Iraqi troops not allowed weapons in the Big Dick's presence

[JohnyCanuck]

The Nation Blog | Posted 12/19/2005 @ 2:13pm
Cheney's Cheerleading Falls Flat

<snip>

It is no wonder the troops were lacking in enthusiasm.

They know something that Cheney does not know, or at least does not admit.

They know that, at the close of this "watershed year," not nearly enough has changed for the better in Iraq.

They know, as well, that the administration's talk about how the U.S. will stand down as the Iraqis stand up remains an empty promise.

How empty?

Consider a line buied deep in the AP report of the vice president's visit to Taji Air Base in Iraq: "U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=43696

For crying out loud, couln't they at least have done like the British did with the Home Guard in WWII and given them some broomsticks to use for pretend rifles. Or maybe they were worried that an out of control Iraqi soldier might have used it to wack the old Dick(head) upside the head, or poke him in the chest to bring on heart attack.

[TomInTib]

1. For an Iraqi this would be humiliating - big-time.

Totally emasculating.

[enigma000]

2. In Saddam's day, troops rarely got to fire their guns

Keeping soldiers unarmed and untrained was a way of preventing a coup. I would be surprised if common soldiers could carry guns around senior leadership.

[BuyingThyme]

3. Sovereignty.

:rofl: