February 8, 2007, - 9:58 am

If We Did More of This, We’d Have Iraq Under Control

By Debbie Schlussel
Reader Sean sent this awesome, 1-minute video, which is the best I’ve seen from our soldiers in Iraq (or Afghanistan or anywhere). The best part is the audio from these Marines. This should happen to all of America’s enemies. Sean writes:

Don’t forget the content warning:

This video is rated R for extremely effective violence followed by jubilant and intense profanity.

But, hey, at least, there’s no blood, gore, nudity, Snickers kissing, Rosie O’Donnell, or other unpalatable elements.

“Hell, Yeah, Bitches! See You in F–kin’ Hell, Dog.”

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Tags: , , ,


8 Responses

Thank you for putting this on here, Debbie. These are our so-called “naive mercenaries” with “no patriotic reasons” at work. They sound pretty gung-ho to me!
SEE YOU IN HELL, BITCHES! SEE YOU IN HELL!

ddhinnyc on February 8, 2007 at 10:49 am

Brilliant! Money well spent for that laser guided bomb.

Islamsnotforme on February 8, 2007 at 12:35 pm

If we had the willpower to use this kind of stragedy preluding the onset of this war, then we could have accoplished the following:
1) Decimate Iraq into a pile of rubble.
2) Eliminate the sunni triangle.
3) Lower the casuality rate on our side.
4) Be done with this perpetual war a long time ago.
5) Cadets wouldn’t be court marshalled for defending themselves and the country.
6) Seeing more force being implemented on this war would hesitate the rest of the terror aiding countries in the midlle-east from accosting us with their jihad.
Because the war is being terribly mishandled by the most incompetent leaders in the State Departmentment, Iraq has more control over us than we do over it.

Jew Chick on February 8, 2007 at 12:44 pm

ah yes… the glorification of violence, just what the world needs more of. but hey, once we get done brutalizing a former ally, we’ll just get a democracy installed for them… any… day… now. because the usa has always been about democracy, right? wrong.
iran 1953: the cia topples a democratic government and installs a monarchy. why? because the democratically elected government of iran dared to nationalize the oil wells that the british/russians stole from them during their invasion of persia (a neutral nation!) in ww2.
hmmm… once again, all about oil… “if goods don’t cross the border, troops will” and all that. do i fault the usa for looking out for their own interests? not really… but let’s have no delusions about what we’re really doing or any pretensions that we somehow hold the moral high ground. history shakes its head and says “no”.

ready5 on February 8, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Ready5 repeats the myths that are part of the conventional wisdom on the left. Mohammed Mossadegh was not democratically elected by anybody. He was appointed by the Government of the monarchy. Then he began draconian measures to institute a socialist tyranny and was overthrown. In the 80s, under Carter we helped to overthrow the Shah of Iran because of his repressive policies. Instead we got the theocratic despotism of Khomeiny, with repression, torture and murder,that made the Shah look like a paragon of dmocracy. We also got the resurgence of Islamic radicalism and violence that threatens the whole world.

Tim on February 8, 2007 at 1:47 pm

I love the comments at the beginning.
“How long should I record for?”
“Uh – until you turn it off.”

Paul on February 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Unfortunately insurgents rarely group together for long and thus incidents like these usually cause civilian casualties.
Winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I
Many of the attacks on American soldiers are from insurgents hidden away at distances greater than a mile ( WARNING THE LINK CONTAINS VERY GRAPHIC MATERIAL OF INSURGENTS VS US TROOPS: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ba28845c8 ). Unfortunately, there is no easy way to stop guerrilla warfare. Historically, the only way to combat guerrilla warfare is either through large number of forces, mass killing of civilians (Ghengis Khan used to kill 1/3 of the population to quell insurgencies), or through economic incentives (dramatic decrease in unemployment and increasing economic growth).
Although I initially did not support Bush, I do so now reluctantly only because he is right about Iraq now. We were wrong to go into Iraq, but now that’s over and it is our international duty to fix Iraq. Because we are responsible for the destruction of the original Iraqi government, we are responsible for rebuilding a new Iraqi government. It’s a lose lose situation. If we stay in Iraq, more of our soldiers will die, but if we leave, a much greater number of Iraqi civilians will die as a result in the ensuing civil war.

b0wl0fud0n on February 8, 2007 at 1:59 pm

@tim
actually, you’re repeating myths that are part of the conventional wisdom on the right. for the record:
– mohammad mossadegh was indeed democractically elected… not just as a member of majles (persian parliment) in 1906, 1923, and 1944… but also as prime minister in 1951 and 1952.
– note: the decision to nationalize iran’s oil industry was made by majles in 1951 prior to their later election of mossadegh as their prime minister.
– 1951: the british blockade the persian gulf
– 1952: mossadegh again elected as prime minister… but the shah (with british goading) blocks mossadegh’s constitutional right to name his cabinet, so he resigns.
– as per the constitution, the shah appoints ahmad qavam… who immediately announces his intention to negotiate with the british. this leads to massive protests… a frightened shah then dismisses qavam and re-appoints mossadegh.
note: the whole myth that mossadegh was somehow appointed and not democratically elected stems from a misunderstanding of how a constitutionally monarchy functions. according to the persian constitution at the time, if the prime minister stepped down, the shah could promote a member of majles as a prime minister pro tem until majles could hold elections. since mossadegh was reinstated, there was no need to go through the election process again… so while technically he was appointed once, the truth of the matter is that he was elected twice.
futher:
– claiming that mossadegh was in anyway socialist/communist ignores his work against soviet encroachment in northern iran. of course, the usa may have been similarly misinformed… or may simply not have cared. that the usa has seen fit to endorse unpopular/undemocratic governments is nothing new.
– as you point out, the shah did indeed prove to be tyrannical… but he did allow dissent in the mosques, which then became hotbeds of radical anti-western muslim dissent. thus there is an arc from operation ajax (the overthrow of the democratic government in iran) to the current situation today.
– you claim that “we helped overthrow the shah”… i’d be interested to know what proof you have of this. to the best of my research, the 1979 revolution caught the usa quite by surprise.
sorry for the long response, but i think both sides of the debate would do well to read more about the activities of eisenhower, the dulles brothers (john foster and allen), winston churchill, and kermit roosevelt jr. a decent place to start would be “all the shah’s men” by stephen kinzer… which just so happens to be reviewed dr. david s. robarge of the cia’s history staff at the link below. that the cia would sponsor and publish such a review should be a little telling.
https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

ready5 on February 8, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field