Video: Collateral murder, or the risks of war zones?

posted at 2:12 pm on April 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Wikileaks released a video today of an engagement in Baghdad in 2007 that resulted in the deaths of two journalists from Reuters in an effort to accuse the US of covering up a war crime. Calling the incident “collateral murder,” Wikileaks says that it wants to promote the safety of journalists in war zones with the release of the DoD video, but the video itself shows why the US forces fired on the group — and on the vehicle that came to their aid. Note that the video itself contains NSFW language and graphic images of death (via John Holowach at TrueHigh):

In the video, starting at the 3:50 mark, one member of this group starts preparing what clearly looks like an RPG launcher, as well as some individuals with AK-47s. The launcher then reappears at the 4:06 mark as the man wielding it sets up a shot for down the street. In 2007 Baghdad, this would be a clear threat to US and Iraqi Army ground forces; in fact, it’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place. That’s exactly the kind of threat that US airborne forces were tasked to detect and destroy, which is why the gunships targeted and shot all of the members of the group.

Another accusation is that US forces fired on and killed rescue workers attempting to carry one of the journalists out of the area. However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces.  While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do.  They don’t need to wait until someone gets hold of the RPG launcher and fires it at the gunship or at the reinforcements that had already begun to approach the scene.  The gunships acted to protect the approaching patrol, which is again the very reason we had them in the air over Baghdad.

War correspondents take huge risks to bring news of a war to readers far away.  What this shows is just how risky it is to embed with terrorists, especially when their enemy controls the air.  War is not the same thing as law enforcement; the US forces had no responsibility for identifying each member of the group and determining their mens rea.  Legitimate rescue operations would have included markings on the vehicle and on uniforms to let hostile forces know to hold fire, and in the absence of that, the hostile forces have every reason to consider the second support group as a legitimate target as well.   It’s heartbreaking for the families of these journalists, but this isn’t “collateral murder” — it’s war.

Update: Rusty Shackleford has more thoughts at The Jawa Report.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Wow that is a poisoned well.

daesleeper on April 6, 2010 at 12:31 PM

As the saying goes, you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Collateral murder my ass. It’s well documented that Reuters employees were collaborating with the enemy.

infidel4life on April 6, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I wonder if this will have the same effect that the famous picture of ARVN Police commander Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting the Vietcong soldier in the head in 1968. It may have been legal since the VC was captured not wearing a uniform in a combat zone, but the disturbing image helped to turn public opinion against the war. Some things are beyond our control.

KillerKane on April 6, 2010 at 1:37 PM

If these were insurgents, then why is the spokesman for the U.S. Central Command saying that it was a camera, not an RPG:

Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that U.S. forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents.

[...]

Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Poster Bob Anthony states “War has not solved anything..”

Hey Bob, tell that to your grandfather’s generation who went to war to defeat the nazi scourge. War seems to have solved that problem. I guess it DOES solve some problems, huh?

bannedbyhuffpo on April 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Are you sure they weren’t insurgents?

blink on April 6, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Personally, I don’t feel certain of anything. But the military spokesman said they weren’t insurgents, so that’s pretty noteworthy, I think.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM

orange on April 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Newsflash: Insurgents carry cameras too, as do news agencies like Reuters that are embedded in bed with them.

infidel4life on April 6, 2010 at 3:39 PM

MALKIN, YOU AND YOUR NEOCON WAR MONGERING CRONIES HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT!

Guess you’re not one of these Libtards upset at Obama over escalating the war in Afghanistan and targeting people with drone strikes in Pakistan?

Don’t you have a Crimean War protest or something to go to while your parents have the basement fumigated?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Or as Wikileaks director Julian Assange puts it, “Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?”

They couldn’t hear the Apaches, moron.

The Apaches were too far away.

How do we know this?

Cannon fire. Note the cannon fires then seconds later the rounds hit.

Caliber 30x113mm
Action Chain gun
Rate of fire 625 rpm
Muzzle velocity 805 m/s (2,641 ft/s)
Effective range 1,500 m (1,640 yd)
Maximum range 4,500 m (4,920 yd)

Do the math, idiot. If it took 1 second for the round to hit the target after being fired then the Apache was 2,641 ft away!

Time it, round fired to round hit tells you the distance. This is 3rd grade math!

DSchoen on April 6, 2010 at 3:53 PM


If these were insurgents, then why is the spokesman for the U.S. Central Command saying that it was a camera, not an RPG:

Well, it appears we have a lot of monday-morning quarterbackers.

(1)
If it was a camera, why would the journalist right now want to take a picture of that helicopter that is 1/2 mile away?

(2)
there is no way you can see there were children in that van. Iraq people aren’t the tallest and when most of the body is hiding in a van, there is no difference. May be if they had used some super camera from a not moving position they could have seen some infant teeth but last time I checked they don’t have those camera’s in those wobbly choppers.

(3)
if it was a photographer (it was NOT), he should have known better. If you aim a toy gun at a police guy from around the corner in a location where other people have AK47′s , the police guy would shoot to defend himself. And for sure if someone is pointing something that looks like a rocket launcher at you.

(4)
this whole video is actually proof to me that Reuters employs terrorists or people helping and propagandize terrorism.

The only thing that really amazes me is the incredible calm those soldiers show while waiting for orders and while they know that every second they can be killed by those terrorists. Not only from the terrorists they are looking at but also from some sneaky guy they had not yet spotted.

those reuters guys were aiding and abetting the terrorists. Too bad they were not captured alive so the new Iraq government could do some interrogation on them.

mooseburger on April 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM

If these were insurgents, then why is the spokesman for the U.S. Central Command saying that it was a camera, not an RPG:
orange on April 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

This was AFTER the guy with the RPG disappeared behind the wall. When some guy poked out around the corner of the building with something long, that was ID as an RPG.

We know an RPG was present cuz we all have seen it.

Bottom line don’t hang out with insurgents armed with Ak’s and RPG’s in a fire zone during a firefight, you will get killed.

DSchoen on April 6, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Newsflash: Insurgents carry cameras too, as do news agencies like Reuters that are embedded with them.

infidel4life on April 6, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Absolutely true. I agree with the earlier commenter who said that carrying a camera does not give you automatic immunity in a war zone.

However, you’re not addressing what the military spokesperson actually said:

Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

In other words, he’s saying that there was no RPG at all. So that weakens the case that it was legitimate to fire on these people.

Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not making a definitive judgment. Lots of people are pouncing on this or that to proclaim that either the guys in the chopper are either angels or devils. I don’t feel like the information is clear enough to say for sure.

But when the military actually gives an official response that says there was no RPG, then I think that’s important.

(especially in response to a post in which Ed Morrissey definitively claims that there was an RPG. Perhaps he will update the post with this information.)

orange on April 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Well, it appears we have a lot of monday-morning quarterbackers.

mooseburger on April 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Hi, mooseburger. Are you seriously calling the official spokesperson for the US Central Command a monday-morning quarterback?

orange on April 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

This was AFTER the guy with the RPG disappeared behind the wall. When some guy poked out around the corner of the building with something long, that was ID as an RPG.

We know an RPG was present cuz we all have seen it.

DSchoen on April 6, 2010 at 4:33 PM

I don’t mean this to sound like anything other than a basic question: you say that you know an RPG was present because we all have seen it. Do you mean on the video? I didn’t see anything that I feel certain was an RPG.

If the spokesman admits that they mistook a camera for an RPG, doesn’t it follow that there was no RPG?

orange on April 6, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Dude, you’re making a huge assumption and might be making inaccurate statements as a result.

Just because a helicopter crew may have mistook one suspected RPG for a camera doesn’t definitively mean that no RPGs were present.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM

If there were definitely RPGs present, wouldn’t that be worth mentioning? I think if I was a military spokesperson, I would want to make that abundantly clear. Why would he leave out this vital fact?

orange on April 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM

You might not be certain, but you certainly must have your doubts.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM

As I said earlier (and maintain)

Personally, I don’t feel certain of anything.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM

(and “not being certain” and “having doubts” are pretty much synonymous, aren’t they?)

orange on April 6, 2010 at 5:49 PM

WHY WOULD WIKILEAK MENTION IT??????

THEY’RE TRYING TO MAKE THE MILITARY LOOK BAD!

YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD OMIT CERTAIN DETAILS! LEARN HOW TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES UNLESS YOU WANT TO KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF!

Pretend you’re an adult with reasonable capacity to think on your own.

BTW, the military has definitively determined that they were insurgents AND that RPGs and Ak-47s were present (read it all at JAWA). Maybe someday day you’ll stop jumping to bogus conclusions.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 5:42 PM

I didn’t quote a wikileaks article. I quoted a Washington Post article with the comments from the US Central Command spokesperson.

Perhaps you would have noticed that if I’d put it in caps.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Did he?

blink on April 6, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Well, again, this is what he said:

Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that U.S. forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents.

I guess it’s possible that he meant “We thought we were engaging armed insurgents… and we were!” But surely that’s a very odd way of saying it. Surely the more likely interpretation is that they mistakenly thought they were engaging armed insurgents.

If you have the spokesman’s full comments, please pass them along. I agree that it would be more useful to have the entire statement to go off of.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Not a big difference between the Washington Post and Wikileak.

Regardless, I’m sure you’ve learned your lesson regarding selective quoting.

Again, read between the lines. In other words, take note of what is NOT stated.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 5:58 PM

So wait, I should ignore what the spokesman said and instead make up what I think he might have meant? That seems like a terrible idea.

I would like to see the full statement from the spokesman. If you can find it, please link it. I haven’t been able to.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 6:08 PM

You should ONLY consider what the spokesman said.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Again, read between the lines. In other words, take note of what is NOT stated.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Eh, whatever. You’re more interested in namecalling than a useful discussion. Thanks anyway.

orange on April 6, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Here’s what I submitted to the “Committee to Protect Journalists”:

I am also concerned with the needless deaths of those who feel compelled to capture the real-world drama so violently projected upon the world stage. Therefore, it is with only the most fervent and sincere hope that you will follow my advice that I present to you Actionable Items that can Save Lives:

1. Realize that entering an active war zone is an inherently unsafe and dangerous act.

2. Realize that in a battle environment, cameras sporting long and thick telephoto lenses, especially when equipped with shoulder slings, are effectively indistinguishable from rifles, RPGs, and other assorted weaponry.

3. Understand that in a war zone, one has no realistic expectation of restraint that one might presume an essentially civilian police force would demonstrate.

4. Come to grips with the fact that professional military personnel, as a result of dealing daily with people who (often by using misdirection and subterfuge) actively seek to kill them, will be disinclined to give anyone found on the field of battle the benefit of the doubt.

5. The above point is magnified if the journalist chooses to congregate with fighters who wear no uniform while attacking uniformed forces.

6. The above points in aggregate are prima facie evidence that if a journalist, wearing non-military clothing, chooses to carry an object that can be misconstrued as a weapon while in the company of fighters who also don’t wear uniforms and are carrying weapons, has no reasonable expectation of anything other than violent death in the face of a technologically superior force seeking to kill those fighters whom the journalist wishes to cover.

I hope this helps. I don’t want any more journalists to die either.

- Someone who cares more about life and individual liberty than you do, but who’s afraid you’re constitutionally unable to appreciate this fact

Too bad they won’t understand.

-Brennan

Brennan on April 6, 2010 at 6:35 PM

<blockquoteMALKIN, YOU AND YOUR NEOCON WAR MONGERING CRONIES HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT!

Do they realize that MM doesn’t own HA anymore?

thomashton on April 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Worth restating:

‘Collateral Murder’ in Baghdad Anything But

From the Foreword of “To Set The Record Straight”:

In the spring of 1969, U. S. Army Chief of Staff General William C. Westmoreland gave a presentation to the U. S. Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk,
Virginia. He concluded with this story:
.
“I recently had the privilege of decorating a young Captain for valor in Vietnam. He was in command of a battery of 105 howitzers. They started taking mortar
fire. He had a then-experimental counter-mortar radar that showed the mortar fire was coming from a nearby village. All of his instincts and training said to
traverse his guns and silence the mortar, but he didn’t do that. Instead, he ordered his men to take cover and led a platoon to the village on foot.
.
As they got there, they saw the villagers were gathered in the center of the village, so they silently moved forward behind the buildings. In the middle of that
gathering there was a ten-foot diameter pit in the ground, and in the pit, three enemy soldiers holding guns on the villagers while the mortar crew fired at the
American artillery position.
.
The Captain and two of his men went in low, screening themselves behind the villagers, lobbed grenades, and yelled. They and the villagers fell away from
the pit. The grenades went off in the pit. They ran forward and cleaned up the situation, and that was that. No friendly casualties.
.
As I was pinning on his medal, I asked the Captain how he got so smart.
.
He said, “Oh, you could always expect ‘em to pull a stunt like that when there was an American TV crew in the province.”
.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Captain knows his war.”
.
–Col. Ben H. Swett, USAF (Ret.)
Vietnam veteran, 1969-70

The America-haters have been using this tactic for as long as there has been an America, and they will continue to use it until America is long gone — or until THEY are gone.

opaobie on April 6, 2010 at 9:56 PM

The men are clearly walking openly and casually down the middle of the street, and are at ease with the fact that there are two Apache attack helicopters hovering over them.

Lol. I don’t think the fine folks over at prison planet have ever heard of standoff distance. The guys on that street likely had no idea there were even any aircraft watching them.

BadgerHawk on April 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM

BobAnthony on April 6, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Don’t forget about the jooooooos.

You’re precious.

BadgerHawk on April 6, 2010 at 10:06 PM

orange on April 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM

No, he said the photographer with a camera wasn’t an insurgent. He didn’t claim that the guys holding AKs or the individual in another part of the video holding what appeared to be a rocket launcher weren’t insurgents.

Don’t be dishonest.

BadgerHawk on April 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Now, look at this blow up clip.

You might not be certain, but you certainly must have your doubts.

blink on April 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Lots of cameras have 4 foot long lenses on them. We call them telescopes.

BadgerHawk on April 6, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Last post for orange. From the actual report, which is posted at Jawa:

We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11 x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site. Bushmaster reported that the first child was wounded and pulled from the van. We were unable to determine that there were children in the vehicle and never saw any children prior to or during the engagement. After viewing the gun tape, were able to determine that both wounded children came from the van. Bushmaster immediately MEDEVAC’d both girls to FOB Loyalty for medical care.

BadgerHawk on April 6, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Or as Wikileaks director Julian Assange puts it, “Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?”
————————————————
They couldn’t hear the Apaches, moron.

The Apaches were too far away.

How do we know this?

Cannon fire. Note the cannon fires then seconds later the rounds hit.

Caliber 30×113mm
Action Chain gun
Rate of fire 625 rpm
Muzzle velocity 805 m/s (2,641 ft/s)
Effective range 1,500 m (1,640 yd)
Maximum range 4,500 m (4,920 yd)

Do the math, idiot. If it took 1 second for the round to hit the target after being fired then the Apache was 2,641 ft away!

Time it, round fired to round hit tells you the distance. This is 3rd grade math!

DSchoen on April 6, 2010 at 3:53 PM
———————————————-
Right on, DSchoen!

Libtartd fail to understand this subject for several reasons:
-they got a public school education from teachers who are card-carrying NEA members.
-”guns are iccky”. The only muzzle velocity they’ll ever understand is how fast my bitter, clingy dachshund bites ‘em on the ass if they show up on my doorstep with another lame-ass leftist petition.
-research-challenged Libtards have no idea that Apaches have a much reduced sound signature compared to old-style AH1-Cobra gunships peace & relaxation transports.

CatchAll on April 6, 2010 at 10:33 PM

barbecuing Arab babies on the White House lawn

That is disgusting.
Did you really have to put that in there?

justltl on April 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM

On an unrelated note, Springtime has finally arrived here and I’m looking forward to firing up the grill.

I’m going to do a brisket my first weekend off.
Dry rub.
Cole slaw.
Baked beans.
Ice cold beer.

justltl on April 6, 2010 at 10:42 PM

BTW, that was a righteous shoot.

Ooh! And roasted corn on the cob.
Nothing beats roasted corn on the cob.
That’s what I always say.

justltl on April 6, 2010 at 10:48 PM

New video of U.S. military gunning down civilians in Iraq.

They had no RPGS, no weapons, and were not insurgents.

Spathi on April 7, 2010 at 2:15 AM

Well played! Did not expect the “defend Saddam Hussein” card. Well played indeed.

Red Cloud on April 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Saddam Hussein was NEVER worth the lives of so many American Marines, sailors and soldiers. He wasn’t worth the life of one U.S. service member. Wasn’t our problem. Why are we the world police???

RightXBrigade on April 7, 2010 at 3:58 AM

I don’t mean this to sound like anything other than a basic question: you say that you know an RPG was present because we all have seen it. Do you mean on the video? I didn’t see anything that I feel certain was an RPG.
If the spokesman admits that they mistook a camera for an RPG, doesn’t it follow that there was no RPG?
orange on April 6, 2010 at 4:40 PM

you say that you know an RPG was present because we all have seen it.

Correct.

Do you mean on the video?

Correct.

I didn’t see anything that I feel certain was an RPG.

So because your ignorant of what an RPG looks like, you concluded that NO RPG was there?
WOW!

If the spokesman admits that they mistook a camera for an RPG, doesn’t it follow that there was no RPG?

Ahhhhhh no it doesn’t.

I believe what they are talking about as a “mistook a camera for an RPG” happened when the guy popped out from that corner.

It’s also completely irrelevant.

If you watch the tape AND listen to the radio conversation it is CLEAR once the RPG and AK were confirmed the aircrew requested permission to engage (kill them) and the request was approved AS the insurgents crossed the street and were behind the wall.

It didn’t matter what the guy at the corner of the building had in his hand as the aircrew were lining up to make the shot.

That’s why the pilot said he had to go around to shoot them.

DSchoen on April 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM

orange on April 6, 2010 at 5:56 PM

What he is saying is the Apache engaged a group of insurgents.
They had no idea that “news staffers” were with the insurgents.

You do know that in the video, that arrow that shows up pointing at the reporters by name was added to the video AFTER the fact?

The Apache cannot read someone’s DNA and id them with arrows and text saying this is “so and so”

You do know that right?

DSchoen on April 7, 2010 at 4:55 AM

http://husseinandterror.com

our problem, the civilized non-Sharia world’s problem.

jp on April 7, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Many people believe that Saddam Hussein became our problem in several ways.

First, many people believed that Saddam Hussein became our problem when he invaded Kuwait and almost invaded Saudi Arabia (the Iraqi military attacked across the Saudi border on two occasions). Do you disagree that it became our problem then?

No. Why would it be OUR problem? Saudi Arabia was and is as tyrannical a regime as Saddam’s. Why be allied with tyrants against other tyrants? That’s like voting for the lesser of two evils in a president election. Furthermore, ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE the world police! Worry about our own country. How can you be for limited government if you are for intervention in affairs abroad which massively increase the size of OUR government?

Second, many people believed that Saddam Hussein became our problem when the United Nations wanted us to enforce the trade embargo they instituted against Iraq in order to prevent excessive military buildup. Do you disagree that it became our problem then?

One, we shouldn’t even be a member of the U.N. It is an anti-American body that continuously threatens our sovereignty. Furthermore, the trade embargo resulted in millions of Iraqi deaths and didn’t hurt the regime at all.

Third, many people believed that Saddam Hussein became our problem when the Iraqi military’s slaughter of Kurds in the north created a massive refugee problem in the southern mountains of Turkey during the winter – a problem that was resulting in hundreds of thousands of freezing and starving Kurds. Do you disagree that it became our problem then?

Unfortunately, liberty is not a prevailing concept in the history of mankind, nor now. Tragic as it is, there are many other options such as offering our solidarity with the Kurds and empowering them and other Iraqi resistance groups to rise up, if they were inclined.

Fourth, many people believed that Saddam Hussein became our problem when the United Nations wanted us to enforce the no-fly zones that they instituted against Iraq in order to prevent them from slaughtering the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south. Do you disagree that it became our problem then?

Why must we constantly be the U.N.’s errand boy? What about the great nation of Saudi Arabia helping their fellow Muslims? What about all the nations around Iraq, where were they? Why must America sacrifice OUR lives for these countries who will never be like us, who don’t want to be like us?

If you answered NO to any of the questions above, then you’re one of the reasons that Al-Qaeda was chartered and repeatedly attacked the United States.

RightXBrigade on April 7, 2010 at 5:27 PM

What people like poster Bob Anthony don’t like about war is that war can and will stop people like poster Bob Anthony.

Woody

woodcdi on April 7, 2010 at 6:18 PM

If we would follow our Constitution, stop being the world police and stop following the progressives and neo-cons who are the old school Democrats, we would be much better off and not have the debt that we currently have accumulated not just from obnoxious spending on entitlement programs and the welfare state but on unnecessary wars to “help” people that don’t want our help and others who we don’t need to help which contributes to the warfare state.
The difference between me and you, blink, is that, although I wholeheartedly disagree with these stupid “wars”, (that weren’t even declared by Congress) I still have served and fought in them multiple times since 2003 and continue to go over there to shoot these savages living in the 7th century and see my boys get shot at, hit w/ IED’s and come home w/ mental problems. It’s bullshit with no clear mission and completely ridiculous ROE’s. F*** these people, let them kill each other off if they want to. They can have their sand and oil. Lets open up ANWR and be done w/ it.

RightXBrigade on April 7, 2010 at 9:50 PM

No I wouldn’t be okay if there was a genocide. However, if there was, and we wanted to go to war, let’s do it the RIGHT way and DECLARE WAR THROUGH CONGRESS. By the way, where were we during the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur??? How come we can bomb the shit out of the Iraqis but leave Sudan alone?

RightXBrigade on April 8, 2010 at 4:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 … 3 4 5