Dick Cheney shoots hunting companion

[Rich]

No offense intended here, but that sounds like lunacy. A mob throwing rocks? OK, shields and defensive equipment only sounds appropriate. A mob throwing grenades? I'd say blowing 'em to kingdom come is probably justified at that point.

Therein lies the problem, violence begets violence.

 

[Kraj]

Fair enough, but then why put troops there in the first place? What sense does it make to put troops in serious danger without adequate means to protect themselves? Either equip them to get the job done or let them stay home.

 

[Rich]

Fair enough, but then why put troops there in the first place? .

Oil

 

[Len Boorman]

For a balanced and unbiased animation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20...xIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Now hang on there just a darn minute or so.

Since this is cartoon of a semi leader is there not grounds for somebody to object and start a riot.

L

 

[Rich]

Now hang on there just a darn minute or so.

Since this is cartoon of a semi leader is there not grounds for somebody to object and start a riot.

L

ah give it time, first it has to be circulated long after it was first published and then during a lull

 

[Kraj]

It's actually kind of sad, isn't it, that a hunting accident makes a huge uproar in the news yet barely a whisper was spoken about Cheney and Scalia's little trip?

 

[Rich]

It's actually kind of sad, isn't it, that a hunting accident makes a huge uproar in the news yet barely a whisper was spoken about Cheney and Scalia's little trip?

I guess it pretty much sums up life under Bush

 

[BarryMK]

I guess it pretty much sums up life under Bush

Life under a bush? Pretty shady!

 

[BarryMK]

Originally Posted by BarryMK
What other nation in the world would expect its troops to face down an overwhelmingly larger mob, armed with rocks and grenades, with nothing more than plastic shields and wooden batons?

No offense intended here, but that sounds like lunacy.

None taken.

A mob throwing rocks? OK, shields and defensive equipment only sounds appropriate. A mob throwing grenades? I'd say blowing 'em to kingdom come is probably justified at that point.

Maybe it's an old fashioned concept but we try to lead by example. Hopefully restraint begets respect and restraint.

Sadly I don't think such an approach works on the dusty streets of the Middle East, folk there seem to have a different view of the value of human life than we do and I do have some sympathy with the young troops involved in this incident, it's hardly more than what they'd dish out in a Saturday night brawl in Tidworth (British Army garrison town).

 

[Kraj]

Life under a bush? Pretty shady!

That's quite possibly the most clever quip I've seen in these forums!

Maybe it's an old fashioned concept but we try to lead by example. Hopefully restraint begets respect and restraint.

Sadly I don't think such an approach works on the dusty streets of the Middle East, ...

I agree. The Middle East region does not need the British or U.S. troops there to instigate violence; they're quite adept at doing it themselves. But I'm still a little unclear as to the philosophy behind sending troops into a danger zone armed only with plastic sticks and shields. Are we talking restraint as a nation or restraint as an individual? On the individual level, restraint is having a big-ass gun and choosing not to use it. If a soldier doesn't have a gun at all then not shooting someone isn't restraint because he couldn't if he wanted to.

If you're talking about restraint as a nation - that you do not send troops in gung ho with guns blazing - I can see that. It would still make more sense to me not to have a presence at all, then, instead of sending troops with their hands tied behind their backs. Perhaps I'm underestimating the protective capabilities of their armor, though, and the soldiers aren't in as much danger as I think.

 

[Rich]

There were armed troops within the group, but the whole object of this type of exercise, is for those who are armed to keep a low profile thus not inflaming the situation.

 

[Kraj]

Ah, I see. That makes quite a bit of sense, actually. Thanks for the info!

 

[statsman]

Fair enough, but then why put troops there in the first place? What sense does it make to put troops in serious danger without adequate means to protect themselves? Either equip them to get the job done or let them stay home.

Like Hum Vees without armour, insufficient ammunition, Cheney getting rich supplying fuel.

In a war you go for your enemy's throat you don't go at it half-assed and thats why the US body count is so high in Iraa

 

[BarryMK]

That's quite possibly the most clever quip I've seen in these forums! .

One does one's best dontcher know

f you're talking about restraint as a nation - that you do not send troops in gung ho with guns blazing - I can see that. It would still make more sense to me not to have a presence at all, then, instead of sending troops with their hands tied behind their backs.

Personally I agree that if you're going into a war situation you should go in to win and that's what we (the US and the coalition forces) did. What we're trying to do now and what was never taken into account by GWB et al and planned for is winning the peace.

Frankly I think the prospect of peace in the Middle East is non-existent. They don't want it and we can't impose it.

Why don't we just tell GWB to get off his ass on the oil front and start investing America's billions in alternative fuel systems, wean the States off petrol, stop buying from the Arabs, screw their economies and seal off their borders? Then they can go back to the stone age societies they never stopped being. If you're an arab or muslim reading this, tough - I don't hear your voices raised in protest at the wrongs perpetrated by your own kind.

 

[Rich]

If you're an arab or muslim reading this, tough - I don't hear your voices raised in protest at the wrongs perpetrated by your own kind.

Now look what you've started

 

[BarryMK]

Now look what you've started

Don't send this to the Danish press Rich

 

[Rich]

Don't send this to the Danish press Rich

Why don't we send 'em as post cards to our boys in the Middle East?

 

[ShaneMan]

Don't send this to the Danish press Rich

Ok, Rich, I guess I'll admit how bad a guy I am. I was sitting at my desk, when I saw this and busted out laughing. The lady that was in my office looked at me like I was crazy and asked what in the world I was laughing at.

Shane

 

[Kraj]

Personally I agree that if you're going into a war situation you should go in to win and that's what we (the US and the coalition forces) did. What we're trying to do now and what was never taken into account by GWB et al and planned for is winning the peace.

Frankly I think the prospect of peace in the Middle East is non-existent. They don't want it and we can't impose it.

Why don't we just tell GWB to get off his ass on the oil front and start investing America's billions in alternative fuel systems, wean the States off petrol, stop buying from the Arabs, screw their economies and seal off their borders? Then they can go back to the stone age societies they never stopped being. If you're an arab or muslim reading this, tough - I don't hear your voices raised in protest at the wrongs perpetrated by your own kind.

Amen to that, brutha!

Ok, Rich, I guess I'll admit how bad a guy I am. I was sitting at my desk, when I saw this and busted out laughing. The lady that was in my office looked at me like I was crazy and asked what in the world I was laughing at.

I didn't bust, but it's pretty damn funny.