A Testament to Dishonor

Military — By on May 23, 2005 at 1:32 am

In 1996, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles Krulak issued an order that every Marine would carry a Corps Values card. The card would serve, said Gen. Krulak, as ‘



  • AndyS

    Bravo, Joe. Thanks for raising the objection so clearly and to my mind so accurately. I suspect, however, these guys have gotten pats on the back from some of their superiors for the “clever” name they picked.

  • http://thebronxblogger.blogspot.com Matthew Goggins

    Joe, I agree 100% with the spirit and the particulars of your complaint.
    This is one of the dumbest things I have seen in Iraq.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    I’m not sure you’re addressing a couple of important metaissues here, so I’ll do it for you:

    • Regardless of religious belief or not this is every bit as stupid and idiotic as the Koran abuses that have been reported in the media.
    • It has the exact same effect.
    • If they wanted any evidence that the Marines were infested with “Crusaders” they have it now.

    Frankly, folks like this don’t make me feel any bit more secure.
    It’s nice to see folks on the same sides of issues now and then.

  • Kevin W

    Who cares?

  • Kevin W

    Fifteen minutes on, I still don’t see what you find so objectionable.

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com corrie

    Well put, Joe.
    Kevin, if it has to be explained in any more detail, you still wouldn’t get it.

  • Foppa21

    As a Christian I don’t find it offensive at all. Troops in the field have always customized their equipment and I like the clever names that the troops have taken to stenciling on the main guns of the Abrams. It’s certainly less offensive than naked nose art on airplanes.

  • jesuspacksanAK

    name to put missles: “jesus loves you”
    thanks for covering this and being willing to criticize how your commitment to the military can conflict with you christian faith. i am comforted that you see the irony of the crusader image, and are willing to draw a line in the blurring of faith and warfare.

  • AlanDownunder

    Yes Mumon, it’s easy for all sides to agree about an insult to the Bible that doubles as an insult to Islam and that, religion aside, makes about as much sense as dousing a fire with gasoline.
    But where does that take us? Is this “a few bad apples” like Gitmo, Bagram & Abu Ghraib or is it as reflective of Bush’s “crusade” comment as Gitmo, Bagram & Abu Ghraib were reflective of Pentagon/White House views on torture?
    I put this down to the twisted thing that the “born again” President and his “born again” GOP minions (pastors and politicians alike) sell to Christian USA as faith. Every marine who gave the “New Testament” a pass knew not to question anything that claimed, however twistedly, to be Christian patriotism. Most of them probably couldn’t even see the twist. Such is “values based” USA today.
    When the church tries to co-opt the state, the danger is reverse co-option, against which secular pluralism and separation of powers are the only safeguard. Evangelism’s success is illusory when theocratic obeisance passes as spiritual devotion.
    Sure the GOP makes the right noises about Schiavo & Roe v Wade – unpragmatically, I might add – but how are those noises consistent with the death penalty, GOP health policy and neocon foreign policy? For them, it’s a trade – “culture of life” in small matters so that culture of death can prevail in more important matters.

  • Chris Lutz

    Mumon, while I agree that what is written on the tank will confirm what Muslims believe, I don’t think it matters. I believe that because it’s becoming more apparent that Islam isn’t like any other religion on the planet. It cannot accept any other religions and accepts no “disrespect.” You can name in the past 10 years how virtually every religious group has be insulted in some way. Which one almost always reacts violently? Islam.
    I guess I really don’t care what is on the tank. It won’t effect what they think and I’m tired of the cries that we are treating their religion badly. If we were fighting Hindu’s or Jews, I would care, but I can’t get worked up over this. When a moderate Islamic group holds a rally in Washington D.C. and only 50 people show up, it’s obvious they don’t care how they look. Instead they protest that a used Koran had an offensive statement in it.
    The only way to stop this madness is to keep the Muslims in their part of the world. There is no peaceful coexistence with them.
    FYI, as the Koran abuses you are supposed to use the correct spelling of Qu’ran, otherwise you are offending their faith.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick

    “Where was the NCO or Staff NCO who was in charge of this particular tank? Where was the tank commander? Or Cpl. Ken Melton, the young Marine who took the photo? Or the Marine who cleared the photo for release? Or the webmaster who posted it on the website? “

    Keep in mind that the Pentagon also cleared the Newsweek article prior to publication. So if you are looking for smooth PR moves from them I think you will be disappointed.
    However in the case of the tank, I don’t see anything wrong with it. It may not be politically correct or tactful, but if it makes the Marine driving the tank feel better, then thats fine with me.
    I suggest you be careful about “outrage” lest you start to imitate those that rioted after the Koran story.
    The God of the Bible isn’t actually IN the Bible. That which is the pure Word cannot ever truly be desecrated.
    Besides, maybe Jesus might actually like the name of the tank. Do not assume that He does not possess a sense of humor.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Patrick,
    I suggest you be careful about “outrage” lest you start to imitate those that rioted after the Koran story.
    My sense of outrage isn’t so much about the slight to my religion (or even to Muslims) but with who is showing the disrepect. I expect more from my fellow Marines who are expected to be held to a higher standard.
    As you point out, it may not be “tactful.” But tact is one of the 14 Leadership Traits that Marines are expected to possess in order to be a good leader. Showing a lack of tact (and judgment) is indicative of poor leadership.

  • bjs

    Just saw this, and frankly I am not too worried about Muslims being offended because they’re determined to be offended no matter what ‘we’ do. However, this DOES leave a sour taste in my mouth because they are mixing the saving witness of Jesus Christ with an instrument of revenge. I really do see why they’d do it, and God knows sometimes I’m tempted to wield my faith like a bat too. But it’s not okay.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Chris Lutz:
    When you say “Islam,” it’s like when other people use the word “Christian” in that there are as many ways of being a Muslim as there are Muslims, just as there are as many ways of being a Christian as there are Christians (or substitute any other worldview.)
    The Muslims I’ve known have been generally very tolerant (and educated) and apalled at what’s done in their name.
    you are supposed to use the correct spelling of Qu’ran…
    It’s a transliteration from Arabic. Since I don’t know Arabic, I wouldn’t use the font.
    At any rate, the word in English is only a metaphor according to them for whatever’s written in Arabic.
    Don’t get me wrong; I’ve tried reading the Koran/Qu’ran, and to me, its deity is even more dysfunctional than, say, the Christian deity, at least from the first bits of it.
    That said, Islam used to be the most tolerant of the Abrahmic religions, but that was centuries ago, when they were a leading economic power.
    I guess there’s a lesson there. And not a pretty one for the US.
    AlanDownunder :
    Re: GOP: I think that “culture of life” is a buzzword to distract attention from the fact that it’s really not.

  • jesuspacksanAK

    ‘It’s certainly less offensive than naked nose art on airplanes. ‘
    the human body is more offensive to you than blatantly proclaiming violent religious intentions (by any means necessary)to an enemy?
    what is the difference, then, between fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims
    neocon christians are sick people, but i’m not surprised.
    praise the lord and pass the ammo

  • Kevin W

    So . . . putting “New Testament” on the side of a tank is “blatantly proclaiming violent religious intentions (by any means necessary)to an enemy”?
    You’re just stupid.
    Interesting post by Christ Lutz, above. I’ve always wondered why we’re so sensitive to Islam. Why are they so touchy? Why do they revolt and kill each other when it is erroneously reported that somebody flushed a 975 page volume down a one-half-inch pipe? Seems to me that they are the intolerant ones, always looking for a way to piss themselves off. Off point, how many Iraqis read English well enough to even know what the term “New Testament” means, when written in the Roman alphabet on a moving vehicle?

  • Foppa21

    jesuspacksanAK,
    You’re an idiot. Didn’t you used to post under a different name here? The naked human body isn;t offensive to Christians, but it is apparently to Muslims. Apparently I wasn’t clear. But don’t let that get in the way of any snarky attempt oyu wish to make about Christians.

  • http://rocketzredglare.blogspot.com/ Rocketman

    “The Muslims I’ve known have been generally very tolerant (and educated) and apalled at what’s done in their name.”
    That has nothing to do with the brand of radicalized Islamic thought that is currently exemplified throughout the Middle East today. You may personally know 20, 30 or 100 Muslims in your community who disagree with the worldwide terrorist movement being perpetrated by Muslims. However, the vast majority of countries self-labeled as Islamic, fund, support & encourage terrorism against non-muslim nations.
    “That said, Islam used to be the most tolerant of the Abrahmic religions, but that was centuries ago, when they were a leading economic power.”
    This is a generalization that is incorrect. After your previous argument that individual adherants of a religion should not be characterized as a group (& according to that groups behavior), you follow it by doing the very same thing. “Islam used to be the most tolerant of the Abrahamic religions…” When? The tenets of Islam require a believer to convert his neighbor and failing to do so, to kill him as he is therefore a heretic. I’ve read the passage myself, directly from the Koran. In addition, Islamic nations have been just as predatory and colonialistic as any other throughout history.
    It’s also interesting that you have linked tolerance with economic strength – and then taken it the further step to imply that the U.S. will ultimately be in the same position, and therefore Christianity (the predominant religion in the U.S.) will take the same path.
    This exposes a basic lack of understanding regarding the key differences & core beliefs of both Christianity & Islam. As an example, I would say that a Christian who believes that he should capture a non-believer & saw his/her head off in order to honor God has gravely & deeply misunderstood the message of Jesus Christ. I would further state that a Muslim who does the same would find his actions not only condoned, but encouraged.

  • Chris Lutz

    Nice post Rocketman.
    The problem is that violence against unbelievers is a core tenet of Islam. To state it simply, Islam is violent even though there may be peaceful Muslims. In reverse, for the other major religions, there are violent adherents but the basis of the religion is peaceful.
    Mumon, my point about the Koran/Qu’ran reference is that any little item, like how you spell Koran is going to set off some Muslim. And your friends who I am sure are peaceful (I know some myself) are not going to be able to stop those who aren’t peaceful. Why? Because your peaceful neighbors are the heretics. Their faith is not based on Islamic text or tradition. They may avoid the violent calls for jihad in the Koran or Hadiths, but they don’t have any religious grounds to stop those who are properly following the religion.
    Islam used to be the most tolerant of the Abrahamic religions
    Yes, as Rocketman asked, when? Unless you mean by tolerance paying special taxes, wearing special clothing to mark your religion, being careful to never offend a Muslim or Islam, and never publically expressing your beliefs. And of course there are the general purgings now and again to suffer through.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Rocketman
    after your previous argument that individual adherants of a religion should not be characterized as a group (& according to that groups behavior), you follow it by doing the very same thing.
    Point taken. I was thinking about the governments at the time of the era prior to the Renaissance. And around the Renaissance.
    The tenets of Islam require a believer to convert his neighbor and failing to do so, to kill him as he is therefore a heretic.
    Umm… I don’t think it says that. A heretic is not the same as an unbeliever; generally heretics are the opposite of “orthodox,” which means that within a belief system they literally have different views (from orthodox.)
    The “other religions” were generally “people of the book” as it were, and Muslims didn’t mess with them except for tax them. Unlike, say, what the Spanish did to the Moors and Jews in the Iberian peninsula.
    But while I think you can quote snippets from the Koran urging violence, I’m pretty sure counter snippets can be trotted out as well.
    It’s also interesting that you have linked tolerance with economic strength – and then taken it the further step to imply that the U.S. will ultimately be in the same position, and therefore Christianity (the predominant religion in the U.S.) will take the same path…
    It’s an interesting correlation, no?
    This exposes a basic lack of understanding regarding the key differences & core beliefs of both Christianity & Islam. As an example, I would say that a Christian who believes that he should capture a non-believer & saw his/her head off in order to honor God has gravely & deeply misunderstood the message of Jesus Christ.
    It’s not like it hasn’t been done before, you know.
    Chris Lutz:
    I dunno. I think that the main reason they “aren’t going to stop them” might have to do with political impotency. Isn’t that, after all, why George W. Bush makes nice to the Saudis, despite the pretty strong evidence that all that oil money is going to fund the terrorists?

  • Chris Lutz

    But while I think you can quote snippets from the Koran urging violence, I’m pretty sure counter snippets can be trotted out as well.
    If you don’t understand the way the Koran is understood one would think that. Simply put, if something later in the Koran contradicts what is said earlier in the Koran then the later statement is the rule. Virtually all of the violent statements against unbelievers, the apostate, and people of the book happen towards the end.
    Plus, you must always remember the concept of taqiyya. Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers to achieve their goals.
    The people of the book are only protected as long as they are subservient to the rule of Islam. And that statement happens early in the Koran.
    political impotency
    The problem is that the moderates and reformers have no religious footing to stop the jihadists. Even if the moderates had the political power, they would fall to the jihadists.

  • http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html dopderbeck

    Well, then, Chris, what are we supposed to do about it? Send in a whole Christian army to blow all those infidels away before they blow us away? Oh, wait, we already tried that, a bunch of times… a few wars we call the Crusades come to mind. A real highlight of Christian history, those were.
    But back to the point: I’ve heard these arguments about the Koran and violence before, as presented by Norm Geisler, and they’re not convincing for the fundamental reason that they assume most Muslims treat their scriptures the way most of us conservative Evangelicals treat ours.
    We generally, and appropriately, try to evaluate Christian theology and practice against the witness of scripture. You can’t do the same with Islam, and then write off the majority of Muslims who don’t interpret or apply the violent passages of the Koran “literally” as not representative of Islam. Islam is a set of often contradictory cultures and worldviews, some of which are consistent with the violent passages of the Koran and many of which are not. It’s not such a simple thing as citing a few Koranic passages and one principle of interpretation.

  • tommythecat

    ‘You’re just stupid.’
    ‘You’re an idiot.’
    who would jesus call stupid and an idiot?
    you are right, he would probably just shoot them, just like in the NT. oh wait, that is where this all started, in the NT. God is on our side, everyone else must die. in hell.

  • http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html dopderbeck

    Tommy — I’d agree with you that the name calling here is childish, but on the other hand, it sounds like you need to read some of the stuff Jesus actually said. Phrases like “brood of vipers” to describe the Pharisees come to mind. And yet he never said anything remotely like “God is on our side, everyone else must die in hell.” Rather, he said stuff like “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).

  • AlanDownunder

    As a Christian, the problem I see with a tank in Iraq called “New Testament” is that nothing about Jesus – nothing about the New Testament’s revision of the blood-soaked Old Testament – approves of force against people of any faith, or non-faith. Christ’s immediate followers were more likely to be martyrs than revolutionaries. The Romans found them to be almost incomprehensibly docile politically – their faith was a private communal thing to be spread by witness and example, not by force or conquest.
    As a war strategist, the problem I see with a tank in Iraq called “New Testament” is that it will alienate Iraqis from the democratic message the US professes to be bringing them. If they get the idea that they are being asked to ditch one theocracy for another, if they get the idea that the US is declaring its variant of Abrahamic religion to be superior to theirs, how are hearts and minds to be won and how are insurgents to be starved of the local support they need which is based on shared culture and faith? In an all-in conventional war such as WW2, I’d be all for anything that keeps up troop morale no matter how disrespectful of the enemy. I’d probably cheer louder the more disrespectful it got. But in an insurgency war where hearts and minds count way more than kills, that tank moniker is just plumb self-defeatingly stupid.
    Here’s the US in Iraq trying tease apart the notions of church and state – trying to engender a mainly-islamic democracy and avoid an islamic theocracy like neighbouring Iran – while at the same time the US is itself moving in the opposite direction, both in Iraq and at home. US leadership is giving mixed messages. Naturally the Iraq enterprise is coming up with mixed results.

  • http://www.blestwithsons.com blestwithsons

    My Marine is in the sandbox right now. And my Marine is a Christian. However, my Marine surely would NOT have approved that photo. If those were his Marines somebody would be getting one major butt-chewing right now! Ooh-Rah,Joe.

  • Chris Lutz

    Well, then, Chris, what are we supposed to do about it? Send in a whole Christian army to blow all those infidels away before they blow us away?
    As I posted earlier, in general, we need to separate our two cultures. They are incompatible and the less contact between the two, the happier everyone is going to be.
    they assume most Muslims treat their scriptures the way most of us conservative Evangelicals treat ours
    Historically, Muslims have seemed to follow their religious texts and take them for what they say. Or am I mistaken about the spread the Islam via conquest since it’s inception.
    write off the majority of Muslims who don’t interpret or apply the violent passages of the Koran “literally”
    How do you know the majority doesn’t support the violent passages?
    It’s not such a simple thing as citing a few Koranic passages and one principle of interpretation.
    Sure there are several interpretative methods, but which ones have been dominant and are dominant today? The violent ones are dominant and the less literal intepretations aren’t much more than a blip on the radar. Show me a Muslim culture today that doesn’t treat other religious groups as second-class citizens. Show me a Muslim culture where the moderates are in charge and the extremists are nothing more than our KKK of today.
    Again, as I posted before, at it’s roots Islam is a violent religion with some peaceful adherents. It’s the opposite with the other major religions of the world. Historically, it is true and today it is true.

  • Kevin W

    tommythecat’s back!! Haven’t seen him/her since Osama endorsed John Kerry for President!
    Yes, I called another poster stupid. Of course, he called me and other Christians “sick people”. Oh well.
    Welcome back. Hope you’re enjoying W’s 2nd term.

  • http://jimgilbertatlarge.blogspot.com/ Jim

    Alandownunder:
    Your second post is excellent, even though I disagree with some points you’ve made. Your first post, however, shows that you’ve judged George Bush and his “minions” from a great distance and through the distorted of international news media.
    You have no right to do this. Bring debate to the forum, but keep your ad hominem attacks down under.

  • http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801065186/qid=1110843393/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-5831274-9156907?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Tom

    Hey, Joe, never knew you were a fellow Jarhead. Ooo-rah and Semper Fi from a former 0331.

  • AlanDownunder

    Jim:
    Thanks for the respect. No points to debate because you didn’t say where you disagreed, but:
    1. I wasn’t the one who put the Presidents’s version of Christian faith out there – he and the GOP use it politically. That makes it a political issue, not an ad hominem one.
    2. The US news media is as distorted as the international media. I consume both.

  • http://www.benedictionblogson.com/archives/001453.php Bene Diction Blogs On

    Dishonor?

    A few days ago Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost posted about a picture that is currently up on the official US Marine site. (still up – I just checked). As a former marine Carter is objecting to content on the grounds of ignorance and disrepect. W…

  • http://www.sonafide.com Drina

    Hope you’re enjoying W’s 2nd term.
    Well, that was spiteful of you.

  • Eagle

    New Testament is offensive non-Christians in America, let alone Iraq who like I thought our government and military was one that separated church and state.
    As far as doing this in a Muslim country that we are trying to assist, it is the height of American arrogance and stupidity.
    Anyone who does not see this as justification that we ARE Crusaders and this will recruit more extremists is blind.
    Why don’t we just hang copies of the Koran all over our M1s and Humvees for additional armor?
    Well we

  • http://none Kenny

    It is rather an amusing irony that the photo of the “New Testamant” tank is shown with natural gas well-towers pictured in the background. There you have it folks! The modern 3RD CRUSADERS of the Christian West and Israel invading a Sovereign Arab Country which as expansive petroleum reserves. Bin Laden and Al-Zarquari themselves could not ask for better propaganda to support their cause! I am glad to see that “Ft. Fumble on the Potomac” (the Pentagon for our non-Mil readers) still f–ks thing up in their historic grand style!

  • AlanDownunder

    It’s decidedly ironic when military chaplains complain about religious indoctrination of the military by the military, as here. To be effective at counter-insurgency and democracy-building in non-Christian regions, the military needs to at least teach a religion that doesn’t conflate the glory of God with the power of the USA – if it hasn’t the sense to just leave religion to the chaplains. We’d then be less likely to see things like tanks giving the Islamic street the Christian bird.

  • Kevin W

    Wow Kenny! Look at all the exclamation marks! I think your post is silly! Bin Laden doesn’t need propoganda or imagery to support his cause, only crazy people willing to wear Semtex vests! And, what have we found, just in the past 10 days?! That nothing inflames the Islamic world more than pictures of their “great” “leaders” taking a dump in their Fruit of the Looms, false stories about 900-page leather-bound volumes being flushed down Guantanamo’s low-volume-flush toilets, and the idea that Jews are drinking Arab blood in restaurants (as the grand imam said on Al Jazeera over the weekend)!
    But, hey, as usual, to the American Left, America’s the problem! Thanks for your (un)refreshing perspective!

  • Derren Siglock

    Keep Up the Good fight Marines! Let all know that you are Christian and that you too have faith.
    Disregard fellow Christians who critisize you, as they have no clue what service is this “Land Before Time Began” is all about or the enemy that we fight everyday! It sure is easy to call-out for action from those who do not have the ‘sack’ to get trained and deploy over here. They want us to wait to be attacked again and again–but thank God we have a leader that has us cleaning this evil enemy up in their backyard-not mine in America.
    I (we) here in Iraq are your true brothers in service and arms. Disregard those who complain from their safe computers in America-they have no clue, nor really support your sacirifices!

  • http://www.blestwithsons.com blestwithsons

    Derren, although I applaud your whole-hearted support of the Marines, that does not change the fact that putting “New Testament” on your gun is a silly, dare I say stupid, thing to do. And do not be so quick to assume that these “Christians at their computers” do not comprehend the sacrifice. As Joe Carter(whose site this is) said, he served in the Corps for 17 years. And my four boys and myself comprehend the sacrifices very fully as we await the safe return from the sandbox of my Marine husband.

  • Orion

    SemperFi! The New Testament is still on the M1. It just got sensored with black tap for all yall who feel it is the dumbest thing and if it is offensive i’m sorry that some Marines are strong in there faith. The Tanks within the platoon were even blessed by a chaplain several weeks ago. The naming of the Tanks main gun has been a tradition as far back as tanks have rolled.
    HEY KENNY.
    Thats NOT oil or gas towers in the background for alls information. Its hydraulic shafts on the Haditha Dam, Euprates River, Al Anbar Providence Iraq. A vital peice of infrastructure for Iraq, which is the second largest Dam in Iraq and powers 1/3 of the country.It is guarded by the Azerbajaun Army(a muslim country), also the Dam is run by Iraqi men, one of which lived on an island 21 years ago were the Dam is today. The Dam receives mortar fire often from insurgents operating in Haditha. yeah go ahead flood the whole southern part of Iraq and Baghdad. Dont worry, Mortars cant harm it.
    If any of the peeps bad mouthing this act were here in Iraq, you would understand alot more about your country, government, the world, yourself, and why we are in Iraq, also how a majorityof the IRAQI people appreciate the Marines and there efforts.
    You see the press publishes stories to make headlines and try to make a profound effect to what is going on in the world. They cant get half of it right anyway. They are blinded from what is the truth or rather they are not able to be there when an incedent happens so they get mixed information and put it together how they want the news to sound, their interpretation.
    There is no major news about events that Marines carry out in Iraq that are touching ones. Such as saving several doctors and patients from being held hostage by insurgent bastards in a hospital in Haditha. The Marines were shot at by machine gun fire, RPG, and Vehicle IEDs, one of which struck the hospital and caught it on fire. What you dont hear is that the Iraqi doctors were thanking the Marines for coming and that they did not want the fire to be put out because they were glad that the insurgents could not fortify it anymore. This is relevent to all the mumboljumbol about shooting and entering mosqes. Rule Of War: If they are shooting from a religious or medical facility, SHOOT Back.
    The whole world needs to wake up and pay attention to what is going on. The people of Iraq WANTED to vote, they did, the people of Saudi Arabia the same, Iran, Egypt, and Afganistan. They did NOT have to show up to vote just like I did not for the last election in America. Even if they feared being killed or that it was dangerous. Why did Millions show. This is a Historical First in the Arab world. At least all but 1 country named above permited women to vote, we couldnt get that right a few decades ago.
    Peace for now and the New Testament will someday be renamed . Ideas anybody?
    By the way have you seen the other Tanks names. HAH! I have

  • Orion

    Sorry I correct my mistakes, Iran did not have elections.

  • Gregor

    So I guess substituting Onward Christian Soldiers is out of the question.
    Who are we trying to please? The hearts and minds of our troops or the Iraqi’s? Personally I’m in favor of the troops.

  • AlanDownunder

    Disregard those who complain from their safe computers in America-they have no clue, nor really support your sacirifices!
    Also disregard war supporters who know there are recruitment shortfalls but don’t sign up.
    Who are we trying to please? The hearts and minds of our troops or the Iraqi’s? Personally I’m in favor of the troops.
    Once again, if I were a grunt on foot patrol I wouldn’t thank my comrades for giving the Islamic street the Christian bird from the relativele safety of their tank.
    And if the mission objective is to bring pluralist democracy – not theocracy – to Iraq, a secular military would better achieve the objective than a theocratic-looking military. If Ayatollah Bush can disown his “crusade” statement, surely the Mullahs in charge of the tanks can name them appropriately.

  • Orion

    The name is still on the Tank, for now! And I’m sure the enemy would not be able to read it or the citizens of Iraq, they run in fear, the streets are empty when this 80 Ton piece of steel rolls in. The enemy knows it can’t defeat a M1A1, so they do what Alan does not know, they place mines, which can throw the turret of a Tank and even shatter those inside. The grunts love the name and compliment on it. There are many other things in Iraq that happen, the simple fact is yall dont see it. Sometimes nobody does.

  • AlanDownunder

    Can you imagine anyone is WWII getting worked up about this?
    No, because it was a war, not a counter-insurgency. If Bush were to declare all-out war and proceed to bomb Baghdad like London, Dresden & Hiroshima were bombed then things like tank names (and the kind of anti-mission attitudes they betray) would be irrelevant. The ruder the better – whatever helps the crews’ morale. But Iraq is an attempt to create a democracy and avoid an Iran-like Shi-ite theocracy. Well that’s the official mission statement anyway. Very different considerations apply.
    The bottom line here is a tank that is named something not politically correct. Why would a soldier do this? Maybe because they know that pIslam is a cult founded by a child rapist, terrorist, murderer and common thief. Muhamhead (piece of pork be upon him)
    Write a letter to the President. Tell him he’s in lala land if he thinks that he can democratise Iraq. Tell him the US needs to exterminate every last irredeemable Muslim on the planet. You’d better volunteer though – recruitment numbers are through the floor.