stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
quote of the day
How much training do you need to learn that it's wrong to force a man to masturbate
Major Michael Holley
Prosecutor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3759696.stm
|
|
|
|
|
derf
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 05:44 PM |
|
|
Being a Staff Sergeant in the US Army, the guy was wrong, he got what he deserved, I blame him for not stopping the wrongful acts of those soldiers
that he was in charge of, plus the wrongful acts that he did. That being said In my humble opinion of course, those in charge of him should have known
what was going on, one good way of doing that is spuratic inspections of their daily duties. I also blame their platoon sergeant, the platoon leader,
company first sergeant, and company commander. The battalion commander and battalion command sergeant major over their company, brigade commander
etc......
There needed to be (there might have been and I didnt hear about it) a review of how many times their seniors (batallion and above) have visited, or
inspected the prison.
This guy also knew what he was doing was wrong, he is also a civilian guard at his local jail too.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
One of the great successes of the current US Administration has been to convince a large portion of the American population to believe there is/was a
strong connection/relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden.
End result: people believe that by striking at your everyday Iraqi you're striking at Bin Laden.
Genius.
Atb,
James
[Edited on 21/10/04 by James]
|
|
|
lugo35
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
wot are you on?????????
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
surely no one actually believed that link? IMHO, saddam was rightly removed as a manic despot, who lusted after WMD. A man with a country to rule and
a large revenue from oil will eventually suceed with this aim.
Its just a shame we couldnt entirely keep the moral high ground by acting as civilised and professional at all times. His actions were much worse than
those, for example, of Private Lee Clegg, who shot a teenage joyrider at an army checkpoint in NI. that was a heat of the moment mistake, this fool in
Iraq is obviously a twisted git. How could he possibly justify his actions, why would he even want to do these things? the mind boggles. 8 years is
steep, but unfortunately an example needs to be made.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 07:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
. A man with a country to rule and a large revenue from oil will eventually suceed with this aim.
istn that GW bush too?
btw - I think 8 years is about right - especially as he was a prison guard in civillian life too. just imagine what he was like there.......
for a bad sentance, how about that guy today?
broke in a house, raped or attempted to a 91 y/o. got a year in prison. 2 months after hes out, he breaks into a house. steals a 2 year old girl. is
found on top of her in a park trying to rape her.
he gets a recommended 10 years. dangerous bastard that should never get out.
atb
steve
[Edited on 21/10/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 07:20 PM |
|
|
yes steve, i guess it does. But i trust him a bit more than Saddam! then again, theres only so far you can trust anyone.
mugabe needs wiping out too, so does the shite in sudan. shame about china, they are a little scarey... build up a stockpile of MOABs and flatten the
entire area i say.
world war 3 will be against china.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
no
it will be somewhere that is related to the middle east, and they will be muslims. Not true muslims but under that banner.
they are figting to rid the world of western influence. China would only lose position if it created a war. Arabs may feel they dont have a lot to
lose. That case of the 13 y/o girl being shot by an israeli soldier, then the commander walked up to her and emptied a pistol into her. Just a
schoolgirl on her way to school that walked where she shouldnt have.
I can understand how people feel they have little else but to strap explosives onto themselves when that happens to their sister or daughter.
atb
steve
[Edited on 21/10/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Deckman001
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 07:56 PM |
|
|
Yep Steve, we live in a sick and twisted world.We will always have wars while we have religious beliefs on the planet, how many wars have there been
started over religion, saying that though, all the time the west needs oil, and the east has it all, there is going to be a major reason for conflict.
Based on the program i saw the other week about the oil crisis in the 70's i think, the USA admitted they threatened the Saudi's with
invasion to TAKE their oil if they didn't sell it to the Americans for the Vietnam war, so if the yanks can do it why are they complaining about
other people doing it ???
Ramble over, sorry
Jason
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
surely no one actually believed that link? IMHO, saddam was rightly removed as a manic despot, who lusted after WMD. A man with a country to rule and
a large revenue from oil will eventually suceed with this aim.
Afraid so.
Cheney was saying so in speaches up to even a week before the report from the Iraq survey group IIRC.
I can't remember how much it was now but I heard recently on Radio4 (so it must be true  ) the percentage who believe in a connection and I
was amazed. Something like 50% of your rank and file US soldier believes it too apparently.
If you then believe that on average it'll be your less well educated people who believe it and then consider who's more likely to sign
up.... end result- naked human pyramid! 
Don't get me wrong- I'm more than glad that Saddam is gone. I'm pleased it's happened. I just think we went about it the wrong
way! I have no problem with removing dictators/psychopath leaders if there is no other way of encouraging democracy. I just wish we hadn't
removed Saddam under the pretext of our imminent incineration by Iraqi WMDs!
If it had happened under an international banner then maybe (just maybe) Iraq wouldn't be in the mess it is now.
Back to the engine wiring!
James
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lugo35
wot are you on?????????
A blue chair. You?
James
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 21/10/04 at 09:17 PM |
|
|
This was originally posted on the Westfield forum. I can only take the credit for cut-pasting...
……but this is too spooky and real to be a joke but here goes.... sorry about the length.
"Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?"
"Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey."
"But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction."
"That's because the Iraqis were hiding them."
"And that's why we invaded Iraq?"
"Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections."
"But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?"
"That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004
election."
"Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?"
"To use them in a war, silly."
"But if they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war
with them?"
"Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend
themselves."
"That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?"
"It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense."
"I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did."
"Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway."
"And what was that?"
"Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade
another country."
"Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?"
"Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people."
"Kind of like what they do in China?"
"Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to
make U.S. corporations richer."
"So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures
people?"
"Right."
"Why were people in Iraq being tortured?"
"For political crimes, mostly, like criticising the government. People who criticised the government in Iraq were sent to prison and
tortured."
"Isn't that exactly what happens in China?"
"I told you, China is different."
"What's the difference between China and Iraq?"
"Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist."
"Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?"
"No, just Cuban Communists are bad."
"How are the Cuban Communists bad?"
"Well, for one thing, people who criticise the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured."
"Like in Iraq?"
"Exactly."
"And like in China, too?"
"I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not."
"How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?"
"Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with
Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us."
"But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become
capitalists?"
"Don't be a smart-ass."
"I didn't think I was being one."
"Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba."
"Kind of like China?"
"I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a
legitimate leader anyway."
"What's a military coup?"
"That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the
United States."
"Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?"
"You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. "
"Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?"
"I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate."
"Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an
illegitimate leader?"
"Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan."
"Why did we invade Afghanistan?"
"Because of what they did to us on September 11th."
"What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?"
"Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four aeroplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing
over 3,000 Americans."
"So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?"
"Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban."
"Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?"
"Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too."
"Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?"
"Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs."
"Fighting drugs?"
"Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies."
"How did they do such a good job?"
"Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off."
"So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and
hands off for other reasons?"
"Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they
cut off people's hands for stealing bread."
"Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?"
"That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they
were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply."
"Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?"
"No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering."
"What's the difference?"
"The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for
her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her
eyes and fingers."
"It sounds like the same thing with a different name."
"Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends."
"But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia."
"Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan."
"Who trained them?"
"A very bad man named Osama bin Laden."
"Was he from Afghanistan?"
"Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man."
"I seem to recall he was our friend once."
"Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s."
"Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?"
"There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them
Russians now. "
"So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends? "
"Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our
invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq
either."
"So the French and Germans are evil, too?"
"Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast."
"Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?"
"No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade."
"But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?"
"Well, yeah. For a while."
"Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?"
"Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily."
"Why did that make him our friend?"
"Because at that time, Iran was our enemy."
"Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?"
"Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend."
"So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?"
"Most of the time, yes."
"And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?"
"Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the
better."
"Why?"
"Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war
is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?"
"I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?"
"Yes."
"But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?"
"Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do."
"So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?"
"Yes! You finally understand how the world works."
"Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night."
"Good night, Daddy."
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 22/10/04 at 07:34 AM |
|
|
MUCH too close to the truth!
David
|
|
|
The Shootist
|
| posted on 22/10/04 at 06:16 PM |
|
|
Not again...
The "RESERVISTS" in the prison scandal are scum, and WILL be delt with accordingly.
Nuff about that.
WMDs....
So the Sarin gas shell found rigged to blow near the Bagdad airport doesn't count?
Or the Mustard gas shell found nearby?
How about the nuclear accelerator parts burried in the garden of the man who headed Sadams Nuke program?
Since pesticide ingredients have been found stockpiled, and those ingredients are also used in chemical weapons, AND those stockpiles just happen to
be located in ammo dumps .... that's no reason to think they were to be used for WMDs ........ Right?
How about the connections to Al Qaeda? and the UN?
Indications in the "Oil for Food" scandal are that Sadam was selling oil at below market price, and buying medicines and foodstocks at
above market prices. This made business with Iraq VERY proffitable. A number of companies and individuals have been named in this investigation. Some
are American, some are UN officials, charities and companies known to fund Al Qaeda. There appears to be links from the OFF (Oil for Food) to French
and German companies that were trading contraband military equipment to Iraq.
|
|
|
|
fastavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
