Article

2004-06-16 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-06-16 9:23:11 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Each of the individuals of the Mehdi Army, the loyalists who made sacrifices...should return to their governorates to do their duty," the statement said.

"Their duty" being to sit and wait for another opportunity to try to seize power, no doubt.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-16 10:06:49 AM|| 2004-06-16 10:06:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 That call came a day after President Bush said the United States would not oppose a political role for Sadr

He said WHAT?

Posted by Charles 2004-06-16 10:34:57 AM|| 2004-06-16 10:34:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Charles, I love the way we're playing this guy. Sure, we could arrest him as originally planned, but that would just make him a continuing hero and thus a thorn in our side. What we've done instead is something far worse to an Arab -- we've made him a joke, a laughingstock to his people. The number of guys who can say to Sadr, "sure, boss, I'll get right on it" with a straight face has dwindled dramatically.

Sadr's a rube and a joke, and I wouldn't be surprised to see both the transitional government and the US authority to say and do things that subtly reinforce that over the next few months.

There are more effective ways to dispatch your enemies, sometimes, than just shooting them.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-16 10:54:25 AM|| 2004-06-16 10:54:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Steve, I disagree. He should be arrested and put on trial... THAT would be worse for an arab, especially a mullah.

We need to break the unwritten rule that mullahs are immune to the law and we need to show what happens when you oppose us, no matter who you are. You're ass ends up dead or in jail.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-16 11:09:46 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-06-16 11:09:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hadn't he been "slated for destruction"?

Isn't he still undestroyed?

What makes you think, Steve, that "sure you can indeed arrest him as originally planned"? It seems to me you are simple labelling a defeat as "victory", if Sadr achieved his own goal of recognition as a power, and the US hasn't achieved its own goal of destroying him.

Oh, yeah, sure, you made him a "laughingstock". And once the US army leaves the cities, the Sadr goons will be back to killing people and nobody will be doing much laughing anymore.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 12:02:21 PM|| 2004-06-16 12:02:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Sure, you can have a political role, Sadr. Come on over to Bahgdad and meet our "delegates" at the embassy.

... and when he shows up, cuff 'em and stuff 'em.

Posted by Chris W. 2004-06-16 12:08:15 PM|| 2004-06-16 12:08:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Chris W. nails it...

Posted by Raj 2004-06-16 12:28:01 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-06-16 12:28:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Sadr ~~hangs it~~ is strung up

Those are the only headlines I'm waiting for.

He should be arrested and put on trial... THAT would be worse for an arab, especially a mullah. We need to break the unwritten rule that mullahs are immune to the law and we need to show what happens when you oppose us, no matter who you are. You're ass ends up dead or in jail.

I agree, DPA. Clerical garb should not provide the least armor against criminal charges. Sadr represents all that has gone wrong with the Iraqi campaign. There must not be any redefinition of critical parameters. Accomplice to murder must remain such and continue to merit apprehension and trial, nothing less.

It is essential that we clearly demonstrate to Islam as a whole that its most radical clerics will no longer find any cloak of religious protection when it comes to spewing violent rhetoric and inciting terrorism. We must tear away the mask of piety from these criminals post haste if we expect to advance moderate Islamic interests.

The only alternative is to let such militant elements fester (as we have already been doing) until we are then obliged to wipe all Islam as one entirely infected organism. I do not think that sort of course is either fair or called for, as yet.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-16 12:45:10 PM|| 2004-06-16 12:45:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Unfortunately, there are uncomfortable parallels in the western world to this example (if true) of clerical garb providing cover to criminal misdeeds (see Catholic Church).

Posted by mjh 2004-06-16 1:02:21 PM|| 2004-06-16 1:02:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Unfortunately, there are uncomfortable parallels in the western world to this example (if true) of clerical garb providing cover to criminal misdeeds (see Catholic Church).

Recent overemphasis on religiosity in the United States has manifested as a catastrophic reticence with regard to labeling militant Islam for what it truly is. Namely, a violent political organization with criminal intent. This represents a vast disservice to both US and world interests and has placed our troops in additional and entirely unnecessary danger.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-16 1:30:48 PM|| 2004-06-16 1:30:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 this is neither victory nor defeat. It is however, perhaps a way forward.

It is NOT up to the US to decide what to about Sadr. He killed an IRAQI, in IRAQ. It is upto the SOVEREIGN goverment of IRAQ to decide what to do with him. We have never denied that, not since we started pursuing him in April.

We have weakened him enough to give the new govt a chance on June 30. After that they need to decide how to play him, how to deal with the tradeoffs between eliminating the possibility of revolt in the South on the one hand, and the weakening of rule of law in letting a political murder go unpunished on the other? They NEED to rely more on their own personnel, and wean themselves from reliance on US troops, for their own good (and ours too I might add) Thats much easier if they can focus on one domestic enemy at a time. On the other end if Sadr gets away with the al khoei killing, will that lead to other political murders, or will it be seen as a oneoff, in the chaos following the fall of Saddam? Thats a subtle question, and one the locals have to solve (though I am sure Allawi will receive American advice on this - which he may or may not take)They may end up giving him a token punishment, or coming up with some kind of of political deal - perhaps some kind of probation. AFAIK all Bush said was that it was upto Iraqis to decide, which is true, and has always been true.

Pursuing the New Iraq is more important than killing one SOB mullah.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-16 1:33:31 PM|| 2004-06-16 1:33:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 mjh: That comes down either to local bishops who don't want political scandal on their hands -- or people who believe too much in the power of redemption ... or fear a "whistleblow" on the way out ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-06-16 1:33:39 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-06-16 1:33:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 once the US does leave iran will be dealt with and this sadr fellow will have lost his outside support..he is really a two-bit punk..with a narrow following in country...

Aris - taking care of iran will also benefit your pet project - syria

Posted by Dan 2004-06-16 1:39:58 PM|| 2004-06-16 1:39:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 "Pursuing the New Iraq is more important than killing one SOB mullah."

I look at the Al Sadr Saga as an exercise in behavior modification. What has he gained, overall? He's gotten hundreds of his "Al-Mahdi Army" killed, and all he has to show for it is what he could have had months ago if only he'd refrained from acting like a roaring asshole.

And as far as I can tell, he hasn't gained one damn thing more than that.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-06-16 1:48:43 PM|| 2004-06-16 1:48:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Pursuing the New Iraq is more important than killing one SOB mullah.

While you make some excellent points, Liberalhawk, I am reluctant to agree fully. If Sadr is given any sort of pass by the US or Iraq, it will signal a general willingness to countenance militant Islam and theocracy in general.

Since Sadr has led violent assaults against American troops, there is no reason for us not to go after him with all the vigor that Iraq appears to lack. It would be an approprite parting gift for us to hand Sadr over to the new Iraqi government, along with Saddam, so that both of these maggots could go on trial for their respective crimes.

Again, we need to dramatically demonstrate that tyrants, whether they be in the form of dictators or beturbaned mullahs shall always represent interests antithetical to democracy. Anything less is a disservice to our's and Iraq's interests.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-16 1:53:39 PM|| 2004-06-16 1:53:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Dan, when you stop being an idiot you'll see that Syria is not "my" pet project and that this isn't a personal contest. Iran is just as crucial a target as Syria and as big a supporter of terrorism -- Syria would simply have been the easiest target to defeat.

But all the repetitions of "Iran will be dealt with" I see with contempt. What in the world has made you think that it will indeed be so dealt with? Not even Sadr was managed to be "dealt with", and you think US has the forces and the will to take on Iran?

Based on what exactly?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 2:31:40 PM|| 2004-06-16 2:31:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 You know aris - screw you ..i am done with you - no more bandwith from me...you cannot have a conversation without some bullshit deragatory statement..if you were in the states and said this face to face you'd have a fist through your nose...

Posted by Dan 2004-06-16 2:59:18 PM|| 2004-06-16 2:59:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 so now folks -according to our greek asshole iran is bigger power than the US and we'd had better watch out..

Posted by Dan 2004-06-16 3:01:01 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:01:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Dan, just look at it this way: at least he's not family. Can you imagine what a titanic pain in the ass it must be to put up with that nonstop, neurotic complaining?

Posted by Dave D. 2004-06-16 3:25:25 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:25:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 you cannot have a conversation without some bullshit deragatory statement..

Apologies for this thread's bullshit deragatory statement, but I have no incentive to forget the deragatory statement of earlier threads either. As you saw fit to refer back to Tuesday's the Syria thread, I saw no reason to forget the "your a hypocrite. Like I said your a hypocrite" and various other insults of that thread either. Conversations don't hang in a vacuum, nor is a thread a clean slate at its beginning, especially when you chose not to make it one.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 3:28:27 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:28:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Monday's.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 3:29:15 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:29:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 And as for "Iran being a bigger power than the USA", I have no obligation to comment on this or anything else that you pulled out of your ass and then tried to attribute to me.

Plain fact remains that USA doesn't currently have the available power and/or will to take on Iran -- it didn't even have the available power and/or will to capture or kill Sadr.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 3:32:13 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:32:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I'm going to take the liberty of making a modest suggestion:

This sort of schoolyard squabbling really drags down the tone of this place. Aris, gratuitous personal insults merely ill-dignify whatever point your are trying to convey, however valid it may or may not be.

Dan, please try to remember the words of Issac Asimov:

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-16 3:48:30 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:48:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 we certainly have the power to take more aggressive measures in Kufa, Najaf, etc. Whethter Sadr could (or would) then go underground a la Zarqawi, etc I dont know. Assuming he stays above ground we certainly have the force in Iraq to capture him.

However we do not, because we are fighting a POLITICAL war in Iraq (to the disappointment of Tacitus, Peters, and some other conservative commentators) Our goal is NOT to create desolation and call it peace - its to achieve something that will result in long term gains in the hearts and minds struggle in the Islamic world. While crushing a fundie like Tater is good for that goal, letting the Iraqis handle him is rather better, EVEN if they choose not to crush him. IF they can succeed in dragging him into the messiness of democratic politics, they have defeated the ideology he once stood for, even if the man remains. If they fail, of course, than they fail. But all courses in war and politics are filled with risk. Leaving the decision to the locals is filled with risk, but even more so is taking all upon ourselves (and need i add, so would have been allowing SH to remain in power)

As for Iran, I dont particularly think we have the ability to do in Iran what we did in Iraq. And we wouldnt have EVEN if we had never gone into Iraq. That is to invade and change regimes by force. Iran is a big place, and while now there is probably more proUS sentiment than in Iraq pre-March 2003, for a variety of reasons that would dissipate more quickly on an invasion. Even if things were no worse in terms of sentiment than in Iraq, we'd need surely need several hundred thousand troops to occupy a country the size of Iran.

Fortunately "dealing" with Iran doesnt mean doing the above. What it DOES mean depends on the pace of the Iranian nuclear program. IF it becomes necessary to eliminate it, and if diplomatic and economic pressure fails(or cannot be tried due to undermining by the usual suspects) than what would be involved would be a surgical strike against nuclear facilities using air power and special forces - Osirak writ large. If otoh, we have the luxury of time, than the goal would be the gradual undermining of the Iranian regime leading to a revolution.
Neither of these is really comparable to the war on Sadr of the last two months, although the latter requires that Sadr have been dealt with, one way or the other.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-16 3:49:04 PM|| 2004-06-16 3:49:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 #22 Plain fact remains that USA doesn't currently have the available power and/or will to take on Iran -- it didn't even have the available power and/or will to capture or kill Sadr.

As I mentioned earlier, America's recent overemphasis of religiosity has needlessly constrained our ability to properly identify and pursue Sadr as the simple terrorist criminal that he is. I feel that it's largely the only thing dampening our will to apprehend this thug.

I do not see where it is very critical that Iraq be permitted to deal (or not deal) with Sadr as they see fit. The (admittedly green) Iraqi police's inability to maintain both allegiance and decent crowd control all point up serious deficiencies in the current power structure.

While America cannot be expected to do all of the heavy lifting, we certainly should not have constrained ourselves with such circumspection for any ostensible religious immunity that Sadr has both been unfairly awarded and grossly abused.

As to Iran, while invasion may not be possible, timely destruction of their nuclear facilities is an important objective. Few people, both here and abroad, seem to fully recognize the repercussions that await should Iran gain possession of nuclear weapons.

#24What it DOES mean depends on the pace of the Iranian nuclear program. IF it becomes necessary to eliminate it, and if diplomatic and economic pressure fails(or cannot be tried due to undermining by the usual suspects) than what would be involved would be a surgical strike against nuclear facilities using air power and special forces - Osirak writ large. If otoh, we have the luxury of time, than the goal would be the gradual undermining of the Iranian regime leading to a revolution. Neither of these is really comparable to the war on Sadr of the last two months, although the latter requires that Sadr have been dealt with, one way or the other.

Due to Iran's continuous dissembling and constant deceit over the last several DECADES, I do not see where there is any way to accurately gauge the timeline for their progress towards attaining nuclear armament.

There is no "luxury of time," and North Korea represents a perfect object lesson of what awaits any further delay. The patterns of offense in abuse of power, military belligerence and human rights violations draw similarities between Iran and North Korea that are totally undeniable. They are each taking notes from the same playbook and we would be idiots not to reach the same conclusion.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-16 4:17:08 PM|| 2004-06-16 4:17:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I agree with Zenster, and am getting a bit nervous about Bush silence on this stuff. Surely he doesn't think IAEA/UN stuff will actually get us anywhere?

Posted by someone 2004-06-16 4:49:09 PM|| 2004-06-16 4:49:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Oops, I meant about Iran. I doubt Tater's political career will get him off the hook for murder.

Posted by someone 2004-06-16 4:50:09 PM|| 2004-06-16 4:50:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Damn Aris you near exam time or what? You seem extra sensitive and triple angry.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-16 5:22:09 PM|| 2004-06-16 5:22:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I suggest that Iran is, actually, well infiltrated and that there are numerous credible sources available to US intelligence agencies. Available to us, right here at RB / Internet, is the fact that the population is remarkably pro-American as the myriad of Iranian blogs suggests, not to mention a great deal of anecdotal information - recent documentaries, individual accounts, etc. Among the large number of Iranians who do not wish to be oppressed by the Mad Mullahs one can surmise there are, at least, a few with useful access to hard intel on the progress of the Black Hats' rush to become nuclear blackmailers - or to take credit for wiping out Israel.

Thus, IMO, I think there are probably several good reasons not to get too excited - yet. It's an election year, most of our available 'boots' are occupied, and a 'concensus' / casis belli must be established in the public mind to support action before action can be taken, short of an actual crisis should we become aware that they are ready and able to field a missile / guidance / nuke package capable of hitting Israel.

This has been a topic here for a long long time - it seems that the Bush Admin knows where things stand, is checking off the boxes (same as the Iraq War - give the UN yet another chance to prove it's not irrelevant), and is employing the NKor strategy: let them hang themselves in the marketplace of world opinion while they are unable to make good on their wild-eyed threats. The Black Hats are exceptionally inept in diplomatic affairs - something which everyone here can easily recall, I'm sure.

Additionally, I suggest that those with a direct interest, such as Israel, are sharing intel with us - and vice versa. If the threat becomes imminent, Israel has nothing to lose in finding a means of acting unilaterally and I do not for a minute doubt that they would. Fortunately, Bush isn't a Donk Idiot and Israel will not have to do so. In short, if they aren't phreaking out, then neither should we.

Posted by .com 2004-06-16 5:40:54 PM|| 2004-06-16 5:40:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Shipman> Close enough guess. Frustrated with my diploma work. Sorry.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 5:53:05 PM|| 2004-06-16 5:53:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 whatever aris - i have seen many, many posts were your a total ahole so i know it is not just me..i have also seen many post where people warned me not even bother with you..hard headed me of course never listened...but i am belatedly heading that well deserved advise...

Posted by Dan 2004-06-16 6:24:47 PM|| 2004-06-16 6:24:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 It hit me after I posted this that my last sentence in #29 is fatally flawed. Though not perfect, I think that Israeli operational security is probably as good as it gets, period. If they felt the threat was imminent, they wouldn't say diddley-squat, themselves. We might act as proxy and make a lot of noise, but the Israelis? Nope, not a peep... the first we would know of it would be the post-strike press reports.

So amend that post with this conclusion, heh.

Posted by .com 2004-06-16 6:25:25 PM|| 2004-06-16 6:25:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Frustrated with my diploma work.

Spending too much time on Rantburg??* Or worrying about Putin?? You should be celebrating!! Greece is going through in Euro 2004! A win over Russia will guarantee a playoff spot.

*You can never spend too much time on Rantburg, but the laws of economics (or zero-sum games) still apply!!

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-16 6:39:28 PM|| 2004-06-16 6:39:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Actually even a tie with Russia guarantees that we pass -- and even if we lose from Russia we will still pass as long as Spain doesn't lose from Portugal. Greek team did better than anyone expected in the last two games. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-16 7:24:43 PM|| 2004-06-16 7:24:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 .com, while it is somewhat comforting to see such a degree of solid calculation regarding the Iranian crisis, I must take issue over a couple of your conclusions.

Available to us, right here at RB / Internet, is the fact that the population is remarkably pro-American as the myriad of Iranian blogs suggests, not to mention a great deal of anecdotal information - recent documentaries, individual accounts, etc.

Please remember to factor in a component of education when balancing equations about popular support for America in Iran. Those who have the financial resources, knowledge and ability to post those blogs you mention do not represent the majority of Iranians by a long shot.

While I cannot lay claim to inside statistics regarding their demographics, it's fairly safe to say that, precisely due to lack of education, access and ability, a majority (i.e., +50%) of Iranians may well side with the mullahs, if only out of sheer unadulterated fundamentalist ignorance.

It is very tempting to think that postings showing sympathy by Iran's (relatively speaking) elite are good news for America, but this may just as easily not be so.

I am also obliged to take issue with your assessment of Israel's role as the "canary in the mineshaft."

While Mossad's skills and penetration of regional activity are nothing to sneeze at, Israel does not possess anything remotely approaching those intelligence assets enjoyed by the United States.

Such sensing capabilities as orbital synthetic aperture side scanning look-down radar (capable of deep penetration geological structure profiling) and our fabulous keyhole KH birds are lightyears beyond what Israel deploys at this time. For the nonce, we'll avoid speculating upon neutron emission detectors and other remote sensing technologies.

We may well have significant evidence of Iranian nuclear arms progress that cannot be shared with Israel, if only to conceal the true extent of our ability in probing both Iranian and Israeli installations alike. This could well be what is preventing us from sharing such intelligence that might otherwise propel Israel towards more definitive action.

.com, I truly appreciate your dedicated attempts to provide what you consider to be factual analysis on many issues, even besides Iran. It is quite enjoyable to see someone of ability focus their direct experience and faculties upon unraveling the skein of tortuous Mid-East political intrigue.

I would like to see how you compensate for the caveats I have mentioned in your own previous assessments.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-16 9:05:40 PM|| 2004-06-16 9:05:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Zen, I work with numerous Iranian-American engineers (seems to have been a REALLY popular major), and even on their visits back to family in Iran, they report a majority does like Amerca. The education angle you note is a BIG factor, with those uneducated, untrained (and barely employable) relying largely on the mullahs for information, direction and work.... We could foment rebellion, and we should.

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-16 10:05:39 PM|| 2004-06-16 10:05:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Zen - 'compensate'? C'mon.

You post what you think and I post what I think. You base yours on what you know and so do I. There is obvious overlap, though our assessments of the reliability of the component bits of 'evidence' are our individual judgements. If there were something to "prove" one view or the other, and I had it at my fingertips, I would've posted it. I assume the same is true for you. And that would've been that, no? Take issue all you like with anything I post.

As I'm sure you would agree, the point is to get at the truth of the matter for each thread topic.

I earnestly hope that my assessment is correct, but I didn't post it because it feels good, I did it because I believe it is the rational assessment of the situation. The thread lacked the information that I posted, so I posted it. That's about it. Disprove, refine, augment, offer a comprehensive alternative - I will happily replace bits and pieces of mine with yours where I find the logic and evidence to be better! This is serious - and you apparently view aspects of my post as lacking. Fine. Nobody 'wins' unless the Mullahs are stopped. If you want an argument, you're shit out of luck.

Posted by .com 2004-06-16 10:15:29 PM|| 2004-06-16 10:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 BTW, anecdotal 'evidence' I posted here confirmed many other sources, such as personal friends, etc, such as Frank G pointed out. Iran is not the predominantly illiterate population you imply, IMHO. Discount if you prefer, but I have zero reason to disbelieve the people I know personally and, not to belabor the point, if I thought them disingenous and untrustworthy, I wouldn't associate with them. ;-)

Posted by .com 2004-06-16 10:27:50 PM|| 2004-06-16 10:27:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Simple: Sadr did the math.

His loss ratios were hideous. 3-5 incidents per day. 1-2 Americans dead per day, max average. 10 wounded, max average. BUT - 25+ Iraqi civilians per day wounded or killed.

So, on average per attack, he is getting 2 US Casualties, but 8 innocent locals.

For some reason the US press doesnt report it, but the Madhi and Muj are losing 2-3 dead and 10-12 wounder PER INCIDENT. thats 6-10 dead, 40-80 wounded DAILY.

Run the numbers.

He's causing a hell of a lot of loss of "good will" from the locals by killing them, not really doing much damage to the US forces, and is bleeding his "Army" dry. Thats in addition to the association of lots of former local thugs and criminals with the Sadr name, doing what they do best: raping, mugging and stealing.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-16 11:36:19 PM|| 2004-06-16 11:36:19 PM|| Front Page Top

11:36 Anonymous5285
00:00 sassy
00:00 sassy
18:16 The Doctor
18:09 Anonymous5268
00:31 Seafarious
00:30 Super Hose
00:27 Super Hose
00:24 Super Hose
00:07 Lucky
00:03 Silentbrick
00:03 Edward Yee
23:50 Doc Moreau
23:36 OldSpook
23:29 Frank G
23:29 OldSpook
23:16 Grunter
23:12 rkb
23:11 Silentbrick
23:07 Super Hose
23:04 Super Hose
23:02 Super Hose
22:58 The Doctor
22:56 Super Hose