<< TURKEY FLIES SOUTH ~ MAIN ~ FAKEY ISLES >>
ON THE ROAD IN IRAQ
A tremendously detailed and informative report on conditions faced by US troops in Iraq. Of course, it appeared in a car magazine. Recommended to peaceniks and wardogs alike. In fact, the article—available for several weeks now—contains a few lines that should have been picked up by the mainstream antiwar crowd, if only they read more widely. For example ...
On the insurgency:
“We created an insurgency that wasn’t here,” Col. Pinnell freely admits of the post-invasion days when U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer ran, or misran, Iraq. “Now it’s our job to fix that.”
On the war’s cost:
Today, we’re escorting a group of VIPs in armored Chevy Suburbans. Most of the vehicles have superficial body damage from ramming things out of the way. Some have bullet splatters on their windshields. “We replace windshields once a week,” one driver said, laughing. “They’re double-layer.” The $150,000 vehicles are also disposable. “We’re on our third one,” the driver added, “this month.”
And on the hugely overburdened new armoured Humvees:
For our protection, each of our Humvees comes from AM General, via armoring specialist O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, covered with 4000 pounds of quarter-inch-thick steel plate, looking like a motorized armadillo. In addition to propelling these 9800-pound war wagons (12,000 pounds when you add personnel and munitions), their 190-hp, 6.5-liter GM turbo-diesels must drive an air-conditioning compressor, which is on six months of the year, when temperatures run above 100 degrees.
They race through the quarter mile in less than 40 seconds! Read the whole, very balanced, thing.
I’ll agree that an insurgency was there. But I beg to differ that we created it. At most, we offered a target to the people that created the insurgency. Like having a baby, it takes two to tango.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 23 at 01:11 PM • permalinkExcuse me, that should be
I’ll agree that an insurgency wasn’t there.
PIMF. :-(
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 23 at 01:12 PM • permalink“We created an insurgency that wasn’t there”.
Of course there was no “insurgency” by the Islamo_Facists before we got to Iraq, because their bloody gluttonous appetities were being fed by the Sadasses regime, including the support of children suicide bombers being raised in the Palestinian eductional system. Why should these Islamo Warriors of the Beheading of the Helpless form an insurgency against a regime that was keeping them in the swankiest hotels paid for by kickbacks from the United Nations?“We created an insurgency that wasn’t there.”
Insofar as the ex-Ba’athists are concerned, it was there, but not as “an insurgency.” It was there as “the government,” whose elite men were free to rape, pillage, and kill as much as they thought they needed in order to maintain their control of the country. Today, as “insurgents,” they seek to return to what they must remember as an idyll.
Insofar as the Salafist jihadis are concerned, they were not active in Iraq before Saddam’s government fell, but they were not created by that liberation, either. They were drawn to Iraq because they recognized that freeing Iraq from tyranny represented the most dangerous possible challenge to their ideology of a univocal pan-Arab state at the summit of the one world-one faith-one caliph.
Hehe, you’re funny Real_JeffS;
At most, we offered a target to the people that created the insurgency.
That’s got to be the dumbest statement I’ve read in many a day. Just what the fuck do you think causes an insurgency? Could it be the presence of foreign occupying forces?
By the way yet more positive news out of Iraq.
And just so you don’t miss the salient points I’ll quote them to you.
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
* Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 percent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
* 82 percent are “strongly opposed” to the presence or coalition troops;
* less than one percent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
* 67 percent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
* 43 percent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
* 72 percent do not have any confidence in the multinational forces.The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.
But hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your rebuilding the world in our image fantasies.
By the way our presence in Iraq is doing wonders for defence recruiting in Aus. Apparently a lot of young people who don’t agree with us being US lapdog aggressors, don’t feel the need to serve their nation in its defence forces. I suppose in many ways they just represent the status quo amongst the kiddies of our politicians in that regard.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 07:49 PM • permalinkDaily reports include notes like, “Wires noticed sticking out of dead goat on roadside; goat detonated by EOD” (a.k.a. the bomb squad). Recently, insurgents shoved an artillery shell into a cow’s butt and then herded it onto the roadway in front of a convoy in the hope of detonating it. Instead, the cow shat the 105mm suppository right back out. The only casualty was the cow’s rectum.
Where’s PETA?
Before the foreign forces came on the scene, what we now call the insurgency was called the government. Same tactics of murder, terror, and oppression though.
I think you’re also forgetting that foreigners could safely navigate the streets of baghdad, without the need for armoured military transports etc.
I’m not arguing Saddam wasn’t a murdering asshole. Its just that he wasn’t the only one by a long shot but I don’t see us rushing to overthrow Mugabe.Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 08:24 PM • permalink#11. Oh yeah! and the children flew kites in the breeze under Saddam - I saw it in a Mike Moore film.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 10 23 at 08:30 PM • permalinkThis is a top notch day! The timmy troll has found his shift key and managed to cite a source that actually supports his claims.
However, one would think numbers like that would have translated into a much more violent and coordinated insurgency that actually had the support of the Iraqi public as opposed to being even more reviled than timmy-troll thinks we are.
It’s odd that recent terrorist strategy was to blow up happy children visiting with US soldiers, given how everyone hates us and thinks we should be blown up there. Wouldn’t think there would be enough civilians hanging out with us to target.
And it is certainly a good thing, either way, that the Iraqi police and army are taking an increasingly stronger role in their own security and they are vigorously taking the fight to the terrorists, NOT us.
And this mystery poll doesn’t explain how the last vote went off so peacefully. But again, the Iraqis did an awful lot of their own security there, too. An unquestionably good thing.
So sorry, little timmy-troll, while this is still the first time you’ve actually managed to post something with your head partially dislodged from your rectum, you remain unconvincing.
Go stick yourself in front of a TV and jack off to every bit of bad news the opposition party in the media feeds you, and let the grownups talk.
wingnut, I suggest you take your desire to overthrow the UN’s poster boy Mugabe on the road and push it hard. I agree one hundred percent. I just find it odd that there are always people who are in favor of using the military to end bad things, just not wherever they’re actually being used.
And I, for one, am a little leery of any poll that doesn’t show me the actual questions asked, or the methodology used, or the internals, or, well any of those things that you need to show that it was done right and/or interpreted correctly. Hell, I have enough problems with idiot polls in the US and Australia to accept anything that comes out of “an Iraqi university”.
You really are a fucking idiot, aren’t you. I suppose you were all upset when Pol Pot was evicted by the Vietnamese? Are you cheering for Milosevic to spin out his trial for another several years then return to rule Serbia? Are you carrying water for Kim il-Jong? How do you feel about Hugo Chavez introducing Peronism or Stalinism or whatever in Venezuela? Do you prefer that his followers use machetes or bullets to kill their opponents?
Sheesh.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 10 23 at 08:34 PM • permalinkOh, and I understand that the streets of Pyonyang are really, really safe for foreigners, too. I suggest timmy wingnut visit for as long as necessary to join reality.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 10 23 at 08:36 PM • permalinkI don’t see us rushing to overthrow Mugabe.
Last I saw of Mugabe he was getting applause from your fucking side. At a conference on hunger.
Do you ever wake up with a huge burden of shame on your shoulders? A sense of doubt that maybe you’re advocating a bizarre order of false peace and diplomacy that gives sanction to murder and oppression as long as it also criticizes your domestic political opponents? Is that what drives you to project your self loathing on the rest of us?
Because we sure as fucking hell don’t recognize Mugabe as a respected member of the international community.
Jorg—he can take a trip down there with our own good old Ted Turner. LOVELY place, that NoKo. Bet the tree bark is delicious.
Of course, we should really take “wingnut” seriously and judge a country on whether or not it’s safe for us to walk the streets there. Screw the locals.
Ever feel like a colonial twat, timmy-troll?
Wow Sortelli and Jorg, get out of bed on the wrong side did we?
By the way what’s this shit about “your side.” Unlike ideological nutjobs such as yourself, many people in this country don’t have a side. That’s why the primary vote for both major parties keeps sinking at elections and they have to enact undemocratic legislation requiring valid votes to have numbered every box on the ballot so at least one of them will get your preference, even if the voter thinks party politics in the death of democracy.
As to the wonderful experience that is Iraq, I just love how the keyboard defenders of democracy rush to defend agression by our nation, but are noticeable by their or their families absence from the ranks of those that actually carry out government policy (ie the military). The oft quoted “chickenhawk” mentality is especially apt in your case.
By the way if you want to see what those who are actually fighting the war on an adjective think of the matter, try reading the following. obviously another left-wing coward. LOL
Why does pointing out the folly of invading Iraq, especially with such a well thought out post invasion plan (it’ll be alright - they’ll great us as liberators), immediately draw the ire of the extreme-right. Could it be that history (which they seem blissfully ignorant of) has time and time again shown the limitations of what can be achieved through the use of military power, and yet they are always keen to see it used. Just ‘cause you think the Earth’s flat don’t make it so.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 09:01 PM • permalinkBy the way have you all conveniently forgotten that the actual terrorists weren’t dealt with. George Bush did not finish the job of tracking down Bin Laden. Instead, he shifted key military and intelligence resources and started a war of choice in Iraq. Which ranks up there with other brilliant military strategies such as Hitler trying to invade England at the same time as getting bogged down on the Russian front.
Bush and Hitler do have something in common though, they both decided the best course for military action is to ignore dissenting opinion from within your general staff and instead go with the yes men.
General Shinseki was rightPosted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 09:17 PM • permalinkMy own first take on wingnut’s poll:
The alleged results of a secret poll leaked to a British newspaper are being touted by the Left as a wholesale rejection of the Coalition by Iraqis, claiming as much as 65% support suicide attacks. However, those who see this poll as a vindication of their anti-war views fail to take account of some significant parts of the story.
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces.
If their universities are anything like ours, that immediately renders the poll suspect. Furthermore, if the academics didn’t know it had been commissioned by the British, they might have thought it was commissioned by the insurgents and adjusted their results for maximum head-retaining effect.
The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.
In fact, the findings of this poll differ markedly from every other poll taken in Iraq over the last three years. I’m not ready to take this secondhand report of a supposedly secret survey as the final word just yet.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 10 23 at 09:19 PM • permalinkObviously though Shinseki wouldn’t have known what he was taliking about, would he?
Obviously not qualifiedPosted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 09:20 PM • permalinkOT
the remarkable MELANIE PHILLIPS is visiting Australia and haa a corker of a post about a Judicial activism forum in australia .
Tim, Andrew Bolt. etc you have missed your chance for an Interview.What a shame.
Those who have witnessed the hoo ha over David Hicks and Habib would do well to read it.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001460.htmlNews reporting is vistually dead at the BBC and has been replaced by activist news commentary.
First you quote a ‘journalist’ who’s current job is writing opinion pieces for her newspaper, and then you tell us news reporting is virtually dead.
Now that’s funny.Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 09:55 PM • permalinkWhy does pointing out the folly of invading Iraq, especially with such a well thought out post invasion plan (it’ll be alright - they’ll great us as liberators), immediately draw the ire of the extreme-right.
Well, wingnut, it’s because…no wait, er, you see it’s like this..hang on…No idea, really, but I’m quite willing to concede the point to you. Rumsfeld should’ve had his ass publicly kicked.
Pixy, that “friend to Saddam” bit feels good, but it don’t make much sense.
Where was wingnut’s poll conducted? Tikrit, possibly?
In any case, wingnut starts off his first post with nasty insults, which shows his lack of manners and/or any willingness to actually discuss anything in a rational way. Typical.
I’d be delighted if we took out Robert Mugabe. But, considering that the UN just honored him at a conference on hunger, I can’t imagine they’d be jumping at the chance to back us on that. And if we went ahead and did it anyway, guess who would be screaming the loudest at our “imperialist unilateralism”? Why, our buddy wingnut.
#29 Just one question RebeccaH,
When you say, if ‘we’ went ahead and did it anyway, am I right in assuming your contribution would involve, say you staying safely at home in Australia, whilst someone elses kids actually went and did the hard work in Zimbabwe?
Such bravery.Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 10:20 PM • permalinkwingnut, you chickenshithawk, I spent my time on active duty as did my son! Have you gone to help the Taliban or al-Qaida? I know that idiots like you have a hard time breathing and typing at the same time, but the US military is quite capable of doing more than two things at once.
As for bin Laden, you got any evidence he’s still alive? If so, produce it, forthwith!
And, of course, you make with the gay allusions, which is surely a sign of your secret desires (or maybe not so secret). What’s the matter, no woman (even 70-year-old toothless hookers) will have you? Hell, probably not even desperate AIDS-ridden 70-year-old male hookers will have you.
I just love how the less you know about the military, tactics, strategy, planning, etc the more you seem to bloviate about it. And you apparently know nothing you didn’t cut and paste from DailyKos and they know about as little as it is possible to know.
Among other things, *first* you plan to win the damn thing. Everything else is dependent on that. Second, NO PLAN ever survives contact with an actual enemy. The downfall of Marxists in general and pathetic idiots like the wingnut here is an abject faith in the possibility of ‘planners’ to make things actually work. Not is the real world, bozo.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 10 23 at 10:27 PM • permalinkI think you’re also forgetting that foreigners could safely navigate the streets of baghdad, without the need for armoured military transports etc.
Yeah, Saddam at least concentrated on murdering his own people. And Iranians. And Kuwaitis. And Israelis.
I’m not arguing Saddam wasn’t a murdering asshole.
Just that we shouldn’t ever do anything about it.
Its just that he wasn’t the only one by a long shot but I don’t see us rushing to overthrow Mugabe.
Well, given how much your side shrieked when we got rid of Saddam, what do you expect?
If your lot marched in the streets demanding that we got rid of Mugabe and Lil Kim and Castro, then you’d have a valid complaint.
Wow Sortelli and Jorg, get out of bed on the wrong side did we? Maybe you boys should get together and give each other a nice assfucking, might help you relax.
Really classy wingnut - certainly shows that you came here to actually debate a topic, as opposed to just throw insults around.
As to the wonderful experience that is Iraq, I just love how the keyboard defenders of democracy rush to defend agression by our nation, but are noticeable by their or their families absence from the ranks of those that actually carry out government policy (ie the military). The oft quoted “chickenhawk” mentality is especially apt in your case.
And you are bringing out such new and insightful insults at that! Lets see though - where was/is Jeffs stationed?
By the way have you all conveniently forgotten that the actual terrorists weren’t dealt with. George Bush did not finish the job of tracking down Bin Laden. Instead, he shifted key military and intelligence resources and started a war of choice in Iraq.
Another claim I have never heard before. Being the military expert that you obviously are - could you tell me what these key resources were? In what way did their supposed “shifting” lead to our failure to capture Bin Laden?
Which ranks up there with other brilliant military strategies such as Hitler trying to invade England at the same time as getting bogged down on the Russian front.
You must be a WWII scholar. The Battle of Britain occured from mid 1940 to early 1941. Hitlers failure in it put an end to any plans to invade England. Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) began in June 1941. Thanks for your input
Posted by attilathepun on 2005 10 23 at 10:36 PM • permalinkWingnut
if Hitler did not invade Britain before the attack on Russia, it is because without the advent of the troublesome Winston Churchill, Britain was busy disarming itself in line with Hitler’s outrages.
There was a huge push to nominate Chamberlain for the Nobel peace prize and when Hitler invaded Poland Chamberlain was heard to mutter ” Oh he betrayed my trust!” in the house of commons.
and more than 15 british million appeasers who had sigend “peace petitons” were willing to ally themselves with the thrid reich. Why waste effort invading a country who will ultimately submit?Thank you DIM-TIM for reminding me how selective Anti-Americans, both of American and other origins, are about what you all will accept as bona-fide news and what you will reject as fantasy. You accept the reported results of an anonymous poll without questioning the sample size, the sampling error, the experience of the surveyors, whether any of them were qualified statisticians, the fact that many respondents might have been afraid to give answers to a stranger who might be in bed with the terrorists, etc. I hate to bore you with these technical details, but having experience myself in conducting surveys in places similar to Iraq, I can verify that there is a considerable lack of technical and other knowledge and experience in countries like Iraq in the area of public opinion surveys. I know that you will find this hard to believe, considering that the Sadass kept a close eye on opinion in his caliphate. You accept the anonymous reports of this so-called survey while failing to notice another well documented and openly reported survey, the extraordinary turnout of voting Iraqis in favor of the Constitution, a statistical fact produced by , equivalently, a valid statistical survey, and one not reported by an anonymous cabal. It’s the likes of you to accept any BS that satisfies your preconceived notion. I bet you believed, as openly ( and falsely) reported by CBS, ABC, BBC,etc., that 10,000 people died in New Orleans in “Katrina” and taht all of these (non) deaths were Bushies’ fault.
well done attila,
of course the attempt to invade England, ahd absolutely no effect on the German’s ability in other operations, after all they suffered absolutely no losses of machinery or personnel in the attempt. You’re obviously a genius in military affairs clown.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 10:47 PM • permalinkPixy,
By the way, there are no “kids” in the Australian, American or British military. Just thought you’d like to know. They’re all-volunteer, all-adult forces.
You obviously need to read more. There are current serving military personnel in the Australian defence force under the age of 18. They are just not able to be sent into active combat areas.
As to my use of kids, read the passage again. I wasn’t referring to the kids as under the age of 18. I was referring to them as being someones children. Which they remain regardless of their age. But of course you were just trying to be disingenous weren’t you? If you weren’t then your obviously dumber than I thought.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 10:51 PM • permalinkJorg, or should that be Private Jorg,
obviously you picked up a wealth of knowledge regarding the use of military tactics and planning in your time spent in the junior ranks.
“Now private Jorg pick up this weapon, no the other way round, now run in that direction. Try not to get shot.”Among other things, *first* you plan to win the damn thing. Everything else is dependent on that. Second, NO PLAN ever survives contact with an actual enemy.
Actually numbnuts, the US did win the war, its just the post-war phase they seem not to have spent a lot of time thinking about. Which of course involved absolutely no-contact with the initial enemy, but rather a new enemy that arose because of the lack of post-war planning. Obviously with your abilities you would have also achieved the same outcome.
If you don’t have anything intelligent to contribute, perhaps you should just shut the fuck up.Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 10:57 PM • permalinkOh by the way Pixy,
I’ll show you just how hard is was to find out the age of defence recruits. You go to google you type in Australian defence recruiting. And then you look under the title “underage candidates”
what do you get?Obviously you know nothing and can’t be bothered to even find out the fact you know nothing. Are you sufficiently embarrassed now?
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:02 PM • permalinkPixy,
alternatively if you actually listened or watched any news. You would know that the commonwealth ombudsman has just finished a large investigation into the use of young persons in the military.
Cth OmbudsmanBut of course when A Current Affair and Timmy’s blog is your sole source of news then you probably will remain as ignorant as you demonstrably already are.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:06 PM • permalinkHey T-SAW (to coin an acronym).
(That sounds like a weapon, doesn’t it? Newsflash: “Australia’s elite 1st Moonbat Assault Regiment has recently been re-equipped with T-SAW blog auto shotguns.”)
Anyway, about Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is big enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. Do you realise how large American military/intel resources really are? Sheesh, in WW2 they were conducting military or OSS operations across half the world at once.
And do you really believe that chickenhawk shit? You really want foreign and defence policy to be decided only by those serving or who have children in uniform? And what would happen if servicemen/women/parents voted to launch some war you disapproved of? You’d be cool with it?
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 23 at 11:06 PM • permalinkAs to my use of kids, read the passage again. I wasn’t referring to the kids as under the age of 18. I was referring to them as being someones children. Which they remain regardless of their age.
So what you mean is not “someone else’s kids” but “someone else”. You inserted the word “kids” purely for rhetorical effect. That’s what you’re saying?
Nice try asshat, but what you said was:
Which ranks up there with other brilliant military strategies such as Hitler trying to invade England at the same time as getting bogged down on the Russian front.
When did Hitler try and invade England? When was the German army bogged down on the Russian front? Were the same time?
Posted by attilathepun on 2005 10 23 at 11:10 PM • permalinkOur post-war planning involves assisting the formation of a democratic form of government, the election of the Iraqi government, the writing and approval of a Iraqi constitution that promises representation to all parties (not just the Sunnis), the formation and training of increasingly greater number of Iraqi soldiers, and eventually the handover of all Iraqi governmental and defense responsibilities to the Iraqis.
This is all happening, with the grateful cooperation of the Iraqi people, notwithstanding the insurgents’ and terrorists’ best efforts to stop it.
Note the difference between how the US/Coalition fights terrorism and how Russia does it.
(where is Andrea?)
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 23 at 11:20 PM • permalinkAttila, that’s not very nice language.
Of course I was being a bit general in my earlier post. So how about I clarify. Of course whilst at the time of the operation to invade britian the Germans were not actively engaged in fighting the Russians, they were of course in a shakey truce with them and continuing to subjugate the polish, which of course required vast amounts of men and machinery to be kept in the Eastern region of Nazi Germany’s occupied lands. So smart move by Hitler to open up another front in the war.
Later on in the war Hitler rather then pull his forces back from the russian front to ensure their survival as a fighting force and to help repel the Allied forces in the West, used them up in a pointless exercise trying to defeat the Russians in Russia. Sound like any similar situation going on in the world today?
Fighting wars of choice on multiple fronts with all volunteer forces rarely constitutes good military planning.
The question you should be asking yourself, is why the fuck are we in Iraq. There were no WMDs, Saddam was contained and if nothing else kept his part of the middle east out of the hands of the Ayatollahs in Iran. But no, now we’ve got a much better geopolitical situation. The limitations of US military power are now clear for all to see, the US is completely unable to now act in any other region given its recruiting and budgetary problems, Iran will probably end up controlling the southern oil fields in Iraq, and many thousands of people have died who otherwise wouldn’t have. Brilliant strategy.Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:25 PM • permalinkPixy,
And yes, there are cadets and apprentices and the like attached to the military. And they don’t take part in hostilities, and can therefore not be sent to Zimbabwe. So your point is?
They’re not attached to the military, they are members of the permanent military forces, subject to the DFDA etc.
They don’t take part in hostilites beyond our shores, but would certainly be put into action should Austrlai come under direct threat. They carry loaded firearms for fucks sake.My point was that you were commenting about stuff you know nothing about.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:28 PM • permalinkT-SAW
Yes, invading Russia before Britain had been forced to surrender was a bad strategic move on Hitler’s part (for which we can all be thankful). But there’s no parallel whatsover to Iraq and Afghanistan. A better analogy would be when the US entered WW2. It made Germany the first priority, but at the same time conducted very large, successful operations against Japan.
why the fuck are we in Iraq
Why, to kill ragheads and steal their oil, of course. Haven’t you been keeping up with the neo-con agenda? (/sarc just in case anyone’s wondering)
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 23 at 11:35 PM • permalinkwronwright,
Our post-war planning involves assisting the formation of a democratic form of government, the election of the Iraqi government, the writing and approval of a Iraqi constitution that promises representation to all parties (not just the Sunnis), the formation and training of increasingly greater number of Iraqi soldiers, and eventually the handover of all Iraqi governmental and defense responsibilities to the Iraqis.
Don’t you think the post war planning should have started with things like say,
* ensuring that weapons caches found or captured during the invasion were secured.
* preventing the wholesale looting of the country in the days after the military victory? Rather than commenting about how its a wonderful thing and freedoms messy.
* rather than throwing out of work a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, who took their weapons home with them, perhaps co-opting them into the formation of a new government.
* throwing all the public servants who were baath party members out of their jobs. (Which of course pretty much represented the entire public service since you needed to be a member to get a job.) So now you’ve got a lot of pissed off educated unemployed people. I wonder who makes these bombs?That’s what I call planning. As to all the crap about constitutional referendums etc. All of that’s been rushed compromises instituted since everything went to shit, with a view of giving the US a plausible exit strategy. And you know it but won’t admit it.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:35 PM • permalinkOf course whilst at the time of the operation to invade britian the Germans were not actively engaged in fighting the Russians, they were of course in a shakey truce with them
So when you referred to Hitler’s brilliant strategy of invading Britain at the same time as being bogged down on the russian front, what you meant was his brilliant plan of invading britain whilst having a pact with the russians? That’s not clarity, thats a mistake.
Sound like any similar situation going on in the world today?
Chechnya maybe? Actually, I can’t think of anywhere else in the world where an army is being “used up” in a pointless exercise to the point where they will no “longer survive as a fighting force”. To compare Iraq with the Russian front is ridiculous, and reinforces your display of ignorance.
Fighting wars of choice on multiple fronts with all volunteer forces rarely constitutes good military planning.
So you agree we are fighting a war? And weren’t you calling for us to knock off Mugabe earlier? Wouldn’t that be a “new front”?
The question you should be asking yourself, is why the fuck are we in Iraq. There were no WMDs, Saddam was contained and if nothing else kept his part of the middle east out of the hands of the Ayatollahs in Iran.
And fuck the Iraqi people yeah? Comments like that just prove that any sympathy you may claim towards the US military, the iraqis or the zimbabweans is a complete lie. You couldn’t give a toss about them unless they are useful to you in an argument.
The limitations of US military power are now clear for all to see, the US is completely unable to now act in any other region given its recruiting and budgetary problems
Is there a memo that goes around that you guys just read from? What are the “limits of US power”? Cliches are great until you have to back them up.
Posted by attilathepun on 2005 10 23 at 11:42 PM • permalink#44
Anyway, about Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is big enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. Do you realise how large American military/intel resources really are? Sheesh, in WW2 they were conducting military or OSS operations across half the world at once.
Of course in WWII, the US had compulsory military service and the entire economy and manufacturing capacity of industry was turned over to meeting the war effort. But hey don’t let facts get in the way Lionel.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:43 PM • permalinkYou want a perfect invasion, a perfect war. Sorry, there are no such things.
The closest we can come up with is to establish a set of priorities, value them, and implement in the best manner possible. You’re simply acting as a gadfly, pointing to every misstep and saying that that alone proves that the war was a mistake.
No, the war was absolutely necessary, as a part of a far reaching plan to combat Islamist terrorism NOW before it forms to a level that makes it difficult if not impossible to fight LATER. The consequences are huge and cannot be dismissed by the left.
But ... if you have a better idea Mr. I Know More Than Tim Blair, let’s hear it buddy.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 23 at 11:44 PM • permalinkWould agree with timmy on one thing (the agony) US would have been much better off engaging in a structured “de-Bathist” programme with the army and civil service.
Much the same way they did with the Nazis after WW2.
of course that would have been as open to criticism as the current situation, with MSM blowing up every time an ex bathist was proven.
So a bit of dammned if they did and dammned if they didnt I think.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 23 at 11:47 PM • permalinkrather than throwing out of work a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, who took their weapons home with them, perhaps co-opting them into the formation of a new government.
You know those 300,000 dead Iraqis? And the million dead from the Iran/Iraq war? Saddam didn’t kill them all by himself, you know.
* throwing all the public servants who were baath party members out of their jobs.
Yeah, just because we know that they’re corrupt and ineffective doesn’t mean… What was the question again?
Pixy pixy pixy,
You’re the one advocating invading Zimbabwe, not me. I merely pointed out that we aren’t rushing off to overthrow Mugabe, yet Saddam with whom we had a positive trade balance just had to go. Last time I looked Iraq wasn’t even a member of the Commonwealth, so why our rush to help invade another nation.
Cause they had WMDs I hear? Andrew Wilkie demonstrated that we knew they didn’t have WMDs, so any other justifications, that haven’t been thought up post the invasion. No I didn’t think so.As to the rest of my point, well it was that you’re an uneducated idiot that is commenting on stuff she knows nothing about. Thakns again for demonstrating that with your solid knowledge re age restricitions for military service in the ADF.
Posted by timmys still a wingnut on 2005 10 23 at 11:48 PM • permalinkthrowing all the public servants who were baath party members out of their jobs. (Which of course pretty much represented the entire public service since you needed to be a member to get a job.) So now you’ve got a lot of pissed off educated unemployed people. I wonder who makes these bombs?
The Iraqi public service is making all the IED’s? Wow, I have met some mean public servants in my time, but not many with experience in demolitions.
So your plan would be to remove Saddam (not that you agree with that) but keep the army, public servants and Baath party apparatus? You love your WWII comparisons, so we should have kept the German army in paid employment, as well as the Nazified public service?
Actually, there is no point arguing. You don’t aim for internal consitency or logic in your arguments, you just spout the usual cliches and then move on. If one is shown to be moronic, you just grab the next one.
With tactics like this, I find it amazing that the anti-war/anti-US crowd can’t seem to win many elections - I would have thought abuse was a great way to convince people of the strength of your position.
Posted by attilathepun on 2005 10 23 at 11:50 PM • permalinkBy the way, the Iraqi military and the Baath government were both corrupt, inefficient, incompetent, and to quote the boys at Iraq the Model, tremendously distrusted by the people of Iraq. Yes, disbanding them and not using them made it more difficult for the coalition. They had to form a new government, create a government apparatus, and organize a new army all from scratch. But by doing just that, they could do it right.
And that’s the bottom line, we have to do it right.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 23 at 11:50 PM • permalinkYou’re the one advocating invading Zimbabwe, not me. I merely pointed out that we aren’t rushing off to overthrow Mugabe, yet Saddam with whom we had a positive trade balance just had to go.
And that should be a consideration as to whether we invade a country - our trade balance?
Posted by attilathepun on 2005 10 23 at 11:54 PM • permalinkYou’re the one advocating invading Zimbabwe, not me.
You brought it up.
Admittedly, it was only intended as a logical fallacy (if you can’t do everything, you shouldn’t do anything), but you brought it up.
I merely pointed out that we aren’t rushing off to overthrow Mugabe, yet Saddam with whom we had a positive trade balance just had to go.
So you only support fascist dictators if we can make money off them, is that it?
Last time I looked Iraq wasn’t even a member of the Commonwealth, so why our rush to help invade another nation.
So you support fascist dictators so long as they are not members of the British Commonwealth and we don’t have a positive trade balance with them. Do I have that straight?
I think I need to draw a Venn diagram here. Or at least a flowchart.
So, positive trade balance: Leave them to their murdering.
Member of British Commonwealth: Kick their arses.But which takes precedence? If they’re a profitable Commonwealth member, do we invade or not? We need to know!
I seem to recall that most of our trade with Iraq was wheat and live sheep. No blood for lamb sandwiches!
They had to form a new government, create a government apparatus, and organize a new army all from scratch. But by doing just that, they could do it right.
Sadly, I don’t think they have done it right. Or at least, it’s taking its sweet time to come right.
Several military people and conservatives, not just leftists, have publicly stated post-war planning was badly botched. T-SAW’s list at #52 is quite valid (not that I agree with the rest of his scattergun drivel).
I would like to see (a) a major enquiry into post-war planning by a bipartisan commission and (b) if it conclusively shows mistakes were made, for the architects of those mistakes to apologise and resign. That probably means Rumsfeld (though to his credit, I believe he has offered to resign).
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 24 at 12:07 AM • permalink#67 ... compared to the alternatives put forward by Army and USMC officers who had been wargaming the conflict in advance (like Generals Shinseki and Zinni), and the State Department, and some independent analysts.
The alternatives involved (a) keeping the Iraqi army extant in some form, (b) having more GIs and Marines on the ground from the beginning, and (c) putting more pre-War planning into restoring essential services like power and water.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 24 at 12:34 AM • permalinkMmph.
What I really meant was compared to what real-world situation, not compared to what untested alternative plan. So, compared to post-WWII Japan, say. Except that the situations are completely different.
Now, I certainly wouldn’t argue that the post-war phase has run smoothly or that the planning was exactly brilliant. But the alternatives either have their own built-in problems (e.g. keeping the Iraqi army around) or seem to carelessly disregard the finite nature of available resources (more boots on the ground).
It’s not easy to rebuild a country like Iraq into a constitutional democracy. Particularly with Iran and Syria and the former Ba’athists doing everything they can to spoil the party.
Ah, and I see that my decision to ban “timmys still a wingding” or whatever this dickhead is calling himself was the right one.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 10 24 at 12:43 AM • permalinkLionel, I have to disagree with you. Certainly there were problems. But I believe what you have to ask are several questions.
1. What went wrong? What is the value of each of those?
2. What went right? What is the value of each of those?
3. Could the planning have been improved with the conditions established prior to the war?
4. For the things that went wrong, what are the costs that would need to be incurred in order to eliminate or mitigate those wrongs?The left is very happy to make up a laundry list of the mistakes that the military made. But the question that should be asked and seldom is is what is the importance of each of those? Could they have been avoided? At what costs? Does the benefit of avoiding them equal to or exceed the benefits?
The military is very good at make up priority lists, determining what must be done, what has to be done, what needs to be done, what should be done, what can be done, and what can fall into a category of “it sure would be nice if we could do that”.
The first overall question that had to be asked has been: was this war necessary. The US and its coalition allies gave an unequivocal answer: YES.
Fine. The war will happen. But there will always—always—be problems that arise from a war. It’s simply unavoidable. And in this age of instant news, those problems have a tendency of being spotlighted without any context or objectivity being provided with it. (See Katrina media coverage). But what few people will ask is, could we have avoided those problems, how, and what would have been the costs or trade offs in doing so?
With respect to the looting, yes, it happened. Our focus was on fighting the remnants of Saddam’s army, an army that was shooting with the intention of killing US soldiers. That was the priority at that point in time. The looters were principally made up of members of disadvantaged groups of Iraqis that, to some extent, were seen as taking revenge against the powers that rendered them powerless, oppressed, and with little access to the wealth of the country.
To stop the looting would have required the redirecting of combat operations from the Iraqi soldiers who posed a danger to coalition soldiers to Iraqi civilians who did not. Thousands of deaths would have ensued. Anger and resentment of groups from which we were seeking assistance and cooperation would likely have been generated, making the situation infinitely worse.
Yes, the looting was bad, but the alternative was worse. Unfortunately, that’s the hard part of waging a war—to make the devil’s bargain of choosing the least bad of several very bad options.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 24 at 12:44 AM • permalinkwingnut:
You really are fucking stupid aren’t you? They’re not attached to the military, they are members of the permanent military forces, subject to the DFDA etc.
They don’t take part in hostilites beyond our shores, but would certainly be put into action should Austrlai come under direct threat. They carry loaded firearms for fucks sake.You know nothing about the military. A cadet is not a member of the armed forces—a cadet is an officer in training, and not a real soldier. As a cadet, my only official connection to the military was holding the rank of E1 (buck private) for 4 years in the inactive Reserves. I still have the discharge papers. I was “attached”. Cadets are not in the chain of command; they have to be commissioned in order to hold authority.
They are officers in training. In simple terms, they are going to college to learn to be soldiers and officers. Since weapons are a part of soldiering, they get to use them. Not “carry” them, unless the ADF goes armed 24/7, even in country. I know ROTC and US Military Academy cadets only draw weapons for training, as needed.
And so on. This is really a minor example of your ignorance and bile. Brush away the horseshit, and the fact is, you hate anything that doesn’t fit your “standards”.
Why the danger quotes? Here’s another quote from you for you:
Unlike ideological nutjobs such as yourself, many people in this country don’t have a side.
One of the defining characteristics of the far left is their moral relativism. They believe that right and wrong (ethics) are arbitrary and transitory, determined by the individual or the culture. Your earlier comment puts you squarely in that category.
I bring this up because you claim not to have a side. To which I say: Bullshit! You have a side. You just don’t want to admit it. If you are against something, you are for something else. Fence sitters merely accept the results of the victors, that’s all.
Everything you’ve posted here are old points, brought up before by other trolls. Hell, it’s like reading a talking points memo from Democratic Underground!
But, in fact, you do have a side. You’re not a fence sitter. I say this because you are gloating over this “poll”. You are criticizing what happened 2-3 years ago. You are ignoring the good things that have happened in Iraq. You are slamming military service, and those who have served. You are flinging feces at people who do support the war.
Personally, I don’t care if you want to fellate Saddam Hussein, or let Naom Chomski bugger you. That’s your choice. It’s a stupid choice, and one that will not fare well for you, or for western civilization. But no one is in a position to force you to believe something you don’t want to. Or to do something that you don’t believe in. In spite of your innermost fears, I might add.
But don’t think behaving like a little child in the throes of a full fledged tantrum is going to make any points for those with opposing views. You’ve made one or two good points, but your overall behavior simply negates that. Insults in a thread have their place. In a very limited place, I might add.
You’re assuming that everyone here are idiots simply because they don’t believe what you do, and don’t respond in a positive manner to your earlier posts (which were equally childish and left leaning, I might add). Bad assumption, wingnut. A stupid one, in fact.
You are a clueless fool who is not concerned about “right” or “wrong”. You are concerned for your own immediate well being, nothing more. A child starving in Zimbabwe means less to you than that cup of coffee you had this morning. If that were so, you would be in the streets, demanding that Mugabe be thrown down; I haven’t heard about any of those, lately.
If you were concerned about children, period, you would arguing against the Coalition and terrorists in Iraq, and not focusing on the Coalition. Instead, you enable the terrorists by ignoring them.
So you’re not a fence sitter. Not even close.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 24 at 12:53 AM • permalinkLionel, I wouldn’t be quoting Shinseki on this. Frankly, he wasn’t that great of a general officer. He wasn’t a clueless fool, mind you, but I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
Having said that,—the post war planning was indeed lacking. But that’s immaterial to the current situation. Unless you just want to harp on past mistakes to discredit current efforts. Remember that we corrected that by making new plans. That’s called “admitting a mistake”, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Hopefully the doctrine writers are taking this into account.
What is important is that the terrorists are losing. Yes, they are still killing people. But they aren’t making any headway, either. Instead, we have relatively peaceful elections in Iraq (hint: compare the last round to the January elections, or to the elections in India earlier this year). We have a somewhat improving economy. The Iraqi security and military forces are improving, a major plus, given that we started from zero.
That’s losing, to the terrorists.
Yep, the post-war planning sucked, but the world is not all doom and gloom. And that’s what wingnut focused on. Another friggin’ doomsayer.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 24 at 01:05 AM • permalinkAndrea—thanks for banning that idiot bum.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 24 at 01:05 AM • permalinkAgree with most of what you say Wronwright - particularly that the war was necessary - but the complaint is not that the military made mistakes, it’s that the Administration ignored the military’s well-considered advice, e.g. over troop numbers. That would have given more latitude to destroy the remnants of the Iraqi army while still stopping looting. And no, stopping looting wouldn’t have caused “thousands of deaths”. How many looters are going to attack US troops with tanks and APCs backing them?
Pixy - there’s no recent historical parallel. Because of that, and because US forces haven’t been involved in reconstructing countries for a while, and because Saddam had so comprehensively screwed Iraq, the Administration should have been more conservative in its planning. By which I mean expecting the ‘worst-case’ to ensue - and therefore having the max troops, military police, engineers etc. to start rebuilding.
JeffS - its immaterial except that many of the policy-makers are still there. As you know, many wartime leaders, like Churchill, were ruthless in sacking failed commanders. A bipartisan enquiry might enable those responsible for recent mistakes to be identified and fired.
Anyway Lionel very sad that Wingnut Tim gone. The mix of argument and flaming surrounding gentlemen like him is highly entertaining!
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 24 at 01:15 AM • permalinkJeffS - have you read the article by Andrew F. Krepinevich at http://www.foreignaffairs.org?
A retired Major and history professor, he writes, “After two years, Washington has made little progress in defeating the insurgency or providing security for Iraqis, even as it has overextended the U.S. Army and eroded support for the war among the American public. Although withdrawing now would be a mistake, simply “staying the course,” by all current indications, will not improve matters either. Winning in Iraq will require a new approach.
The basic problem is that the United States and its coalition partners have never settled on a strategy for defeating the insurgency and achieving their broader objectives ...
Without a clear strategy in Iraq, moreover, there is no good way to gauge progress.”
We shouldn’t be defeatist about the war like so much of the MSM is, but we shouldn’t be too upbeat either. A debate about the past and current situation would help clarify if we need a new strategy, as Krepinevich thinks. (Of course, it would be good if the MSM could have that debate on important and sensible issues, not on the issues chosen by people like Sheehan and Mike Moore.)
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 24 at 01:46 AM • permalinkPixy - there’s no recent historical parallel. Because of that, and because US forces haven’t been involved in reconstructing countries for a while, and because Saddam had so comprehensively screwed Iraq, the Administration should have been more conservative in its planning. By which I mean expecting the ‘worst-case’ to ensue - and therefore having the max troops, military police, engineers etc. to start rebuilding.
Well, yeah, the “money no object” approach. But money is always an object. Although it’s worthwhile to ask if it would have been cheaper overall if we had spent more at the beginning. The answer is not obvious.
Missed my chance to dig up this body yet AGAIN with wingdoodle or whatever.
wron #73 is wright
No action has more unintended effects than war. Bush Snr. knew that when he decided to leave one of history’s greatest loose ends and let the Shiites and Kurds fry.
Iraq was always going to be a tough ask but no argument I have heard has convinced me that military action was not the only choice. Mafia regimes speak only one language and the Food-for-Oil Scandal has shot large round holes in the containment theory.
It would be interesting to see what was really going on between the Sunni diehards and jihadists before and during the conflict. It is likely they guessed the conscripts would melt away and prepared early for a guerrilla campaign. The speed with which suicide bombing became a major tactic is interesting and suggests - apart from much other evidence - that links between the two were longstanding.
Another interesting question is why the Saddam government was still playing funny buggers with the weapons inspectors like it did have WMDs. We know what full and open declaration looks like from the experience in South Africa and Libya. Iraq was not coming clean anywhere like these. Some weird self-defeating bluff was afoot. The best way to win at the shell game is get rid of the pea but what are others to do when they believe the pea will harm them?
Polls, polls, polls… There have been two ELECTIONS in Iraq, free and fair - and the message is clear. The Iraqi people want to live - suprise, suprise - under the rule of law with a government that is answerable to them. This would not have happened without foreign intervention nor will the fledgling democracy survive without its continued presence. That, as they say in the funny papers, is it.
There have been mistakes but what’s going right matters more - much more.
JeffS - its immaterial except that many of the policy-makers are still there. As you know, many wartime leaders, like Churchill, were ruthless in sacking failed commanders. A bipartisan enquiry might enable those responsible for recent mistakes to be identified and fired.
Lionel, could you define “failure”, please? We’ve agreed that that there was a problem with the initial plan. At least, I think so. I can’t get my hands around your point, except that maybe no one was fired for making mistakes. Churchill fired incompetent people, not people made mistakes, and then corrected them. There’s a difference.
Or are you one of those people that believe there’s such a thing as “zero defects”? If so, we’d better agree to disagree, ‘cuz I don’t accept the practice of canning people for simply making mistakes; that’s the easy route. Incompetence is harder to define, but it can be defined. It’s also sends a better message to the troops.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 24 at 03:13 AM • permalinkAm I the only one who, when hearing “bipartisan” used, wonders if that means like the Senate hearings for Bush cabinet posts and Supreme Court nominees?
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 10 24 at 03:26 AM • permalinkInurbanus, ‘tis sad but true what you say.
But what the lefties do is also the easy route—it’s so much easier to blame someone and stop working than to just fix the problem, shoulder the load, and keep on trucking.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 24 at 04:29 AM • permalinkBut… an example has to be made of someone! /sarcasm
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 10 24 at 04:45 AM • permalinkBut the left CARE about the darkies, thats much more important than DOING something usefull to help them.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 24 at 04:47 AM • permalinkJeffs #86
A lot to do, as well, with the inner city elites’ capture of the left in the last twenty years and their drift toward ever less electable positions - or lack of them.
They make no bones about their contempt for voters now and are happy to play theatre critic away from the shot and shell of policy and the tough decisions that have be made by those who do.
We need an opposition with a bit of blood in its veins.
That would work for me, Inurbanus. I especially dislike irrelevant, feces flinging monkeys.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 24 at 06:48 AM • permalinkLefties seem to have this idea that government can solve everything.
It’s the secularists’ version of god and can even make hurricanes disappear.
True. That’s why the Communists are so down on religion - it’s not enlightened secular humanism, it’s old-fashing “thou shalt have no other god before The Party”.
Lefties do not like competition.
Funny how Lionel reappears as (almost) good cop to timmy’s rantmonster. How amusing and entertaining he finds timmy, how sad he is gone. All that has been achieved is a boost toTim Blair’s hit counter.
Menawhile, back in the rational world - yes, very good article on judicial activism by Melanie PhillipsWhat about cheese-eating surrender ones, JeffS?
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 10 24 at 08:31 AM • permalinkblogstrop
What struck me about Phillips’ piece was the sense of argument at this conference.
Educational conferences which I am forced to attend are more monocultural than one of Mao’s re-education camps. Note the intimidatory atmosphere of politically-inspired righteousness and the tendentious nonsense that could therefore be paraded without challenge on the strength of it.
And there’s the inevitable talk of racism , the left’s pet sin and its priesthood, ever watchful, not only guarding the orthodoxies but keeping the laity in awe. Who would have thought that racism, as a genre practice, could be so recondite, so mysterious and insidious? One would not have detected it but it was there.
37 Stats
You accept the reported results of an anonymous poll without questioning the sample size, the sampling error, the experience of the surveyors, whether any of them were qualified statisticians, the fact that many respondents might have been afraid to give answers to a stranger who might be in bed with the terrorists, etc. I hate to bore you with these technical details,
Tut tut Stats, tut tut! This was a SECRET poll, so clearly none of those hair-splitting considerations can be applied to it. We can tell it’s TRUE because it’s SECRET; and we can tell it’s SECRET because it was LEAKED! What more do you need? How dare you impugn the motives and methods of the unidentified pollsters, who are, I’ll have you know, prestigiously (albeit anonymously) affiliated with an Iraqi university?! That’s right, a university! I bet you feel foolish now, Mr (or Ms) skeptical-pants!Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 10 24 at 04:18 PM • permalinkDIM-TIM informs us that we have no right to support the struggle against monstrosities, nor even to speak out against them unless we send our own “kids” into battle. He back tracks to the absurd after he is informed that the U.S. force is composed of volunteers who are not children: he responds:
“As to my use of kids, read the passage again. I wasn’’t referring to the kids as under the age of 18. I was referring to them as being someones children. Which they remain regardless of their age.”
Ah, but isn’t it so that we are all children of “someone”, or maybe not? Perhaps DIM-TIM knows from experience something more than we know from Biology I. He himself might have emerged parentless, or perhaps, like McDuff, was untimely ripped from his mother’s womb.Mr. Bingley, the cheese eating surrender monkeys sit right next to the feces flinging monkeys. Sometimes I think they make the feces to fling.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 25 at 01:50 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“We created an insurgency that wasn’t here,”
It seems, when you’re dealing with the “Religion of Peace”, it doesn’t take much effort.
Like, just being there.