It’s $15 million PER son.

But they have to apply for the money, and will likely see little or none of it.

A 6 hour firefight?  And they killed two people?  While taking 4 casualties?  Somehow those numbers seem a bit scewed somehow.

Give them a break...it takes a long time to bore two men to death.

They had the building surrounded. All they had to do was shoot in some tear gas and wait. Then we could question the sons on the possible location of Daddy.

“The night before, an unidentified Iraqi had tipped off the Americans that Odai and Qusai were in the house, Sanchez said afterward. But all Sgt. George Granter knew on that blistering hot Tuesday morning was that intelligence was reporting the house was occupied by Baath Party members.”

Perhaps the Brits were working Intelligence that day, and since they’d already burned us once, their information was automatically suspect. If any two guys needed to be taken alive, these two did. Check out these guys and their TOW missiles and high tech aircraft, not to mention their love for overwhelming shock and awe. Either we have some extremely cold-hearted soldiers and C/O’s who just love to play war or we’re not being told everything; I have to suspect the latter. Can anybody say “body double”?

I find it highly suspicious to have happened on the heels of Bush’s mounting troubles over who to blame next for those now infamous 16 words and his subsequent decline in popularity polls. The only buck that stops anywhere near Bush is the opportunity buck.

Is anyone else troubled by the hoopla being made over the deaths of these two assholes?  I know I’m being naive, but a country like ours should be above viewing state-level conflicts as personal vendettas against comic-book villains.  I certainly hope that the attacks on American soldiers will subside now that they have been eliminated, but its far from a sure thing. 

A great question raised by Brock is: why were they killed rather than captured?  Wouldn’t you think that #2 and #3 might have a few pieces of information relevant to shortening the mess over there?

Now it certainly wasn’t me creeping up on their position under fire, and in a situation like that, a few missiles would seem to be the better part of valor.  However, I would have thought that the chain of command might have devised some way for 200 special forces guys to apprehend four to six enemies without undue risk to our people (bribing? lying? valium gas?).  The two brothers might have supplied answers to many nagging questions.  But wait a minute, what am I saying… this is the administration that hates to have questions answered - and the cable news folks seem so excited by the fact that the “kids” are dead.

Guys

I am retired USAF and spent 21 years working on everything from 9mm pistols to “special” weapons that leave big smokin’ holes where cities use to be!  As a wise old boss of mine once told me:

“No job is too big for the man who doesn’t have to do it”

Think about it…

Our troops surround the house

They tell the occupants to surrender

The occupants say “bite me” and start blasting

Our guys try to go in and capture them

Some of our guys get wounded

Our guys decide it is better for the other guy to give his life for his country

Our guys annihilate the occupants

I think the fact that they had a six-hour firefight (and didn’t call in a flight of my beloved A-10 Warthogs to level the place) proves that they were trying to take these guys prisoner.  They could have also called in an F-117 to give them a 2,000 pound “enema” from 40,000 feet, but I never worked on those venerable aerial machines.

No disrespect intended, but when I hear statements like Ken’s, “…why were they killed instead of captured”, it makes me cringe.  We do not succeed in combat operations simply because we are Americans or we have excellent weapons.  We succeed because of the quality of our people and their training. 

I remember after the first missions of the first Gulf War that all the imbecile reporters were asking Gen Schwartzkopf, “Why do the Iraqis still have SCUD missiles?” The general had to explain little details like how Iraq’s large size and the fact that Iraqi’s don’t want to be killed precludes the destruction of their military capability in 6 hours.  He had more patience then me.  The incredible expectations of “armchair warriors” simply astound me.

Criticize Bush (I certainly do), but just remember…

“No job is too big for the man who doesn’t have to do it!”

A good point and well made to boot. Although I would have liked to seen the Bad Boys of Iraq taken alive, I did kinda realize that the situation probably made that unrealistic after hearing how the firefight took 6 hours or so.

Great quote...I may have to steal it. I once had a chief who said after my many hours of back breaking labor trying to sanitize our horrifyingly inadequate medical space “You can’t polish a turd.”. He was right.

And so are you.

But the question remains: Why weren’t they taken alive?

We’re paying several butt-loads of money for these “big” jobs. Kinda makes you wonder how we won the main war so quickly if 150-200 soldiers, three (maybe more) Kiowa helicopters, several Humvee with TOW missiles and six hours were needed to kill four and wound two Iraqis. Again, we already had them surrounded.

According to the White House we are no longer even in a war situation so war time imprecision doesn’t seem like a justified excuse here. Seems to me like you’re just saying “Don’t dare to criticize or question the military.” I mean no disrespect toward the soldiers whatsoever. My intent was worded to cast suspicion that it even went down the way we’re hearing.,BR>
“The soldiers removed four bodies and did not let photographers take pictures.”
Bush and Co. lied to us about reasons for going to war to begin with. Why automatically accept that the lying has stopped? Do you really think Bush cares very much about the Iraqis that were allegedly tortured by these guys? Ken is right in suggesting that we could have been less crude about their deaths.

I think this story has several twists and turns left to be revealed.

Les, you and Eric surprise me. What happened to that healthy skepticism you normally represent so well?

Ok, why did they have such a hard-on to get in there? The place was surrounded. How long do you think it would take with little food, no running water?

Without more details on exactly what the situation was it’s too easy to sit here and speculate. Do I think it’s awfully damn convenient for the Bush Administration that these two are dead? Yep, you bet, but Mild Bill raises a very valid point. If they had wanted to just kill those two outright it wouldn’t have been a 6 hour fire fight. Assuming the info about how long the fight lasted is true then it’s not unreasonable to think they were trying to take them alive. I’m sure The Shrub isn’t at all upset that they’re dead, but I don’t think that was necessarily the intended goal when the fire fight erupted.

I’m willing to admit when people raise valid points even if it does go against my normal healthy skepticism. As for Eric, he’s ex-military so I’m not surprised it made sense to him as well. He’d know better than I would. Don’t worry, though, it’s not like I’m going to start swallowing everything I’m told.

Hey, I get the idea you guys think I’m a Bush Apologist…that is not the case.  I think skepticism is a healthy thing, but irrational skepticism?  Skepticism for the sake of skepticism?  It’s kind of a stretch to think that the evil running dog lackey Bush Administration can manipulate firefights several thousand miles away.  In my military career, I received no direct orders from the White House (maybe they just didn’t like me or maybe the chip they implanted in my head was malfunctioning).

To Brock…Brother, who gives a shit about those two evil bastards?  The only thing that needs to be revealed has been revealed…the rotting carcasses of two ex-assholes.  Where did I say not to criticize the military?  Criticize anything you like, but one should understand the thing he criticizes or his criticism is moot.  You come of sounding like Rosanne Rosanna Dana (Gilda Radner from SNL).  For you puppies who have not seen the skits:

Rosanne:  What’s all this nonsense about killing the youth in Asia?  Why are we only killing the youth in Asia and not the youth in Africa or the youth in…

Chevy Chase:  Rosanne, that’s euthanasia, it means mercy killing…not “Youth in Asia”

Rosanne; Oh…Never mind! 

To Jay G…Why don’t we park your ass outside of some house in the middle of the desert and wait for the food to run out.  I’ll have to make a couple of assumptions here; Uday and Qusay probably didn’t go grocery shopping often, since their faces would be on the front page of The Baghdad Enquirer at the checkout station.  So… they probably had a significant amount of food and water stockpiled. We could give you a portable DVD player, a Game boy, and latest copies of “Conspiracy Monthly Magazine” to pass the time.  Bring ‘em in alive Sheriff Jay G! 

Let me tell you a story about another President who lied to the American people.  This President used concocted intelligence to show how a potential adversary could fly bombers from Europe to Africa to South America to the USA.  Roosevelt said that the Germans could easily do this since the gap between West Africa and South America is only 2,000 miles.  The Germans had absolutely no intention of doing it; the logistics would have been hellish.  That little lie enabled the construction of thousands of bombers and other equipment, prior to our involvement in good old WWII.

Consider this my friends…this is not a Democracy; it is a Republic run by rules and laws.  You do not have a direct say in what goes on.  If the President had to get Jay G. and Brock’s and my approval to do anything, we would still be arguing while the Al Qaeda was lying on our sofas, doing our women, watching Baywatch reruns.  I think the administration has handled many things stupidly, but I’ll make a guess that they have access to information that we do not.

Mild Bill

Ahhh, Information we do not have access to. Now that is a bit of a sore point with me. I can understand not revealing information that may get our troops killed or tip off the enemy and allow them to escape, but this administration does not believe in sharing any information from what corporate criminals they colluded with (cough - ken Lay who is still a free man) to create their energy policy to blanking out several pages on the “Final” report on 9-11 because it might offend our valuable allies the Saudi’s. I guess everything really DOES have a price, how much do you suppose it cost to have your complicity wiped out of an official report?

The opacity of this administration is one of the most infuriating things about it; everything is a closed door meeting or a closed door investigation. Who in their right mind can believe a word they say when they won’t trust us enough to let us be participants in our own government? Who can believe a word they say since the whole WOMD debacle (great intel there)? If they had half a brain in the entire Whitehouse they would share some of these “secrets” that might explain just what the hell they were thinking. A lot of people have died since September 10, 2001 and all we know for sure is that we have a president willing to blame anyone other than himself. Come see the tap dancing secret squirrel…

I wouldn’t believe Bush if he said the sky was blue.

If they were guilty of torturing and murdering innocent Iraqis, Odai and Qusai deserved to die. That possibility was the reason I wanted a unified UN force to go into Iraq in the first place and investigate. But we were talking about at least two possibly oppositional justifications for war. Do we work as a team of compassionate countries to stop mass murders and bring suspected criminals to trial or do we splinter off and act independently to forcefully rid a country of it’s suspected WOMD? The administration knew the country would be much less apt to support use of our military if the stated goal was merely to save distant innocent lives. However, tell us the lives threatened will soon be our own and you have a sure-fire uprising to lead as you see fit.

The first thing I thought when I read of their deaths was well, how convenient! So perhaps, Mild Bill, you should compare me to the Church Lady from SNL and not Emily Latella. (She, after all, was the one who misheard things, not Rosanne Rosannadanna!) Still, I fail to understand how I’m coming off as any of them with what I’ve said. Just because I see inconsistencies in an event doesn’t make me hard of hearing or unable to process the facts. It’s important for you to understand the difference between criticism, skepticism and simple processing of the facts. This Administration warrants a hefty dose of each. Do I mistrust this Administration? Hell yes! Am I going down the road to conspiracy? Yep, I turned left at conspiracy five miles back. Do I have questions concerning the event the post spotlighted? Obviously.

Anyway, I thought how convenient, and how timely. This will lead us away from the Bush Administration’s troubles with those silly questions about whether we were manipulated to support war, and place the Administration on firmer ground once again. I wonder if there is anything worth being suspicious about there. These two guys are dead, but I for one wanted them to be questioned and face trial for their alleged crimes. Now we’ll never know what they knew about anything to do with Iraq or America‘s relationship with Iraq, for that matter. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there at least a couple of gases in our arsenals that incapacitate relatively quickly without killing the victim? Mild Bill, you could possibly answer that one for me. Or maybe we haven’t yet invented a way to protect ourselves from possible wayward wafting of such gasses, such as, oh I don‘t know, a gas mask type thing, maybe. So the best thing to do is blast the hell out of the target and pick up the pieces after, but we must take care enough so the devils are still identifiable so we can confirm and prove the mission netted number two and number three. Oh, but wait, we didn’t even know till after that these two were even in there…..but the mission is important enough to involve beaucoup fire power and many soldiers…I’m soooo confused. Yeah, the whole thing came off as desperate, imprecise and inconsistent as all hell. And still it worked out so well, almost as if it was carefully contrived.

As for your comment Mild Bill, about the White House never directing you personally to do anything shady or otherwise, well duh! You would have to be at the very top of the command chain to receive such direction personally. And if they never directed you personally, the inference then is that they never would or could manipulate anyone from a distance to conduct a firefight a particular way. Your argument for why I shouldn’t be skeptical leaves me…well, skeptical of the logic behind it. How high up were you anyway? And yes, your first post clearly suggested we shouldn’t criticize the military: “I remember after the first missions…all the imbecile reporters were asking General Swartzkopf, ‘Why do the Iraqis still have scud missiles” and “The incredible expectations of ‘armchair warriors’ simply astound me.” or “No job is too big for the man who doesn’t have to do it.” The last being your proudest and most esteemed (by Les and Eric, anyway) chastisement.

The main message I have gotten from you with your responses is that A: You are very pro military, and B: you have a lot of respect and admiration for our weapons of war and our ability to use them. If this is true, your thinking is in line with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld‘s. Congratulations! However, the Bush war machine may discover that “might makes right” can end up cutting both ways.

An interesting final note is that before any official autopsy report, Rumsfeld offered some were suggesting they (Odai and Qusai) might have taken their own lives. (Now it’s being reported they didn’t.) He didn’t want to comment officially yet but he wanted to be sure to mention it. My impression was he wanted to put it out there and into our minds so we might wander away from our suspicions they were killed to cover anything up, or that our boys failed in any way, but at the same time he wanted to leave open the ability to claim untainted heroic status if the winds blew in opportunistic directions, as they surely would. Not a smart man, just an opportunist to the core.

Mild Bill,

I agree with your criticism of my previous message that identified that I was nowhere near the firefight we are discussing, and therefore would not share in any of the danger that might result from whatever strategy I might suggest.  In fact, I agree with it so much that I featured it strongly in the very message to which you were responding! 

My point was just that I don’t feel that the killing of these two gangsters represents a military accomplishment worth crowing about.  On the contrary, it would seem to represent the intentional shit-canning of a great opportunity to acquire some very valuable intelligence - intelligence that might get our people out of harm’s way more quickly.

I am extremely sympathetic to our troops (in fact, I wish they all had never set foot in Iraq!).  The fact remains, however, that each and every one of them volunteered for service, and hopefully understand that that sometimes means putting yourself in danger for the greater good.

If two of the top three honchos of the Baath crowd didn’t have some sort of info that could shorten the war I will eat my birdshit-covered hat (a safe boast, since now we will never know).  There are any number of possible strategies and technologies that might have secured the brothers alive (once again, only for their information - if half of what we hear about them is true, they deserved to die).  But the entire operation seems to have been designed to result in two high-profile deaths that would play well in our increasingly redneck media.

You critique Brock for suggesting that they might have been secured through a siege, indicating that this task would be uncomfortable and tedious.  I propose that it would, however, probably be far less deadly than the individual urban guard duty we’ve had our youngsters pulling since the war has been “over” and the tanks and Bradley’s have gone elsewhere. 

I think that our leadership simply didn’t care what information these guys had - or anybody else, for that matter.  They know what they want to do, and it has no connection with the arguments they’ve constructed or the hardships that our troops are experiencing.

My fellow Americans …and Brock and Ken

I am an idiot and stand corrected.  I confused Rosanne with Emily.  Too much trivia in the old brain pan I guess.  Thanks for not thrashing me for it.

I guess I have advanced to such an old age that these things that concern you guys really appear to be just “standard operating procedure” to me.  I find it difficult to get very excited about any of the shit going on over there (other than numerous of my ex-comrades stuck in that shit hole).  Perhaps I’ve been desensitized (or maybe they put a defective chip in my head)…Must destroy Brock and Ken…Must destroy Brock and Ken…no stop…I won’t do it…must resist!!!

Guys, as difficult as this may be for you to comprehend, the guys in the field are not robots.  They are like you guys, skeptical, but skepticism is generally a luxury and it serves no useful purpose.  What will my skepticism do to improve my condition?  Nothing?  Oh well, I think I’ll concentrate on something that will.  If Donny Rumsfeld came down and told you guys everything he knew, what value would your knowledge add to the operations in Iraq?  Probably very little, so that would be a useless exercise.

Back to Uday and Qusay

About the incapacitating agents…from my training and experience, chemical weapons are relatively ineffective for military operations.  Biological ones are a different story.  The effectiveness of chemical weapons is limited by atmospheric conditions, the wind, and even rain.  I worked mainly with conventional weapons, but one time I worked with a chemical one.

We called it the coffin (I believe its proper designation was CBU-13) and it was an A-type dispenser (it did not fall off of the aircraft, but dispensed canisters of VX).  After we attached it to the airplane, we had to remove a wooden pallet from the bottom.  Our manuals said to do it slowly and make sure no nerve gas canisters fell out while we removed the pallet.  If they did, our instructions were to evacuate upwind 2 miles and notify appropriate personnel.  This thing was only a training model, but we decided it would be a cold day in Hell before we screwed around with a real one.

Ken you keep telling me that you don’t have enough information to make a decision on what course of action you would have taken, directly followed by your recommended courses of action!!!!  I am stupefied and how do you know I’m not a redneck?!  I guess a redneck wouldn’t know how to spell stupyefiyed

Brock…you apparently view military affiliation negatively.  You should be glad that there are people around who give a shit enough to learn the military art.  You can’t get emotional (Bush War Machine rhetoric) about these things and attempt to understand them (if you are trying to understand them).  The military is an instrument used to reach national security objectives…that’s all.  It seeks to do so by the threat of force, but will absolutely, if necessary, deliver massive, organized violence against an adversary.  Here is a statement that may leave you bewildered, but it’s a simple truth:

From a military standpoint, the only reason any country exists is because the United States allows them to exist.

Once you can come to understand the simple truth of that statement WITHOUT EMOTION you could perhaps understand where I’m coming from.  It’s difficult to explain without coming off like a warmonger.

Peace Out

It’s late..hope I didn’t goof this up too bad

Now that Eric, Brock, and Ken are done spanking your ass Wild Jill, it’s my turn! Well I guess the only thing left is the German WWII thing. First off compairing Roosevelt to Bush is damn near heresy! Smidging on the truth to save your allies asses is a bit different than lieing out your ass to invade a country for oil/political gain/vengance for daddy. How can you sit there and say the Hitler had no intention of flying bombers to the U.S.? “ The logistics would be hell ” Come on! How about the rocket engine or maybe the jet engine both made practical and useable by the third reich! The nazis were known for thier unorthodox tactics. Take Shock and Awe for example. Very unorthodox and brand new when it was called Blitzkreig!
Now none of us are blaming the grunts for what happened! If those guys had a choice I doubt they would be there.
As for ”One should understand the thing he criticizes or his criticism is moot. You come of sounding like Rosanne Rosanna Dana (Gilda Radner from SNL).”. You are criticizing Brock and I Yet you know nothing about us! In short,BLOW ME BILLY!

Mild Bill,

Your misinterpretation of my statements must be intentional, because otherwise you seem to be generally literate.  You say that I wrote that I: “don’t have enough information to decide what course of action I would have taken yadda yadda...”

What I believe you are referring to is my statement in my first message in which I said that, if I were a grunt crawling into the fire coming from the brothers and their companions, I would feel that a couple of missiles into the building would be a good idea.  I countered this admission with the recognition that military objectives are determined by the chain of command, not those being shot at.

As for non-lethal incapacitants in our arsenal, I’m sorry that your personal experience did not encompass the use of valium gas or other examples of canister-employed agents that can be delivered with the same ease and precision as tear gas.  If it had, you might concede that the approach taken was far from optimal from a tactical standpoint.

As for the “redneck” reference, I was talking about the American media that serves up, in lieu of actual information, big ‘splosions and a series of Dick Tracy most-wanted bios on the leaders of our enemies.  If you like this stuff, then sure, you’re a redneck.

Possibly one of the coldest most asinine remarks I’ve read at this site would have to be “From a military standpoint, the only reason any country exists is because the United States allows them to exist.” That one statement made me cringe. Mild Bill, don’t worry, you don’t come off as a warmonger so much as a headless, heartless bastard. Perhaps a little less of your type of emotion (which is shining through) and a little more of mine would have saved deserving lives in Iraq.

The Bush War Machine reference wasn’t based on emotion, but rather on fact. He is, after all, the Commander and Chief of our armed forces, isn’t he? I, for one, think it’s the part of his job that gives him his biggest erection, although he still wouldn’t have to be anywhere near the actual danger.

I don’t know if you have a chip in your brain Mild Bill, but it certainly seems that it has been washed thoroughly. I start to develop a negative affiliation with the military when people who are/ were in it say the things you’ve been saying. I’ve been reading other posts by you on other subjects and you seem to be quite generous in your considerations. I would even suspect you are relatively well adjusted. But here your demon is showing. Why is it that discussing war brings out the savage idiot in some?
Oh, and aren’t concussion bombs standard military issue? But then they might only cause the ears to bleed.

Well, well Sheriff Jay

Your comment:

“First off compairing Roosevelt to Bush is damn near heresy! Smidging on the truth to save your allies asses is a bit different than lieing out your ass to invade a country for oil/political gain/vengance for daddy.”

I did not realize FDR was a diety and I did not compare Roosevelt and Bush. I merely stated that Roosevelt lied (and thankfully so Jay!) so he could get war production rolling.  I meant that his lie was a good lie…did you not understand that?  Read the history of WWII; people in this country were strongly against US involvement.  I don’t know if Bush lied; time will tell.

Your comment:

” Come on! How about the rocket engine or maybe the jet engine both made practical and useable by the third reich! The nazis were known for thier unorthodox tactics.”

The first jet engines were far from “practical”, but I won’t dwell on that.  I never said it wasn’t physically possible to fly bombers over, in fact, I thought I implied the exact opposite.  I meant that the Germans had no intention of doing so and there would be no point to it if they did.  They would have had to be able to do it in extremely large numbers and the logistics effort would have made it nearly impossible to sustain them.  Logistics includes fuel, spare parts, training, maintenance, etc. The attrition rate (destruction rate) of aircraft in WWII was incredible.  Our bombers had attrition rates as high as 20%!!!  That means our entire bomber fleet was destroyed every 5 flying days!!!

On the German air tactics during WWII, nearly everything they did was wrong!  After the Germans defeated France, the Luftwaffe became the most powerful Air Force in the world.  By the way guess who had the largest Air Force prior to the German invasion?  France!  The French chose not to engage the Germans with air assets and most were destroyed on the ground or captured intact! The two biggest mistakes the Germans made were:

1.  Not decentralizing control of theater air assets.

The Luftwaffe had air units assigned directly to their Heer (Army) units.  Problems arose when one Heer group would be engaged in battle and request air assets from a unit that was not engaged.  The commander of the unengaged unit would not release his air assets, for fear that he would be attacked and need them himself.  You may not know this, but the Air Force was part of the Army until 1947.  It was formed into a separate service largely based on the lessons learned from the Germans mistakes in WWII.

2.  Not building large, 4-engine bombers (like the B-17 and B-29)

The Germans initially concentrated more on production of fighter planes instead of bombers.  They tried to correct their mistake, but too late.

Since you brought up jets, here is an interesting site that shows what I mean by logistics support

“The Allied bombing raids destroyed hundreds of Me 262s on the ground whilst they were being converted from fighters to bombers or were unable to fly due to lack of fuel, spare parts, or trained pilots. Therefore, the Me 262 did not get to reach it’s (sic) full potential. More than 1,400 Me 262s were produced but fewer than 300 ever saw combat.”

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/me262.htm

So they had 1400 of these things and only 300 saw combat.  The Iraqis had 600 fighter planes in first Gulf War and none of them…NOT ONE…caused a single allied casualty.  You can design all the neatest, gee-whizziest gadgets you want, but if you can’t employ and sustain them they are useless.

Come on guys, what’s this right/wrong crap?  This is just friendly dialog.  I’m just trying to give you some perspective and I sure as hell don’t expect to change anyone’s mind.

Damn, I’ve got a knock-down drag out fight going in my comments here. I think this is a first for SEB. Usually people are too busy flaming me to flame each other.

For the record I’m definitely in the middle on this one as I think Mild Bill has raise some good points and yet I can also agree with many of Brock and Ken’s points. As wishy-washy as this sounds I definitely think the administration probably didn’t go to any trouble trying to push the idea these two should be taken alive and are better off that they’re dead. At the same time I think the soldiers did make an attempt at it given the resources and commands they had at the time.

That said I think it’s a little pointless to cry over spilled milk at this point. I’m not happy about it, but there’s not a helluva lot that can be done about it so I’m moving on to the next outrage.

This will be my last post on this subject since this is obviously going nowhere.  There seem to be some parallels to your reactions to my statements and fundamentalist Christian’s reactions to evolution statements.  Nothing that I told you in my last post is my opinion…it is how the military operates.  I am only describing “what is”, while you guys are trying to describe “what should be”.  If it comforts you to be emotional and inflammatory over “what is”, by all means continue to do so.

The military has to maintain a “warmonger” attitude, if you like.  The military does not and can not form American foreign policy; it is merely an instrument of it.  That keeps the military in check (unlike many other countries in the world).  When you don’t have statutory civilian control of the military, you a get N. Korea or an Iraq.  I deployed to Turkey in 1980 after the military had just overthrown the government 3 weeks prior and Turkey is a democratic republic!

So, since my statements of fact offend your delicate sensibilities, I shall now leave this issue.

Oh yeah, Les is an evil atheist bastard who is going to burn Baby burn (how’s that for an insult Les?)

Not bad. It suffers a little in the originality department (I get that one all the time), but the enthusiasm and technique helps raise it up a bit.

But the question still remains: Why weren’t they taken alive? Signed, Emily Latella