View Full Version : The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
Zaknafien
07-11-2007, 01:29
The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
Chris Hedges & Laila Al-Arian
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges
Excerpt. Discuss:
"I'll tell you the point where I really turned," said Spc. Michael Harmon, 24, a medic from Brooklyn. He served a thirteen-month tour beginning in April 2003 with the 167th Armor Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, in Al-Rashidiya, a small town near Baghdad. "I go out to the scene and [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little 2-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs, and I look and she has a bullet through her leg.... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me, wasn't crying, wasn't anything, it just looked at me like--I know she couldn't speak. It might sound crazy, but she was like asking me why. You know, Why do I have a bullet in my leg?... I was just like, This is--this is it. This is ridiculous."
Much of the resentment toward Iraqis described to The Nation by veterans was confirmed in a report released May 4 by the Pentagon. According to the survey, conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command, just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. Only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of marines said they would report a unit member who had killed or injured "an innocent noncombatant."
These attitudes reflect the limited contact occupation troops said they had with Iraqis. They rarely saw their enemy. They lived bottled up in heavily fortified compounds that often came under mortar attack. They only ventured outside their compounds ready for combat. The mounting frustration of fighting an elusive enemy and the devastating effect of roadside bombs, with their steady toll of American dead and wounded, led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis.
Veterans described reckless firing once they left their compounds. Some shot holes into cans of gasoline being sold along the roadside and then tossed grenades into the pools of gas to set them ablaze. Others opened fire on children. These shootings often enraged Iraqi witnesses.
In June 2003 Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejía's unit was pressed by a furious crowd in Ramadi. Sergeant Mejía, 31, a National Guardsman from Miami, served for six months beginning in April 2003 with the 1-124 Infantry Battalion, Fifty-Third Infantry Brigade. His squad opened fire on an Iraqi youth holding a grenade, riddling his body with bullets. Sergeant Mejía checked his clip afterward and calculated that he had personally fired eleven rounds into the young man.
"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population that was supporting them," Sergeant Mejía said.
We heard a few reports, in one case corroborated by photo#graphs, that some soldiers had so lost their moral compass that they'd mocked or desecrated Iraqi corpses. One photo, among dozens turned over to The Nation during the investigation, shows an American soldier acting as if he is about to eat the spilled brains of a dead Iraqi man with his brown plastic Army-issue spoon.
"Take a picture of me and this :daisy:," a soldier who had been in Sergeant Mejía's squad said as he put his arm around the corpse. Sergeant Mejía recalls that the shroud covering the body fell away, revealing that the young man was wearing only his pants. There was a bullet hole in his chest.
"Damn, they really :daisy: you up, didn't they?" the soldier laughed.
The scene, Sergeant Mejía said, was witnessed by the dead man's brothers and cousins.
In the sections that follow, snipers, medics, military police, artillerymen, officers and others recount their experiences serving in places as diverse as Mosul in the north, Samarra in the Sunni Triangle, Nasiriya in the south and Baghdad in the center, during 2003, 2004 and 2005. Their stories capture the impact of their units on Iraqi civilians.
Strike For The South
07-11-2007, 04:13
Wow American troops are human.
This is abhorent of course and as an American I feel disgusted that my country the beacon of freedom democracy and diversty produces this kind of people. Im not however surprised war produces these kind of events thats why no one should ever hafto fight them becuase they are a horrid mix of depresion fear and anger and thats why they should be used as a last defense. What were trying to prove here man? That war makes villians out of men who are supposed to bring freedom? We did much worse to the Japaneese and veitnameese. After seeing your friends die you are probably apt to do strange things. Such is war
Crazed Rabbit
07-11-2007, 04:46
The Nation? Puh-lease. Is this what all Ron Paul supporters read?
Wow - they interviewed 50 vets (out of hundreds of thousands) and only five provided photographs or other proof of claims. The first story is about a dog getting shot during a raid - gee, like that doesn't happen all the time on police raids in the US, but they make it seem like a war crime.
Bah to this partisan tripe, I say.
CR
Geoffrey S
07-11-2007, 08:46
The obvious question has been raised by others before.
It's about winning their hearts and minds...
Zaknafien
07-11-2007, 12:56
exactly the point. Does anyone think this is promoting 'freedom' or 'liberty'? or helping Iraqis in any way at all? Theres nothing partisan about it. partisan is the bogus claims that we are over there rescuing the Iraqis and spreading democracy out of our own good nature as the Resident so often claims. Thank god that his support for this criminal war is finally crumbling in the Senate, and the die-hard republican lawmakers are turning on him.
exactly the point. Does anyone think this is promoting 'freedom' or 'liberty'? or helping Iraqis in any way at all? Theres nothing partisan about it. partisan is the bogus claims that we are over there rescuing the Iraqis and spreading democracy out of our own good nature as the Resident so often claims. Thank god that his support for this criminal war is finally crumbling in the Senate, and the die-hard republican lawmakers are turning on him.
"Many have dreamed up republics and principalities that have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation." Machiavelli
The later bit of the quote is the reality now facing republicans, everyone of them should be voted out of office for thier blind support for this war when it was clear years ago it was mismanaged.
The defections you see now Zak are political CYA on thier part. Perhaps I am to cynical as the nature of those in power, but survival in any theatre of life is often the first natural response.
Freedom and liberty are romantic concepts that cannot be imported into another concious, it must be self effident and it was arrogant to assume that this condition accepted by our society would so readily be transferrable in the state in which we employ it.
They are trying to remain human. They are trying to laugh to relieve themselves somehow. They live in fear. Etcetera. War is hell and, without proper moralities, self-control and proper management, they've become it themselves, those who act so.
Freedom and liberty are romantic concepts that cannot be imported into another concious, it must be self effident and it was arrogant to assume that this condition accepted by our society would so readily be transferrable in the state in which we employ it.
True.
They are trying to remain human. They are trying to laugh to relieve themselves somehow. They live in fear. Etcetera. War is hell and, without proper moralities, self-control and proper management, they've become it themselves, those who act so.
Freudal Knights, charge :beam:
Friend of mine served in afghanistan, according to him the simple truth is that they can't see the difference between fighters and civilians untill they start shooting.
Seen this? amazes me how our troops keep their cool, I would be so scared.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bnzA_8Juw94
This war looks a lot like an asymmetrical war or guerilla war. The problem is that the "great western power" America is one that is highly technologically advanced. It is only obvious that "the weaker" combatant will use ways to surprise and gain advantage over his foe.
This leads to fear of not knowing who the enemy is and will then probably lead to innocent civilians injured or dead. And it is the fear, pain, horror, and suffering, that will lead some of those soldiers to behave in morally irresponsible ways such as the soldier having his picture taken with a dead man as his family was watching.
This war looks a lot like an asymmetrical war or guerilla war. The problem is that the "great western power" America is one that is highly technologically advanced. It is only obvious that "the weaker" combatant will use ways to surprise and gain advantage over his foe.
This leads to fear of not knowing who the enemy is and will then probably lead to innocent civilians injured or dead. And it is the fear, pain, horror, and suffering, that will lead some of those soldiers to behave in morally irresponsible ways such as the soldier having his picture taken with a dead man as his family was watching.
The paradox being that this "great western power" was on the opposite side of your analogy 230 years ago when we defeated the british for our independence. While not identical circumstances, hopefully, our withdrawl will induce a similar result.
This war looks a lot like an asymmetrical war or guerilla war. The problem is that the "great western power" America is one that is highly technologically advanced.
Hoho, it isn't just america's war you know, canada, uk, australia and holland are fighting these guys as wel (well a few others but they don't actually fight). The west is more technologically advanced, maybe the Talitubbies should read some other books then the Quran if they want the edge.
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 18:19
The paradox being that this "great western power" was on the opposite side of your analogy 230 years ago when we defeated the british for our independence. While not identical circumstances, hopefully, our withdrawl will induce a similar result.
What a strange paradox Odin , could you explain how you could have defeated the great western power without tjhe money ,armies and navies from other great western powers ?
What a strange paradox Odin , could you explain how you could have defeated the great western power without tjhe money ,armies and navies from other great western powers ?
No tribesman, I dont find your worth my effort or time. Of course I didnt say that we did defeat anyone without help (thank you france), but I dont want to get in the way of one of your ridiculous nonsensical rants.
Some of them are fairly entertaining. :thumbsup:
oowwwwwwwwwwwwwww catfight
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 18:46
hopefully, our withdrawl will induce a similar result.
So The united tribes of Iraq is going to go to war on America a few years after independance but not win , then expand and invade a few places , growing to become the worlds only superpower . Oh if only Saddam and his sons could have lived to see it eh .
I dont want to get in the way of one of your ridiculous nonsensical rants.
hmmmmm...its post #11 that is ridiculous nonsense , in a ridiculously detatched from reality sort of nonsense way , and hey it doesn't even appear to be a rant .
hmmmmm...its post #11 that is ridiculous nonsense , in a ridiculously detatched from reality sort of nonsense way , and hey it doesn't even appear to be a rant .
I honestly dont know where you became confused and gathered the notion that I care what you think, or what your opinion is. I suppose I could simply put you on ignore, but that would negate the entertainment value I get from some of your posts (this is a entertainment/fansite afterall).
Apathy procludes me from envoking a nominal emotional response to you, but I do admire how you have been able to cultivate your reputation here as somehow an enlightening or educated presence. You bait well I guess, which allows you a comfortable hill from which to pontificate.
As much as I would love to go on, the 35 seconds i spent on my initial response to you and the 2-3 minutes I spent on this one are far more then your worth, certainly when attempting a serious web chat, I mean I will still read your posts from time to time.
All courts must have a jester, even when the jester's performance seems to be of serious nature, at least to him, I still find you absoultely funny. Thank you for enhancing my enjoyment of the org.
And please, never stop posting Tribesman.
:thumbsup:
Tribesman
07-11-2007, 19:43
I honestly dont know where you became confused and gathered the notion that I care what you think, or what your opinion is.
Ahhhh my feelings is so hurted you cruel brute , ~:mecry:
Hey get this Odin , it doesn't matter what you think of my opinion , my opinion is my opinion , and my opinion is that what you wrote was nonsense , you don't have to have any thoughts one way or the other on that , its entirely up to you but whether you care or not , my opinion remains that what you wrote was rubbish .
Whether you care or don't care is completely irrelevant .
Ahhhh my feelings is so hurted you cruel brute , ~:mecry:
Hey get this Odin , it doesn't matter what you think of my opinion , my opinion is my opinion , and my opinion is that what you wrote was nonsense , you don't have to have any thoughts one way or the other on that , its entirely up to you but whether you care or not , my opinion remains that what you wrote was rubbish .
Whether you care or don't care is completely irrelevant .
:7jester:
What is the purpose of this engagement?
What is the purpose of this engagement?
I am therefore I can? Don't ruin it man :wall:
KafirChobee
07-11-2007, 20:10
The idea that fear should excuse the commitment of attrocities and/or brutality by our troops against the local populace they were sent to assist - is a cop-out at worst, and a misunderstanding of the troops mission at best.
Anyone not scared in a combat situation is a psycho.
The examples used to demonstrate our troops reaction to the populace in Iraq shows a breakdown in command structure - weak commanders means the acceptance for troops to react in any manner they deem necessary to protect themselves. As opposed to protecting the people they were sent there to protect. When self preservation out weighs the mission, or when the mission becomes clouded - then corruption of morals within the troops structure becomes acceptable by the boots. Since the primary mission of any individual soldier is to get out of harmsway intact; the overall mission of his superiors must be defined in a manner to the men they oversee that demonstrates the probability of success at the conclusion of their risking life and limb. This hasnot been done - the troops know they are in a no win situation and their response is to do what ever it takes to survive it. Whether that means committing attrocities, brutalizing the populace, or firing wildly if shot at - it is all the same, to meet the primary goal of survival.
Ultimately, it means inadequate understanding of a foreign culture - and that excuses the troops for their actions. Atleast amongst themselves.
In 'nam "free fire zones" were set up, often without warning the local populace. Anyone that walked into one of these areas was immediately fired upon (killed) - be it a boy walking an oxe to the family's rice field, a merchant or someone going to visit a family member - all were considered VC (or NVA), regardless. Fear rules only when the mission has been forgotten - or never truely existed. This is Iraq today - a total free-fire-zone.
In Iraq the "mission" is more a myth than a tangible item - it changes almost as often as our commanders there (what are we on our 6th General?). It is, therefore, up to the troops themselves to define one. They have - kill all that look different, may or may not be a risk; but assure your safety first. Screw the populace, they hate us anyway.
All because of weak leadership from the top.
[not meant to say the officers, NCOs, etc are weak, just that those on top seem to be unable to define the ever changing mission - other than in swooping rhetoric. They need to get over the idea of winning the war - we did that. Now they need to define the peace.]
The examples used to demonstrate our troops reaction to the populace in Iraq shows a breakdown in command structure - weak commanders means the acceptance for troops to react in any manner they deem necessary to protect themselves. As opposed to protecting the people they were sent there to protect. When self preservation out weighs the mission, or when the mission becomes clouded - then corruption of morals within the troops structure becomes acceptable by the boots. Since the primary mission of any individual soldier is to get out of harmsway intact; the overall mission of his superiors must be defined in a manner to the men they oversee that demonstrates the probability of success at the conclusion of their risking life and limb. This hasnot been done - the troops know they are in a no win situation and their response is to do what ever it takes to survive it. Whether that means committing attrocities, brutalizing the populace, or firing wildly if shot at - it is all the same, to meet the primary goal of survival.
This is brilliant and pretty much nails it right on the head. Sadly this was the problem from the get go because the intended outcome and supposed factors never came to fruition (flowers in the street, security, WMD).
Again KC bravo, for me it was clear that the reality you posted above occurred very early on in the mission, and Rumsfeld was the primary architect of allowing it to barrell ahead unchecked.
To the point we are now, where decisions are based on political survival in washington, and the GI is left with only his survival goal to go on. Its been sloppy for a long time.
Papewaio
07-12-2007, 02:53
In short:
Fuzzy Goals with Fuzzy Measurements leads to Fuzzy Outcomes.
Gregoshi
07-12-2007, 06:40
In short:
Fuzzy Goals with Fuzzy Measurements leads to Fuzzy Outcomes.
Ah, Fuzzy Logic. ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2007, 06:49
When self preservation out weighs the mission, or when the mission becomes clouded - then corruption of morals within the troops structure becomes acceptable by the boots. Since the primary mission of any individual soldier is to get out of harmsway intact; the overall mission of his superiors must be defined in a manner to the men they oversee that demonstrates the probability of success at the conclusion of their risking life and limb. This hasnot been done - the troops know they are in a no win situation and their response is to do what ever it takes to survive it. Whether that means committing attrocities, brutalizing the populace, or firing wildly if shot at - it is all the same, to meet the primary goal of survival.
This sounds exactly whats wrong with our police forces here today. Their first thought is self preservation even if it means gunning down a civilian. The constitution says we cant use the armed forces as police so now we train the police and arm them as paramilitaries. Their more interisted in protecting themselves in most cases than the public. They think you going for a gun and your a deadman. They use excisive force as a matter of policy. Reminds me of the Gestapo
PanzerJaeger
07-12-2007, 09:42
I can find 5 examples of misconduct in any war, but don't let me get in the way of the bashing and unfounded conclusions being drawn from this hitpiece. :creep:
Rodion Romanovich
07-12-2007, 10:31
Hoho, it isn't just america's war you know, canada, uk, australia and holland are fighting these guys as wel (well a few others but they don't actually fight). The west is more technologically advanced, maybe the Talitubbies should read some other books then the Quran if they want the edge.
Apparently the Quran is more effective at giving them victory, than the books read in the west, however. The west thinking they'll win just out of technological advantage, just as silly as thinking numbers alone can give victory. The guerillas know their technological weakness but have an unmatched fighting spirit and recruitment base. Even if you manage to wipe out their entire current set of soldiers, you wouldn't have to wait long to find another wave arising.
The guerillas are a mix of hardline extremists who don't hesitate to blow up civilians, and freedom fighters who are defending their independence as well as freedom and justice.
There are many reasons to fight the occupant:
1. they rule the Iraqi puppet government in an abusive manner, preventing any democracy from taking place, yet call themselves defenders of democracy
2. they steal all oil - the only natural resource Iraq has, and it's only chance to avoid poverty. For western countries to come and steal this oil, is like stealing candy from children
3. those Iraqis who cooperate with the occupying forces are the rich and privileged, who wish to extend their wealth by cooperating with the development of a low-salary capitalism system. To fight those and the occupants is to fight for social justice and equality. The occupants made the miscalculation that the rich and capitalistic Iraqis would be a more powerful ally, than the lower class.
4. there are mad occupants who just run on killing sprees and shoot wildly, hitting women and children as well as grown up males. All males live in the danger of being killed when they try to defend their wives from being victims to rape by gangs of occupying soldiers trying to ease their frustration. And the attitude among the soldiers is not to report this and root out this evilness from the ranks, but to "defend their squad mates" - defend murderers.
5. there was no casus belli for attacking Iraq. Whatever chances there were of getting one, disappeared by the lack of any patience from the Bush administration. It became clear quite early, that there was no desire to achieve a just political goal, but only a desire to get a war, under which oil theft could be disguised.
6. the occupying forces look down on the local culture as inferior. Surely the muslims may oppress women to some extent by veils, but the USA has Christian fundamentalism that oppresses males by circumcising 60% of them, and denying males the right to pleasure during sex, and it could also be considered oppressive that women don't dare to go outdoors without makeup and tight-fitting clothes, and that while the justice system in muslim countries sometimes end up punishing innocent women, the justice system in western countries always give lower sentences for women, and rich men, for the same crimes men are punished harshly for. The USA has death penalty, just like Iraq. They cooperated with the barbaric practise of death penalty in Iraq by cooperating with the hanging of Saddam Hussein, who has - despite in reality being a murderous dictator - has now become a martyr compared to the occupying forces.
7. everybody knows the occupying forces have no business in Iraq. Both American and European populations, and muslim countries, are against the meaningless bloodshed. As a result, the freedom fighters have a moral advantage
8. we can't convince Iraqis to embrace democracy, when our own democracy doesn't work. Even though a majority is against the Iraq massacre, the war continues because we have too little influence over our politicians because the democracy has too many levels of indrection.
I can find 5 examples of misconduct in any war, but don't let me get in the way of the bashing and unfounded conclusions being drawn from this hitpiece. :creep:
So how many of these "any war" were officially portrayed to bring peace to the occupied people and since when do other wrongs make any wrong right or better or less worth complaining about?
You know, if your mom and dad died in a car accident and I came in here, saying: "I can give you five accounts of parents dieing in a car accident but I don't want to get in the way of your unfounded crying and mourning", would you stop it?
KafirChobee
07-12-2007, 18:32
I can find 5 examples of misconduct in any war, but don't let me get in the way of the bashing and unfounded conclusions being drawn from this hitpiece. :creep:
As Husar pointed out, past attrocities do not justify present attrocities. They simply demonstrate how easy it is for a moral concept to be twisted into justifying the murder of a foe, and extending the foe to include not just military (insurgents) personell, but the civilians that may or may not support them.
Though it may be true that there are limited morals in total warfare - one must be reminded that our occupation of Iraq doesnot apply since the mission (s) - choose one - is to aid and abet the populace, supposedly not to subjugate them (Saddam already did that, so why replace him?). And, certainly not to indiscriminately rape and murder them.
As Legio hinted at - always place yourself in the oppositions position (shoes) before commenting on the side you support - it opens up your perceptions to what is really occurring versus simply accepting the side one is committed to as being an absolute. Nothing is absolute - both sides have a tangible arguement (to those that follow blindly out of prejudicial or other hot button factors) or they would have no support.
Personally, I understand why some of our troops have reacted barbarically - but, as I previously state it is due as more to their not having a defined mission and a weak leadership - as it is to their own instinct for self preservation. Some have twisted all of these into a justification for revenge against the entire Iraqi populace based on circumstance - not military necessity.
PanzerJaeger
07-12-2007, 20:52
So how many of these "any war" were officially portrayed to bring peace to the occupied people and since when do other wrongs make any wrong right or better or less worth complaining about?
You know, if your mom and died died in a car accident and I came in here, saying: "I can give you five accounts of parents dieing in a car accident but I don't want to get in the way of your unfounded crying and mourning", would you stop it?
First of all, the war was sold as enforcing a UN mandate by removing a threat, which would also benefit the Iraqi people. Its important to remember the pre-war rhetoric.
And speaking of the UN - theres your example. Take a look at some of the actions of supposed "UN peacekeepers" in Africa. Those people truly were sent only to help the populace and ended up raping babies.
Second, if you take any activity that involves hundreds of thousands of people, there will be some misconduct. Its human nature.
As Husar pointed out, past attrocities do not justify present attrocities. They simply demonstrate how easy it is for a moral concept to be twisted into justifying the murder of a foe, and extending the foe to include not just military (insurgents) personell, but the civilians that may or may not support them.
I am not justifying the actions of these particular soldiers.(Although it does seem the writer went to great lengths to find something worth some outrage.)
I am simply saying that a few instances of misconduct do not justify the broad conclusions being drawn in this thread about American soldiers.
Tristuskhan
07-12-2007, 23:06
First of all, the war was sold as enforcing a UN mandate by removing a threat, which would also benefit the Iraqi people.
Lovely short memory, my friend, there was no UN mandate for Iraq at all. It was for Afghanistan.
Tribesman
07-13-2007, 01:24
Lovely short memory, my friend,
Nope , Panzer is correct , it was sold as that , it wasn't true but that doesn't matter since it was what it was sold as .
Some people were stupid enough to buy it .
Whats worse is that even now some people are stupid enough to still believe they didn't buy a load of crap .
First of all, the war was sold as enforcing a UN mandate by removing a threat, which would also benefit the Iraqi people. Its important to remember the pre-war rhetoric.
And speaking of the UN - theres your example. Take a look at some of the actions of supposed "UN peacekeepers" in Africa. Those people truly were sent only to help the populace and ended up raping babies.
Second, if you take any activity that involves hundreds of thousands of people, there will be some misconduct. Its human nature.
And because you say it's human nature we should just let it happen or what?
Just look the other way and don't care?
Do you think that will improve anything?
And concerning the reasons for the war, I think you forgot the weapons of mass destruction and bringing peace and freedom to the iraqi people. Now whether it's human nature or not, killing the people is not bringing peace to them. and another problem is that when you upset a single family by making a nice picture with one of their family members who you just shot, you can expect the worsd to spread and it will certainly not bring peace to anyone.
Being stressed by the fighting is one thing, but doing such things to upset neutral people creates more enemies and in the end is completely stupid and counterproductive. As Bijo would say, it's illogical since it doesn't lead to the intended goal.
Now since you probably want your troops to come home safe, how can you say we should just ignore such actions of individuals because those actions lead to the deaths of more than just those individuals.
PanzerJaeger
07-13-2007, 01:58
Lovely short memory, my friend, there was no UN mandate for Iraq at all. It was for Afghanistan.
Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which only existed to highlight Iraq's continuous violation of UN Resolutions passed against it after the Gulf War.
PanzerJaeger
07-13-2007, 02:03
And because you say it's human nature we should just let it happen or what?
Just look the other way and don't care?
Do you think that will improve anything?
Allow me to re-quote what I've already written.
I am not justifying the actions of these particular soldiers. (Although it does seem the writer went to great lengths to find something worth some outrage.)
I am simply saying that a few instances of misconduct do not justify the broad conclusions being drawn in this thread about American soldiers.
My argument is not that we should justify, ignore, or not care about this activity.
The point I'm trying to make is that this article and the few examples it gives are no basis for the people in this thread making broad assumptions about the conduct, moral, and leadership of American troops.
Tribesman
07-13-2007, 02:13
Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Wow hows that for an example of.......
Some people were stupid enough to buy it .
Whats worse is that even now some people are stupid enough to still believe they didn't buy a load of crap .
Allow me to re-quote what I've already written.
Oh, sorry, I read that but somehow forgot it when I replied.:oops:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.