Hutsman to endorse Romney, though I can’t imagine Romney ever choosing Huntsman as his running mate. That would be two white Utah male Mormans on the ticket. The evangelical block would fucking lose it.
Yah, that wouldn’t make much sense, assuming that one of the points of a running mate is to bring in a constituency that the candidate can’t get on his or her own.
Too bad for Huntsman, though. He’s trying to get the nomination in a sane and moderate Republican Party that doesn’t exist.
I can’t see Romney picking any of the other current candidates as his running mate. Not a one of them brings much to the table, and they all have pretty close to (if not higher than) Palin-level negatives.
Maybe Pawlenty? Maybe Christie (if he wanted it?)? It is a real interesting question. Hell, maybe Jindal? Though really, either a Hispanic or a woman would bring him more political capital than any of those three. I just can’t conjure up any names that would fit the bill. Surely not Rubio? Rubio has baggage that would cost him a ton, not to mention the lying about his family background.
I sort of agree with him. I’m not sure criminal charges are a good idea. I’d rather let the Army discipline them.
I’m sure if some Afghan soldiers did the same on a dead US civilian we’d be ok with a military reprimand.
I’m unclear on what you or Perry thinks should happen. These soldiers will be punished under UCMJ for a criminal act. If your concern is that the charge(es) will get shuffled to a civilian court, have no fear. I doubt that’s going to happen.
Some Norwegian punters claim that Nikki Haley is a likely candidate. Just based on the superficial details, it sounds likely - young, female, not white, and with close ties to the tea party movement. I assume the evangelical base is less than thrilled with her, but otherwise she seems like a perfect fit.
Much like most of the ‘frontrunners’ couldn’t stand the spotlight of a presidential race for more than a few weeks, Nikki Haley at first blush appears to have enough skeletons in her closet to not want to be part of a national race.
The article seems to imply that this is not actually the situation that happened.
Is it wrong? Yes, BUT assuming these were rightful targets, which the article seems to state they were, it doesn’t seem like a major issue. Deserving of punishment for bringing our armed services closer to their level, yes, but deserving of major criminal convictions, no.
We’re asking our soldiers to kill these militants day in and day out. It doesn’t seem hugely surprising that it would have a dehumanizing effect.
I also laugh at the people who talk about how incidents like this will make the Taliban or other similar groups treat our captured people worse. What are they going to do, kidnap people and cut off their heads?
jeffd
1631
Pissing on the corpses of enemy combatants: A-OK!
JeffL
1632
It is wrong, no doubt.
But there’s a part of me that also says, OK, blowing half their skulls off with a .50 calibre sniper rifle is OK, but peeing on the body is outrageous.
Yeah, I get the disrespect, etc. when bodies are desecrated in any way. Including ours. But there just seems to be some disconnect over being outraged over peeing on the dead body, where the guts may have been torn out in the actual killing, and the peeing is the outrageous act.
Feel free to piss on my tired ramblings. ;)
jeffd
1633
Maybe you should have just left off with your first sentence. :)
Oh yeah, they got a ‘military reprimand’ alright.
JeffL
1635
Yeah, but you know what I mean in terms of the disconnect. They could have eviscerated them with a knife and that would have been OK. They probably did blow parts of their bodies away if they were snipers. The insult done to the bodies of people in combat are pretty horrific. But peeing on the body is a level of unacceptable beyond tearing their head off.
Just seems like there’s something wrong with our sense of moral outrage, as people in general.
Miramon
1636
Our domestic outrage at such an incident would be orchestrated through media propaganda, and even so would probably fail to move most people, considering the horrible events that constantly take place “legitimately” during wartime.
Of course killing someone is infinitely worse than urinating on someone. This is an extremely petty incident considering the enormity of the real atrocities committed in this war, or in any war.
If for whatever reason any group of “the public” or “the media” at home or abroad is not outraged at the war itself, at the enormous number of civilian and allied casualties, at the gross and wasteful expense, and at the sheer stupidity of the war’s objectives, it would be shameful if they were to be outraged at the ludicrously small increment of malice involved in urinating on a corpse.
I completely disagree. Remember the reaction to the video of Somalis dragging a dead US soldier through the streets?
Well, they are already dead.
jeffd
1639
On one hand yeah I’m with you. I’m generally not a fan of people hurting one another.
On the other hand, it’s war. It’s silly in a way, but we accept that certain behaviors become acceptable during war, including blowing people’s heads off. Pissing on corpses is not amongst them.
Miramon
1640
This is true, but we weren’t at war, and weren’t used to being at war, and had been told that it would be a pushover. How dare they try to resist being liberated! Also, I imagine that if they had found an American corpse in the local morgue and dragged that through the streets, it would have been less of an issue.
