Recommended course of action

[Gunny]

but civilians - even retired military - can have an opinion about it, can't they?

Sure they can. And other retired militay civilians have a right to theirs without their service being questioned continually.

I can tell you now, the same way I have told others when they question you, he's what he claims to be. Hell, when he first started posting I thought he was me. So let's just cool the slams on who did what.

The fact is, you're a retired Naval officer, and we are retired Marine SNCOs. It's not likely we're going to agree on much, right from the start. Then there's the fact he's a conservative and you are a liberal.

But, if you both were having this same argument in uniform, youo would both be having it without the personal insults or one or both of you would be charged for your behavior.

Right?

 

[maineman]

Sure they can. And other retired militay civilians have a right to theirs without their service being questioned continually.

I can tell you now, the same way I have told others when they question you, he's what he claims to be. Hell, when he first started posting I thought he was me. So let's just cool the slams on who did what.

The fact is, you're a retired Naval officer, and we are retired Marine SNCOs. It's not likely we're going to agree on much, right from the start. Then there's the fact he's a conservative and you are a liberal.

But, if you both were having this same argument in uniform, youo would both be having it without the personal insults or one or both of you would be charged for your behavior.

Right?

that is correct. I don't mind RGS questioning my service.... I REALLY mind him questioning my patriotism. I REALLY mind him lying and saying that I have EVER equated our troops to terrorists...

I wouldn't THINK of saying that to you or him or anyone who did not express such a thought - which I certainly have never done.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I said, youre attacks on rgs, were rude, and below the belt. I expected more class out of you. My point was you were getting on me for low class, and look what youre doing with rgs, attacking him at every turn, questioning whether he was even a real marine?, why not just say he was a girl while your at it. You will do anything to win an argument. Your a vile person, very mean, and cruel, and if i were him, i would of blocked you too.

I expect more of you sir!

"hypocritical" because you think I am a pussy?

whatever, little man.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Frankly, neither you or rgs is a victim, but you seemed to instigate you, you seem to like pissing people off. And i dont support you or him, questioniong anyones patriotism or service. period.

that is correct. I don't mind RGS questioning my service.... I REALLY mind him questioning my patriotism. I REALLY mind him lying and saying that I have EVER equated our troops to terrorists...

I wouldn't THINK of saying that to you or him or anyone who did not express such a thought - which I certainly have never done.

 

[Gunny]

I cant read your mind, so just tell me what youre talking about. Oh, and my post above, was in reference to you neg repping me, and then calling someone a pussy, i was saying you were being hypocritical.

Martin, go play in another thread. Leave this one alone. Thanks.

 

[Gunny]

that is correct. I don't mind RGS questioning my service.... I REALLY mind him questioning my patriotism. I REALLY mind him lying and saying that I have EVER equated our troops to terrorists...

I wouldn't THINK of saying that to you or him or anyone who did not express such a thought - which I certainly have never done.

Perhaps he isn't lying and something you said was either unlcear or misinterpreted? Been known to happen on message boards, y'know; especially, since one can't always see the other's face, mannerisms nor hear the inflections.

 

[maineman]

I have been quite clear. he choses to misinterpret me... it is willful, it is confrontational...it is disrespectful.... and it is nothing more than a means to avoid addressing the point that I make...


points that other retired gunny's have said "ITA" in reference to.

 

[Gunny]

I have been quite clear. he choses to misinterpret me... it is willful, it is confrontational...it is disrespectful.... and it is nothing more than a means to avoid addressing the point that I make...


points that other retired gunny's have said "ITA" in reference to.

I don't know what those points might be. Retired GySgt and I don't agree on everything. I'm not asking for complete agreement on all topics from anyone. There would be no point in this board.

But, I think if anyone on this board understands what basic respect is, it's the vets. Sometimes we don't set the best example, and IMO, this is one of those times.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

There is no Geneva convention covering terrorist uniforms. That is because they are not protected under the GC unless we choose to protect them.



It's called the AUMF. Now, if you can find any statute or regulation or constitutional process that spells out precisely what a "declaration of war" entails..... Glad to help.

The doubt certainly didn't stop Dimwit and his warmongering mob from applying their criminally expedient interpretations to the protocols. Nor did the Secretary of the UN and most world governments condemning their wars as criminal.

I interpret your typically illogical, lockstep agreement with your Dear Dyslectic Leader as saying that Al Qaeda would have been quite within their rights had they worn matching Burnooses on 9/11.

Once again, when did your CONGRESS declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or should I say, when did Congress, like the Reichstag did to Hitler, turn over its EXCLUSIVE right to declare war to the likes of a professional failure and a dry drunken Messianic manic, who deserves to be in a halfway house rather than the White’s house?

Say it ain’t true, Joe. Otherwise The Land of the Twee has gone the way of The Roman Republic and become a dictatorship.

BTW, I’d have thought a Hitler, who was a teetotal Christian and a multi decorated war hero who loved dogs and kids, rather than a brainless, spineless wartime (undeclared, of course!) deserter and feckless barfly, would be more to the liking of warlike Merkins

 

[pegwinn]

The doubt certainly didn't stop Dimwit and his warmongering mob from applying their criminally expedient interpretations to the protocols. Nor did the Secretary of the UN and most world governments condemning their wars as criminal.

I interpret your typically illogical, lockstep agreement with your Dear Dyslectic Leader as saying that Al Qaeda would have been quite within their rights had they worn matching Burnooses on 9/11.

Once again, when did your CONGRESS declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or should I say, when did Congress, like the Reichstag did to Hitler, turn over its EXCLUSIVE right to declare war to the likes of a professional failure and a dry drunken Messianic manic, who deserves to be in a halfway house rather than the White’s house?

Say it ain’t true, Joe. Otherwise The Land of the Twee has gone the way of The Roman Republic and become a dictatorship.

BTW, I’d have thought a Hitler, who was a teetotal Christian and a multi decorated war hero who loved dogs and kids, rather than a brainless, spineless wartime (undeclared, of course!) deserter and feckless barfly, would be more to the liking of warlike Merkins

Let me look,

Yep. You asked, I answered, you responded with gibberish.

You could have saved a lot of keystrokes by just ignoring the parts you couldn't answer with any degree of intelligence.

BLNT.

pssssssst........ Come back when you think you can actually discuss your questions and my answers. Until then, I have no choice but to point at you and laugh.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Let me look,

Yep. You asked, I answered, you responded with gibberish.

You could have saved a lot of keystrokes by just ignoring the parts you couldn't answer with any degree of intelligence.

BLNT.

pssssssst........ Come back when you think you can actually discuss your questions and my answers. Until then, I have no choice but to point at you and laugh.

As I do with your prejudiced cherry-picking of the GC’s, and your subsequent sophistic parsing of the results, to construct strawman arguments to suit your own culpable purposes.

I find it absolutely gobsmackingly farcical that you waffle on about your right to murder and maltreat the utterly destitute Afghan/Iraqi equivalent of America’s original Minute Men - because they have no uniforms!

When an accessory to war crimes like you condones the worst crime known to mankind, i.e. waging a groundless war of aggression.

In short, I couldn’t give a Biafran rat’s arse about what YOU want to craftily confine the dispute to.

It is you who have hijacked the thread, not me.

Remember this?

Recommended course of action

I recommend the following before we pull out of Iraq.

If you live in a major city, MOVE. If you can not, buy a shotgun and a rifle and possible a hand gun, I suggest 3 to 5 hundred rounds of ammo for each. If your in a city that doesn't allow weapons I remind you, MOVE.

If you live near any military bases do as above.

If you live near any power plants, stations, facilities, etc, do as above.

If your near any major tourist attractions do as above.

If you have money I suggest redoing your house with hardened concrete from the ground up to at least 6 feet.

I suggest you spend some time on a range relearning or learning to shoot.

You may want to buy a portable generator capable of powering your house. Not sure how safe it will be storing fuel for it but you may want some anyway.

Make good friends with your neighbors and get to know everyone in your general area, know who belongs and who doesn't. Advice them to arm themselves.

You should consider having at a minimum a months supply of food that doesn't depend on refrigeration. As well as a stock of clean water for drinking. Do NOT advertise you have extra food or water.

I would suggest you keep your car full of gas all the time.

When we abandon Iraq you can count on serious attacks to commence inside the US within 2 to 3 years or less.

Clearly the thread is about CRIMINALLY killing another million or so innocent Iraqis “over there” to stop them, apparently, from “nooking” the permanently panic stricken Chicken Little’s of Um-er-iKKKa.

So get the cart back behind the horse, Peggy Spew.

First deal with the illicit invasion that motivated those impecunious malnourished Mujhadeen in mufti to justifiably attack your occupation forces before you laughably try legitimizing your country’s inexcusable crimes against them.

You and your mates should stop snivelling like a bunch of fucking big sheila’s about being beaten YET AGAIN by a bedraggled bunch of raggedy-arsed guerillas and start a national inoculation drive to give all Merkin men an free injection of thruppence worth of bullock’s heart.

Maybe then they will really be able to “kick ass” instead of miming Sly Stallone Movie lines from some impregnable Camp Bongspiel (Bondsteel) in yet another defenceless ****** nation

Accordingly, YOU come back to ME when you come up with an interpretation of Cpt. Underpant’s post that is remotely consistent with the rest of the world’s opinion of his pants-shitting paranoia. Not some more of your expediently simplistic, self-serving Seppo interpretation of the world’s laws and conventions; that the US only abides by when it is to its own avaricious advantage.

Here, start by arguing your national innocence with YOUR man in Nuremberg,

The words of Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, are worth noting. Now in his eighty-seventh year he said: "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime." Knowing what he does about aggressive war, Mr. Ferencz compared Mr. Bush to Mr. Hussein and said that both should be tried for their aggressive wars: Mr. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq thirteen years later.

The evidence against Mr. Bush is overwhelming; casual students of U.S. politics will scratch their heads in wonder that Congress overlooks these crimes without even a cursory investigation. When Iraq, in 1990, invaded Kuwait, Mr. Bush's father did not hesitate to summon the U.N and take aggressive action. Whether this was due to his righteous indignation at this clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, or because he had a close eye on Kuwait's oil riches and his own future (present?) finger in that particularly lucrative pie, cannot be known. But the world saw that one nation could not with impunity arbitrarily invade another sovereign nation. In the decade and a half that have since passed, the U.S. Congress has apparently turned a blind eye to such flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions as 'pre-emptive' war and torture of prisoners.

- =http://www.counterpunch.org/fantina07142007.html]Counterpunch

Here’s some homework for you, Felonious Punk.

See if you can work up a case as to why America shouldn’t be barmed back to the Stone Age, like America did to the innocent peoples of those other renegade nations, Germany and Japan.

International Humanitarian Law

Jus in bello

 

[red states rule]

Let me remind the board that I have never accused American troops of being the same as terrorists or murders.... and anyone who says otherwise is a lying sack of shit.

and tell me again, RGS.... how many silver stars do YOU wear? bronze stars? purple hearts? Shit...I doubt you even have a GCM.

This was your post (#66)

and I suppose the restaurant full of Baghdad citizens who were blown to smithereens - along with the adjacent and occupied apartment building - died deaths that we somewhat less brutal because we fucked up and thought that Saddam might be dining there. I suppose their deaths were somehow different than if a suicide bomber had sat down and ordered falafel before blowing them all up.



Busted - again

 

[Chips Rafferty]

This was your post (#66)

and I suppose the restaurant full of Baghdad citizens who were blown to smithereens - along with the adjacent and occupied apartment building - died deaths that we somewhat less brutal because we fucked up and thought that Saddam might be dining there. I suppose their deaths were somehow different than if a suicide bomber had sat down and ordered falafel before blowing them all up.



Busted - again

One thing for sure. Their deaths were a fucking side quicker than those of the half million Iraqi kids America premeditatedly killed between Gulf "Wars" 1 & 2!

 

[red states rule]

One thing for sure. Their deaths were a fucking side quicker than those of the half million Iraqi kids America premeditatedly killed between Gulf "Warw" 1 & 2!

Thanks to Saddam and the UN Oil For Food Program

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Thanks to Saddam and the UN Oil For Food Program

It's not an act. You really are a brainwashed little imbecile, arent you!

 

[red states rule]

It's not an act. You really are a brainwashed little imbecile, arent you!

are you saying the US was to blame for their deaths?

It is a fact the UN's Oil For Food Program was a bigger fraud then ENRON

 

[Chips Rafferty]

are you saying the US was to blame for their deaths?

My fucking oath!

It is a fact the UN's Oil For Food Program was a bigger fraud then ENRON

BULLSHIT!

I'll "provide links" tomorrow. I'm playing with the Sensational Alsatians....

 

[red states rule]

My fucking oath!



BULLSHIT!

I'll "provide links" tomorrow. I'm playing with the Sensational Alsatians....

Allow me



Lid Off Oil-for-Food Scam
By Claudia Rosett for FOX Fan Central

One of the first things that got my attention was Oil-for-Food’s goal of supervising almost the entire economy of Iraq. The world had only recently emerged from a century that pitted the devastating and dictatorial system of Soviet-style central planning against laissez-faire capitalism. Markets had won — but not, it seemed, in Iraq, where Oil-for-Food actually helped consolidate Saddam’s control and strengthen his grip.

The next shock was learning that under the U.N. setup it was not even the U.N. but Saddam himself who got first rights to draw up the shopping lists for what the people of Iraq were presumed to need. That was disturbing given that it was Saddam who was responsible for the wars, oppression and deprivation of Iraqis in the first place.

Then I learned that the U.N. let Saddam pick his own oil buyers and relief suppliers and negotiate his own deals, subject to U.N. approval — which, as it turned out, he routinely got on thousands of contracts blatantly laced with graft. When I asked who those contractors were, the Oil-for-Food staff said the U.N. preferred to keep the identities of Saddam’s dealers confidential. The U.N. also kept secret the dollar amounts of individual deals, and just about all other details that would have allowed any third party to judge the integrity of a business. Oil-for-Food was run as a secret, privileged bargain between the UN and Saddam. To this day, the U.N. has not released such basic information. It is only through leaked documents that the most incriminating details of Oil-for-Food can begin to be gleaned.

Ah, but then came the showstopper. I learned that to cover the costs of administering this program Kofi Annan’s Secretariat collected a 2.2% commission on Saddam’s oil sales, totaling $1.4 billion over the course of the program, plus another .8%, or $520 million, for weapons inspections (though for four of the program’s seven years, Saddam did not allow any weapons inspections). In other words, the U.N. Secretariat was being paid richly by Saddam to supervise Saddam; the U.N. had, in effect, become Saddam’s business partner, playing Arthur Andersen to Saddam’s Enron. The incentives were for the U.N. Secretariat to hush up Saddam’s graft, and keep expanding the program. And that’s what happened.

Following Saddam’s overthrow, the U.N. finally shut down Oil-for-Food last November. But the U.N.-condoned mess it created it still with us. Billions in funds grafted out of the program by Saddam have yet to be accounted for. Oil-for-Food tainted the Security Council debates over Iraq, in which the U.N. never disclosed that fat deals under Oil-for-Food had gone to such pivotal U.N. Security Council members as France, China and Russia. To whatever extent Oil-for-Food corrupted politicians and businesses who dealt with Saddam — and that was evidently part of the problem — some of the figures involved may now be ripe targets for blackmail by anyone with inside information on Saddam’s U.N.-condoned secret deals. And tucked away in those confidential records are enough overlaps between Saddam’s network of dirty finance and Al Qaeda to warrant worries that money he filched from Oil-for-Food may be funding terrorists today.

This is the legacy of a U.N. that over the years has become accustomed to treating some of the world’s worst despots as privileged clients. In the end, the most alarming aspect of Oil-for-Food is not that it became the biggest financial scandal ever to bubble through the U.N., but that it was the natural product of a U.N. steeped for decades in its own culture of privilege, immunities and secrecy, accustomed to guarding the interests of despots at the expense of subjugated peoples, and — as Oil-for-Food so richly exemplified — more absorbed in its own venal interests, payrolls and power than in such matters as the world peace, freedom and prosperity it was founded to promote.

Claudia Rosett is a consultant to FOX News and Journalist-in-Residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

 

[red states rule]

And this one


Oil-for-Food Scandal Broadens With New Charges
By JULIA PRESTON
and JUDITH MILLER

Published: April 14, 2005


ramatically broadening the scandal surrounding the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, federal authorities in New York today charged David B. Chalmers, a Houston oil trader, and his company, Bayoil, with making millions of dollars in illegal kickback payments to Iraq while trading oil under the program.

Separate charges were brought against Tongsun Park, a South Korean businessman who figured in a Washington influence-peddling scandal some 30 years ago, accusing him of acting as an unregistered agent for Iraq in behind-the-scenes negotiations in the United States to set up and administer the program.

The authorities charge that Mr. Park received at least $4 million in secret payments from the government of Saddam Hussein for serving as a liaison between Iraqi and United Nations officials.

Mr. Park was a partner in the lobbying effort with Samir Vincent, an Iraqi-American businessman who pleaded guilty in January to similar charges that he lobbied illegally for Iraq. According to the criminal complaint announced today, Mr. Vincent, who is cooperating with federal investigators, said that Iraqi officials agreed in 1996 to pay him and Mr. Park $15 million for their lobbying, in part "to take care of" a high-ranking United Nations official.

Mr. Park and Mr. Vincent met at least twice in 1993 with the United Nations official, and received cash payments from Iraq for at least $1 million, according to the federal criminal complaint. The authorities did not reveal the name of the United Nations official, nor has the official been charged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/i...=03a9700b3426e9d2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

 

[maineman]

someone has no idea as to the scope of the ENRON scandal. That is certain!