basically, I'm confused why the escort left the drivers behind. Anyone know?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at September 28, 2006 12:33 PM (ySDyN)
20
Casca,
Sorry. It was none of my business. I know you can speak for yourself.
Blu
Posted by: blu at September 28, 2006 01:08 PM (j8oa6)
21
HEH the spammers are getting more clever, they now use 'bots to probe for certain phrases then they post stuff like the two posts above mine.
Anywho, I long ago decided Strawdog was an imbicile, marxist, scociopath stooge not worth responding to.
I was offered one of those jobs in Iraq, and the pay was good, but the fact that I was not allowed to go armed made me decide against it. I would never go to one of those places without being able to shoot back if only for the reason that it would force them to kill me. To be taken hostage by those creatures, and have them saw your head off, is worse than a clean death.
Posted by: kyle8 at September 28, 2006 03:13 PM (vd8GP)
22
Kyle,
They are really not allowed to arm themselves? That's fucking whack! Why not?
Posted by: blu at September 28, 2006 03:16 PM (j8oa6)
23
They never gave a good reason, but that is part of the rules for nearly all the private contractors.
You cannot have a weapon.
Posted by: kyle8 at September 28, 2006 03:42 PM (vd8GP)
24
twisted and outdated logic i'd assume. The rule against reporters carrying weapons is probably analogous. It's to protect reporters from attack. As we've seen, the rule protects neither reporters nor civilian contractors against barbarian sadists who believe torture and murder are required by their religion.
Posted by: annika at September 28, 2006 04:11 PM (zAOEU)
25
So if our involvement in Iraq was the wrong answer to fight Islamofacism, then what is the right answer? Ignore it? Let it fester? Give in?
Its maddening to think that the hard work our soldiers have put in is going unappreciated both in Iraq and at home.
Those contractors, greedy as they may be, were trying to bring Iraq into the 21st century and out of the stone age. They were thanked with bullets and beatings. The insurgents are barbarians, pure and simple.
The way I see it, the rest of the world will eventually wake up and realize that the threat Islamofacism poses is worth confronting. I just hope that when that time comes it isn't already too late to prevent it's spread.
Strawman, I want grandchildren too. Unlike you however, I want my grandchildren to be free Americans, not be enslaved by the fanatical rulers of the Global Caliphate that awaits them if pussy-footed liberals like yourself get your way.
That is the truth, brother.
Posted by: Rob at September 28, 2006 04:11 PM (Q2xwR)
26
Annika wrote;
>If that's what Saddam would have done, and Iraq was better off under Saddam... just sayin.
You seem to imply that using Saddam's cruelty on his own people is justifiable, as it wouldn't be any different if the war hadn't taken place. That's a fairly strong indictment of the lack of effect of OIF.
Rob wrote:
>So if our involvement in Iraq was the wrong answer to fight Islamofacism, then what is the right answer?
You have assumed that Iraq under Saddam was a cauldron of Islamofacism attacking (or about to attack) the US. Where on Earth have you acquired propaganda that would suggest such a thing? Even Bush has repeatedly refuted this. Please provide citations from reputable sources. Then read the two recently declassified intelligence briefs.
Posted by: will at September 28, 2006 05:00 PM (h7Ciu)
27
Ron,
Iraq was the most enlightened and western in all the ME. No islamic laws in affect, women treated nearly as equals, teaching in schools and holding professional jobs as doctors, engineers etc. Look at the fucking pictures on TV and notice the road system in Bagdad, looks just like our roads. Iraq was a bulwark against Islam and its regilo-facist rule. They has secular schools and universities. All things we are hoping to achieve now that we have destroyed them. The stone age was thrust upon Iraq by the American armed forces. They are no more barbaric than any insurgent civilian uprising in history that had to fight with improvised weapons and small arms against a powerful occupier.
Ron you've got it all backwards.
Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2006 05:04 PM (tuy00)
28
Rob, I stopped believing in the threat of a Global Caliphate after I read this:
http://tinyurl.com/jydr9
5 reasons why we're in Iraq:
http://tinyurl.com/jppgq
[3) Control of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
With fortified US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey, Iran is bracketed and can, if necessary, be taken out of play as a military threat if not a political one. Iran knows this which is why it is so desperate to bring its atomic weapons on line. They will, alas, not avail Iran, but are the only option open to that government short of capitulation. That this fact is tending towards a tragic end is clear.
5) Control of Iraq is not about the oil, it's about the water.
What Iraq has that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia do not is not oil, but fresh water. In fact, Iraq has almost all of the fresh water in the region. It is water that determines life in the Middle East and there's not a lot of it. The two largest rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, flow down the core of Iraq before bending towards Iran to share those waters briefly with Iran before meeting the ocean. No other country gets so much of a taste unless Iraq agrees. Iran has little fresh water as does Syria. Saudi Arabia has almost none. It is one thing to control oil fields. The wealth from that resource can buy desalination plants that give your expanding population the water to survive. If the oil tap is cut off, the economies of the west would begin to wither and die within three months. Cut off water and populations begin to die within three days.]
Posted by: reagan80 at September 28, 2006 05:18 PM (dFOlH)
29
To answer your question El, a proper ambush of vehicles usually has an obsticle so that they can stop the vehicles in a kill zone, so yeah, you want to roll on through. These were "volunteers", who were taking potshots with RPG's and AK's.
The HUGE mistake here was going the same way twice. Repeat after me, NEVER GO THE SAME WAY TWICE! On top of that, a proper convoy has security, not just a Hummer leading them in circles. I hate to say this, but we're at the point in the war where all real steely-eyed killers are in the regular forces now, and reserve/national guard units are probably in a significant decline. On top of that, they're part of the feminized non-combat-arms part of the military that can do anything a boy can do, except when they really have to.
As for contractors not being able to carry weapons. I believe that is ass-covering by the contracting companies, just in case their employees got their pics taken doing something. I know that the Marines issued weapons to their contractors at least early in the war.
Finally, $100k even mostly tax free, aint much for rolling the dice with death 24/7 for a year.
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2006 07:16 PM (2gORp)
30
"Iraq was the most enlightened and western in all the ME."
Wrong again, Straw. That would be Turkey. Actually, it's Israel (but I know you were talking about Muslim dominated states.) To go back further in history, Lebanon was the jewel of the ME before the Muslims decided to kill the Christians that dominated the country. (Funny, how those Christian countries tend to be civilized.)
With that said, only a commie sympathizer who thinks Cuba is a beacon of freedom and who no doubt was in love with the former USSR could possibly even write that ridiculous sentence.
Posted by: blu at September 28, 2006 08:05 PM (TVuWZ)
31
<>
I never assumed that at all, don't put words in my mouth.
What I do assume, is that the Middle East is the "cauldron of Islamofacism." Iraq was geostrategic for a number of reasons that need not be listed here.
I will concede that invading Iraq may not have been our most enlightened decision, but we started it, and we should finish it to the best of our ability.
My question still stands. What is the correct approach to the war on terror? The sooner we answer that question, the better off we'll all be.
Why is it that liberals find it so easy to bash Bush and point out his administration's perceived failures and missteps; but find it impossibly difficult to put forth alternatives and ideas of their own?
I wonder.
Posted by: Rob at September 28, 2006 08:26 PM (Q2xwR)
32
Strawman, you are a 'light unto the nations,' right. Only stars evolve and now you're a black hole. We hear you and we don't miss so much some six million who perished and recall how Lev Davidovitch Bronstein (Trotsky)'s terror and bombast, of which yours is an echo without the gun, aided in the reaction which led to their being sucked also into the black hole. Twinkle, twinkle little star. Now we aid the Iraqis as we would have aided the victims and foolish converts of Marxism could we travel back in time.
Posted by: michael at September 28, 2006 09:51 PM (9Nd1U)
33
Michael,
WTF are you talking about?
We have NOT, I repeat, NOT, aided the Iraqi's. We have ruined their way of life under the guise of "freeing" them from their way of life under Saddam. He was a brutal dictator, as is the fellow having lunch with W today, but no matter Saddam was not our "friend the brutal dictator" anymore so he had to go. The problem, of course, is the strategy W chose. Clearly it didn't work too well. Saddam's gone but so is Iraq. Too bad for the Iraqi's huh?
Posted by: strawman at September 29, 2006 10:51 AM (tuy00)
34
Here's how my THWTH* Plan for the invasion would've gone:
-We wouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi army. Instead of our troops, the Iraqi forces would be used to restore and maintain order in the country, brutally if necessary. With quickly established martial law, the insurgency would be crushed and there would be no sectarian violence.
-No democratization. We would've installed some "moderate" Baathist general. Basically, a Musharraf-type of Sunni dictator that would keep the place together, abstain from WMD development and sponsorhip of terrorism, and be our proxy against the jihadists.
-Nation-building operations conducted by our troops would be nil.
There is an exit strategy. After capturing or killing the Deck of 52 and ensuring that all WMD's are destroyed, our troops wouldn't have to stick around to babysit and institute a liberal social engineering program for a bunch of pedophile moongod-worshipping primitives. Of course, by "exit strategy", I mean our forces leave Iraq....to head for Tehran.
With this plan, Iraqis wouldn't be dying because of our presence and sectarian strife. Our troops wouldn't be dying there while trying to build a morally idealistic Iraqi society. It would have freed up our troops to unapologetically remove the Iranian nuclear threat by giving the Persians a new Shah. After accomplishing their missions, most of our troops would've all come home before the 2008 elections and our troops' KIA casualties from both wars combined wouldn't have surpassed 4 digits.
By going this route, Strawman would've been happy, right?
* "To Hell With Them" Hawk
Posted by: reagan80 at September 29, 2006 12:13 PM (dFOlH)
35
Okay Reagan, assuming your plan had been followed, it would be interesting to speculate what Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, Durbin, Murtha etc. would have said about it. Because you know they wouldn't have liked it either. In fact, If Bush had never invaded, you know the Democrats would be complaining that Bush was not doing anything about the growing terrorist threat in Saddam's training camps, etc.
Posted by: annika at September 29, 2006 12:52 PM (qQD4Q)
36
It would be nice if a few canards could be buried. The worst being that we disbanded the Iraqi Army. They disbanded themselves. It was not our policy to disband them. It was our aim to make them drop their weapons and run.
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2006 01:39 PM (Z2ndo)
37
Man that video was hilarious. Did anyone see the "brave" americoward hummer hauling ass out of there? Leaving those bloodsucker KBR drivers to die? Fucking hilarious. Proving once again, if they can't do it with air power it doesn't get done. Though it is common sense that it is S.O.P. for them to get out of the kill zone of an ambush, they didn't try to counterattack or anything once they were out of the kill zone and they need to start being honest and admit they didn't give a damn what happened to those KBR bloodsuckers, as is obvious by them not being able to do anything when Rebels came up and shot three of those driver pukes to death that the "Army" escort was nowhere around. They didn't just "get out of the kill zone", they hauled ass and didn't stop until they were WAY far away. The aptly-named Preston Wheeler, one of the war profiteer bloodsuckers who was able to miraculously survive the ambush can attest to that. I knew amerikkka has quite a chickenshit military but this makes even me say "Wow".
Posted by: Chuck Wood at September 29, 2006 01:56 PM (iNVtF)
38
P.S.-- In case you head-up-the-ass types haven't noticed it yet i figured i had better break the news to you: Your war in Iraq is lost. Forget about victory or even a face-saving "peace with honor". It won't happen. The whole world sees amerikkka's "military" can't deal with a bunch of Rebels running around with old rifles and homemade bombs. 3 and a half years into this debacle and you can't even secure the road running from the Green Zone to the airport in Baghdad!! It is lost. Give it up. It was a wrongful war anyway, considering Iraq was doing nothing to provoke it. The occupier would need about twice the number of troops in country to have any chance whatsoever of pacifying it, and those troop numbers simply are not available. It is as good as over. All you are doing now is giving jihadists who have ample reason to hate fascist amerikkka a great training ground. Congratulations. The world sees the Iraq war is a failure and a lost cause, and now even most amerikkkans see it too. I say again, give it up. It is lost. Pretty humiliating for the so-called "world's only superpower", huh?
Posted by: Chuck Wood at September 29, 2006 02:13 PM (iNVtF)
39
The Iraqi military was predominantly Sunni before the invasion. If they knew that a Sunni Arab was going to be left in charge, they most likely would've come back to their units. Right now, the former members of the disbanded army are either pissed about being unemployed or enraged at the Shiite usurpation of the gov't.
"If Bush had never invaded, you know the Democrats would be complaining that Bush was not doing anything about the growing terrorist threat in Saddam's training camps, etc."
Oh, of course. The Dems say that we should be in Iran (some say Darfur) instead. However, if they want us to go nation-building there after the invasion, as opposed to just razing the place, then the draft would have to be reinstated in order to get a force that's sizable enough for the occupation. (It's at least twice the size of Iraq.)
Today's Democrats would've thrown Truman and Kennedy under the bus. I'm sure they would've despised Truman because he defended an autocratic anti-C.o.m.m.u.n.i.s.t. gov't(South Korea) and Kennedy because of his tacit approval of the assassination of a former autocratic ally, Ngo Dinh Diem.
Posted by: reagan80 at September 29, 2006 02:28 PM (dFOlH)
40
Chuck,
If I ever find you, I'm going to give you an enema with 100 yards of razor wire. Then, I'll pull out all of your fucking teeth so that your blood will lubricate my cock as you fellate it. Finally, I'll cum in your eye socket since you apparently need some white matter to substitute for your lack of the gray variety, you cock-biting eunuch.
Posted by: Spanky at September 29, 2006 02:47 PM (dFOlH)
41
I love Chucky. I hope he gets his own tv show in time for 2008!
Posted by: annika at September 29, 2006 02:50 PM (qQD4Q)
42
Strawman's name is very apt.
But there's also a damned good reason we don't "carpetbomb" villages because an attack occurs in them - the attacks aren't likely to have anything to do with the place they occur.
If the attacks were known to be planned by the entirety or vast majority of the locals, undertaken by them, and/or occurred with the willing consent and aid of the locals, there would be some justification for a general attack (as the locals would be combatants)... but as far as I know this is almost never, if ever, the case.
Carpetbombing the entire village would be immoral, actual, no-shit war crime, and immensely counterproductive.
I'll settle for simply killing the people who commit such attacks. That's moral, absolutely legal under the traditions and laws of war, and productive.
Posted by: Sigivald at September 29, 2006 03:20 PM (4JnZM)
43
Wow,
Isn't this thread the best in a long time? I know I'm enthralled!
Whose this Spanky animal? SOunds like a guy who needs to bite the head off a chicken but is conflicted because when he married the chicken he frgot to get her to sign a pre-nupt and fears she might stop supporting him.
But seriously, Raygun, your plan has a ring of sanity to it assuming you think that Iraq was an issue in the first place, whick of course it wasn't. How about Jack Straw today? I didn't hear much but he did verify, as if we needed to hear it again, that the Wolfo-Rovo-Rumnuts cabal always wanted Iraq.
Chucky Wood may be a bit simple and lack the ironic tone I sometime strive for but he is right. This is a debacle of the highest order and on every front. How bout Parson-Brinckerhof and that army barracks? Real nice. Only 75 million.
And I don't belive for a minute that Annie wanted to carpet bomb anyone. She is terribly frustrated that the simplest piece of logistics cannot be enacted in this chaos.
And what is all this rationalizing about what the dems would or wwouldn't have attacked? Do you think that this is really an argument for not changing or agreeing that a different apparoch might have been better? I'm no student of logic or debate but it sounds really dumb. As I said to Blu the other day, it doesn't pass the 7-11 parking lot test.
I think a great deal of interesting stuff has been put forth not much of it terribly new but the level of vitrol is rising and I think that is because the side that thought this was a necessary invassion are finding that the truth is winning out and their heel clicking loyality becoming riven.
Posted by: strawman at September 29, 2006 04:28 PM (tuy00)
44
Straw is still gurgling his gallons of beloved man-juice!
Straw, stop pounding your boyfriend's balloon knot and go get a job!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 01, 2006 08:16 PM (fQ8EQ)
51kb generated in CPU 0.0505, elapsed 0.102 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0906 seconds, 205 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
62 queries taking 0.0906 seconds, 205 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
