0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 07:21 pm
Gimme a break ..... I was molting! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 07:38 pm
this better?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 07:52 pm
Anyhow it wasn't Bush but Kerry and Edwards who promised to end the war, end poverty as we know it, provide health care for everybody, make friends of everybody in the free world and engender their cooperation, and cure all the uncurable diseases and all with a solemn promise to raise taxes on nobody but the very rich. We definitely elected the wrong team I guess.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 07:56 pm
Wow, was all that in a speech or a policy statement or maybe a platform agenda? I musta missed it. (Or just perhaps a bit of hyperbole)
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 08:01 pm
Maybe it was on the West Wing, anyhow we've moved on and now can watch our Supreme Commander give out Medals of Freedom for efforts in Mission Iraqi Freedom. Just how much dramatic irony can a plot take?

Joe (keep your heads down, we're testing the missile defense system) Nation
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 08:35 pm
Quote:
this better?


Well, I dunno....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 09:29 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
this better?
Zat you?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 09:44 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
this better?
Zat you?


I' a bit more weathered now... but we all are? Wink
Ahh the illusion of youth ..........
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 09:46 pm
Definitely better looking than your other pic! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 09:47 pm
Kara wrote:
Quote:
this better?


Well, I dunno....

What's that supposed to mean? Let's see yours Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 11:33 pm
"I was very, very disappointed -- let me put it stronger -- I was angry by the words of the Secretary of Defense [Rumsfeld]. When he laid it all on the Army, I mean, as if he as the Secretary of Defense didn't have anything to do with it, the Army was over there doing it themselves screwing up."

-- General Norman Schwarzkopf, 13 December
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6711952/

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence."

-- Senator John McCain, when asked if he had confidence in Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, 13 December
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/14/mccain.ap/

This is what grumpy old Rumplestiltskin said:

"I think it's good ... It's necessary for the Army to hear that, do something about it and see that everyone is treated properly."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

And this is what the Chief Chickenhawk (Bush) himself said about the lack of armour on US army vehicles: "I've told many family I've met with, 'We're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones.'"

(Have we told you that Dubbya has yet to attend even one funeral of any US soldier killed in Iraq? No wonder!)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 11:37 pm
Bush warns Iran and Syria on Iraq

The US military says the insurgency is getting more effective US President George W Bush has warned Iran and Syria not to interfere in Iraq in advance of next month's elections.
Mr Bush said he expected all of Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria, to stop what he said was the flow of people and money into Iraq.

The influx was aimed at helping terrorists, he said.

His comments came on the first day of the election campaign, as at least seven people were killed and 30 injured by a bomb in the holy city of Karbala.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 02:00 am
revel wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sad that we've wasted so much money on something that works so poorly.
Happy that it's being reported so we maybe can get a system which works? Though I doubt it.
It's a very difficult problem to solve. We've been working on it more than 20 years. But we have a great many very talented people employed on it. So I bet we solve all its problems on Bush's watch.
[/b]

Which is why so many believe that God appointed him for this time. Sad


honey, do not let anybody get away with telling you you are clueless.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 07:31 am
Let's see, who's next up the ladder? Hmmmmm

Quote:
Pentagon Threatens Germany over Rumsfeld Suit

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:

' The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. '



What is interesting about the Pentagon reaction to this suit is how frantic the Department of Defense seems. Although spokesman Larry DiRita dismissed it as "frivolous," he threatened Germany with dire consequences if the suit goes forward.
DiRita said,

'"Generally speaking, as is true anywhere, if these kinds of lawsuits take place with American servicemen in the cross-hairs, you bet it's something we take seriously . . . I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day." '



These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are "in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld's policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.

Then, if the lawsuit is frivolous, why should it produce grave consequences for Germany? It should produce frivolity and hilarity if it is frivolous. It seems actually to be taken very seriously.

Is the real threat the damage to Rumsfeld's public image, or the danger that the lawsuit may prompt a discovery process?

Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn't that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn't that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?

Wed, Dec 15, 2004 0:36
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 08:45 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
revel wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sad that we've wasted so much money on something that works so poorly.
Happy that it's being reported so we maybe can get a system which works? Though I doubt it.
It's a very difficult problem to solve. We've been working on it more than 20 years. But we have a great many very talented people employed on it. So I bet we solve all its problems on Bush's watch.
[/b]

Which is why so many believe that God appointed him for this time. Sad


honey, do not let anybody get away with telling you you are clueless.

:wink:


Gosh, dtonme, you are going to get me all a-flutter and give me the big head that someone will feel bound to deflate.

thanks. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 08:48 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Let's see, who's next up the ladder? Hmmmmm

Quote:
Pentagon Threatens Germany over Rumsfeld Suit

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:

' The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. '



What is interesting about the Pentagon reaction to this suit is how frantic the Department of Defense seems. Although spokesman Larry DiRita dismissed it as "frivolous," he threatened Germany with dire consequences if the suit goes forward.
DiRita said,

'"Generally speaking, as is true anywhere, if these kinds of lawsuits take place with American servicemen in the cross-hairs, you bet it's something we take seriously . . . I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day." '



These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are "in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld's policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.

Then, if the lawsuit is frivolous, why should it produce grave consequences for Germany? It should produce frivolity and hilarity if it is frivolous. It seems actually to be taken very seriously.

Is the real threat the damage to Rumsfeld's public image, or the danger that the lawsuit may prompt a discovery process?

Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn't that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn't that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?

Wed, Dec 15, 2004 0:36


What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened by the US.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:14 am
revel wrote:
What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened by the US.
If they feel threatened, it's because their own leaders are biting off more than they can chew. Perhaps they should show a little appreciation for our benevolence and relatively few excesses when you consider what many of them would do with such power. Look how Chirac thinks he's the leader of the free world, when in reality he's just a blowhard who's true power measures only slightly higher than total irrelevance. Imagine how drunk with power that fool would be if his position afforded him the power of the U.S. Presidency. Idea And Germany is going to play arbiter of the human rights to the world? Really? Had Germany been blessed with the resources of the United States, would the world be better or worse? Perhaps in an ideal world, the U.S. is a merciless bruteĀ… but in the real world, they are probably the kindest, fairest Alpha we could reasonably hope for.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:23 am
In Britain, yesterday, the High Court ruled that we can not keep terrorist suspects in jail indefinitely without trial. Which is what we have been doing.

So "the law" is belatedly trying to function as it should.

Bloody hell, habeas corpus is one of the oldest principles of law.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:40 am
There is a fine distinction between ordinary prisoners who are subject to all the protections and rights of civil law and prisoners of war who are subject only to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The latter dictates reasonable conduct of interrogation and humane treatment of those imprisoned, but makes no requirement about any hearing, trial, or length of imprisonment.

So the question is: We are in a war against terror. Are terrorists ordinary prisoners? Or are they prisoners of war?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:43 am
interesting take Fox, Rumsfeld says they are not pow's and you say they are not ordinary prisoners. btw, just what is your "fine distinction"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 11:16:55