|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 23, 2005 01:15 AM |
|
|
LoL!
A group of anti-war senior citizens calling themselves the "Tucson Raging Grannies" say they want to enlist in the U.S. Army and go to Iraq so that their children and grandchildren can come home. Five members of the group, which is associated with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, are due in court Monday to face trespassing charges after trying to enlist at a military recruitment center last week. The group has protested every week for the last three years outside the recruitment center.
"We went in asking to be sent to Iraq so our kids and grandchildren can be sent home, but rather than listening to us, they called the police," said 74-year-old Betty Schroeder. "It was their place to tell us the qualifications, but they wouldn't even speak to us. They should've said, `You're too old'. "This was not a performance, a joke or civil disobedience," she said. "This was an enlistment attempt."
Schroeder said her group may approach the Pentagon to see if they could be sent to Iraq. Schroeder said she hopes the trespassing charges will be dropped and an apology given to the group from the Tucson Police Department and from the recruiters.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted July 23, 2005 01:23 AM |
|
|
(Why didn't I think of doing this?!?)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 23, 2005 03:06 AM |
|
|
Because you're not a granny...
... yet 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 23, 2005 05:37 AM |
|
|
Well, you of all people should know...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 03, 2005 11:12 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 3 Aug 2005
|
LoL
Quote:
Joe Johns(reporter): "There was a lot of really tough language in the this raceand Hackett was responsible for some of it. Do you think that turns voters off in Ohio and the midwest?"
Paul Begala: "No! No democrat has gotten better than 37% in that district. Maj. Hackett goes out there and calls President Bush an 's.o.b.' and a 'chickenhawk' in a debate where he's asked what the greatest threat to our national security is, and he says 'That guy sitting in the Whitehouse'.
Beware my fellow democrats, though, You can probably only get away with talking like a marine if you are a marine. If you're a guy like me, you've never even finished boyscouts, and you try talking like that then people are gonna hate you."
That is so true. He he he . . . and I say good on him if he served honorably. He has as much a right as anyone to be as political as he wants after his service as a marine is completed.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted October 19, 2005 02:27 PM |
|
|
The Trial
Did anyone think that Saddam's trial looked... strange?
|
|
ConanAmra
Adventuring Hero
|
posted October 19, 2005 03:31 PM |
|
|
Why is that?I havent seen it 
Whats wrong with it?
____________
When you go to hell tell my mom that i sent you,
you get a group discount.
|
|
draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2005 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Did anyone think that Saddam's trial looked... strange?
I didn't see it, could you describe what looked fishy?
|
|
Guitarguy
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Rockoon.
|
|
posted October 19, 2005 08:55 PM |
|
|
Yes, fill us in on what's going on. I have a strong feeling that I'll be too busy today to catch much of the news of what happened in court thus far.
I heard that Saddam resented being called Iraq's "former president" and that he just had a scuffle with the guards. I don't know about about how effective his plea of innocence will be; it seems futile considering all that happened in his past history. There are a lot of things going against him already.
-Guitarguy
____________
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 19, 2005 09:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 19 Oct 2005
|
Not to mention that the result of this trial was known long before the trial has started and the whole trial is just an attempt to bring some legidimacy to his execution and maybe even to the invasion of Iraq.
Those recent "war crimes" trials are so political and are such b***it in general! Milosevic is on trial for war crimes? Why isn't Clinton on the same bench as he is? He and his administration played a major role in the escalation of this conflict and a much more direct role in using anti-personnel weapons such as cluster bombs against the civilian population during the Serbian bombings.
Why aren't those Americans who helped Saddam to strengthen his regime on this trial? Why aren't those who created the economic sanctions that perharps killed more people than Saddam on this trial?
Of course, some people will like it - those who like the soap operas where there are always the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and where you know exactly what will happen in the end (i.e. the "good guys" will get what they want), but if you actually want to see anything resembling a fair trial, that's definitely not for you.
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted October 21, 2005 05:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not to mention that the result of this trial was known long before the trial has started
Yeah... The court has been founded by the occupational forces, the judge is an ethnic Kurd, the new president says that Saddam should be hanged (?) twenty times, and now even Saddam's lawyer has been killed. Even the courtroom itself looked funny.
Quote:
Those recent "war crimes" trials are so political and are such b***it in general! Milosevic is on trial for war crimes?
I've been watching Milosevic's trial for a long time, and it looks fair and just compared to this charade...
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 05:58 PM |
|
|
You know, it's difficult to tell which is beinge more prejudged --
Saddam or his trial.
I listened to the opening statements yesterday and the judge repeatedly reigned in the prosecutor for overstepping his bounds and discussing issues not raised in the original indictment.
Then Saddam was called to the stand and for nearly twenty minutes went round and round with the prosecutor. He simply REFUSED to state his name for the record, no matter how many ways the prosecutor asked him to do so. He was being a real ass but they let him go on and on.
The room looks funny. Yes. But how is that indicative of an unfair trial? They're in another country fer crissakes. That court may be perfectly normal.
Anyways, that's my two cents. I'll be interested to hear whether any real evidence of an unfair trial turns up.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He simply REFUSED to state his name for the record, no matter how many ways the prosecutor asked him to do so.
Hmm... well, if I was in his place where I knew that no matter what I say I'll get hanged, I'd sure as hell be an ass! Well, who wouldn't be! He'll be better off making paper balls and throwing them at the prosecutor next time instead of wasting his time to answer questions, at least that way he'll have some fun.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:29 PM |
|
|
Are you saying they shouldn't try him at all because there's no way he'll ever be found not guilty? Did you listen to the evidence to be proffered? Because three people shot a kalishnikov rifle at his armoured SUV from behind a brick wall during his visit to a village, he levelled the village, burned the crops, kidnapped several hundred of the villagers including women and children, put them in a prison camp in the middle of the desert for four years, had them tortured, raped (including the children) and eventually killed dozens of them. The ones he released after four years of this hell returned to what was once their village to find it levelled.
Forgive me, but why are you feeling so sorry for this friggin' monster? If he's guilty then he's guilty.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:43 PM |
|
Edited By: vlaad on 21 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
You know, it's difficult to tell which is beinge more prejudged --
Saddam or his trial.
I listened to the opening statements yesterday and the judge repeatedly reigned in the prosecutor for overstepping his bounds and discussing issues not raised in the original indictment.
Then Saddam was called to the stand and for nearly twenty minutes went round and round with the prosecutor. He simply REFUSED to state his name for the record, no matter how many ways the prosecutor asked him to do so. He was being a real ass but they let him go on and on.
The room looks funny. Yes. But how is that indicative of an unfair trial? They're in another country fer crissakes. That court may be perfectly normal.
Anyways, that's my two cents. I'll be interested to hear whether any real evidence of an unfair trial turns up.
You have completely ignored the post you replied to and chosen to answer only the part about the courtroom appearance.
Quote:
Are you saying they shouldn't try him at all because there's no way he'll ever be found not guilty?
No, I am saying he should get a fair trial in an international war crimes tribunal outside Iraq and the USA.
Quote:
Did you listen to the evidence? Because three people shot a kalishnikov rifle at his armoured SUV from behind a brick wall during his visit to a village, he levelled the village, burned the crops, kidnappsed several hundred of the villagers including women and children, put them in a prison camp in the middle of the desert for four years, had them tortured, raped (including the children) and eventually killed dozens of them. The ones he released after four years of this hell returned to what was once their village to find it levelled.
Forgive me, but why are you feeling so sorry for this friggin' monster? If he's guilty then he's guilty.
Who is feeling sorry for Saddam? Please don't put words into my mouth, thank you.
____________
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who is feeling sorry for Saddam? Please don't put words into my mouth, thank you.
Amen to that!!! Where would you get such idea, PM?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 07:56 PM |
|
|
Hey Vlaad --
First, I was really responding to Russ when I asked the feeling sorry question. Sorry you misinterpreted that.
On the international tribunal issue, you may have a point there. But I want to point some things out. The government "set up" by the "occupational forces" has actually been the efforts of multiple nations, primarily Iraq itself. Dun get me wrong, I never supported our invasion, but that's beside the point and ths issue had become academic. The government infrastructure has the support of millions -- a clear majority -- no matter how it came about.
On the issue of the judge being Kurdish, I think he should recuse himself and a Sunni judge should be put on the bench. They should trust their judges enough to be fair-minded despite which faction of the constituency they're from. But if there is to be the appearance of prejudice at all (after all their only choices are pretty much Shia, Sunni and Kurd) then the appearance should be a prejudice in Saddam's favor. It's not like there isn't plenty of evidence against the guy and it will make any difference.
On the issue of the president condemning Saddam, another good point. Bad form, very bad form. The fact that I happen to agree with him does not justify his statement. Was the statement illegal? perhaps if one could argue that it prejudiced the trial in any way. However Saddam is widely hated already and I doubt the statement had any significant affect on anyone's opinion.
Russ -- I got the idea from your posts.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 12:05 AM |
|
|
found this while reading the bbc news
Quote:
Iraqis 'back attacks on troops'
Almost 100 UK soldiers have died since military action began
Millions of Iraqis believe attacks against US and UK troops are justified, the leaked results of a poll conducted for the coalition suggest.
The poll shows 45% of Iraqis believe the attacks are justified. And the figure rises to 65% in Maysan, one of the areas where UK forces operate.
The Ministry of Defence says the poll was conducted in August, which was a "particularly bad month".
The poll, conducted by an Iraqi research team, was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.
The survey suggests:
82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops
Less than 1% of the Iraqi population believes coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in the country
67% of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation
43% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened
72% do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
If these facts are true, when(or should?) we pull troops out of Iraq that are no longer wanted?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 24, 2005 03:57 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 23 Oct 2005
|
Vlaad,
I think you have suggested a good idea. Having the former Iraqi President tried in an international court would indeed be very objective and I agree with you completely that it would be a fair trial.
I am also afraid of something related to your suggestion. "Yes", "Ok, it will be a fair trial." I think people would agree with you. I agree too. What about Iraqi sovereignty? Not having the trial in Iraq might suggest that this country is so infantile in its behavior that it needs the rest of the world to hold its hand through this very difficult time. I worry about this. I also think of many other countries around the world where some person of great renown and significance rose up from nothing and led their people to historic national solidarity. Some historic figures were highly educated and some were not. Choose the country and learn of the details of each great historical figure. The point is that I believe Iraq must look for the answers within itself. Only then can they truly be proud of the sacrifices they've made to sovereign stability, national unity, and the commoner's proud national identity. I will not speak of those figures in my country because many people are tired of hearing what Americans think about Iraq. And this is the right thing to think in my opinion.
I believe there is a hero somewhere in that country waiting for the right circumstances.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 08:47 AM |
|
Edited By: vlaad on 24 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
What about Iraqi sovereignty?
You invade a sovereign country, then worry about its sovereignty? Ugh.
____________
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
