hey now, i'll need some time to get in shape. can't have any of my pudge showing through a two piece ^_^

I say ya both can have 3ft of dental floss, to place creatively on your body...

Dresses are so passe.

buddies ^

Oh yeah jon, if you care, I found out a couple weeks ago that it's actually a crime for a member of the armed forces to speak out against certain officials. Speaking out doesn't mean only public speaking, but even in your own home, in this case. I doubt many people would turn in their own kin, but nonetheless it's a crime punishable by court marshall to speak against certain leaders. These include the President, members of the Joint Chiefs, Secretaries of (State, Defense), and a couple of the really high generals and admirals.

Wasn't aware of that. Any idea when that was passed and/or why?

Well I think it has to do with the 'superior officer' thing. Considering the president is the head of the armed forces. There is a certain protocol for adressing superior officers and you have to obey thier orders and all that [censored]. I bet learner would know about this.

seems to me like it ruins the whole free speech thing. but if you look at it logically. if a foreign power were to try to sew the seeds of dissention, oen of their targets would be the military. therefore, if anyone in the military and talk down about the decisions made by a higher officer. whether he's a legit serviceman or a spy, it can cause problems with rank. a general is only as powerful as the ppl that follow him. if nobody does, he has no power. therefore, to assure that he retains his respect and power, they have to assure that there aren't any ppl trying to throw him over. so yeah, it does sound like an infringement of human rights, but it does have a logical reason.//

Civil liberties of service members are limited, not only in that regard. I don't know everything, but I do know that they're not allowed to join in protests. This includes protesting anything, not only protesting against the government or military.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Slighty OT but I read this today and reinforces some thoughts about the war that I had.

To me this is one of those things where Americans had a chance to separate themselves from being regarded as similar to most other military occupations all over the world. To actually show care and consideration for the people they supposedly went over their to free. "Iraqi Freedom" wasn't about weapons??, guess it wasn't about helping them out after they were free, either.

Soldier Says Iraqi Children Turned Away

oh my god! that is [censored] awful! wtf??? arghhhh... as if i wasn't angry enough! haha. poor kids. it's good that they are ok now, but still. we could have helped them. no wonder the rest of the world thinks the US is full of assholes!

The horrible thing is that's what you read. Nobody gives a [censored] about all the times somebody comes to the American military for help, and servicemen willingly aide them. Nobody gives a [censored] about all the times when something happens in a community and the servicemen voluntarily go out and help. Nobody gives a [censored] when they're ordered to do it, and once the day's over and they can go home, they continue to help. We read about the single incident where some punk [censored] doctors turned away kids in need. I think it's awful, I think the doctors should be ashamed and reprimanded. I think the American media should be ashamed and reprimanded for only reporting this. It's no wonder the rest of the world things the US is full of assholes, and it's no wonder America thinks our military is horribly corrupt. Nobody gives a [censored] when anybody does some good. There are so many servicemembers that do more good in a day than the majority of Americans will do in their entire lives.

damn! perg is angry! hahaha. hey, i'm not saying that the military never does any good. so calm yourself!

also, think of it this way: that's what's being reported.. but think of all the other bad things they've done that haven't been! i'm sure there have been more than just this once instance.

uhhhhhhhh I think ill return home and write my own essay on this subject over night as this is a seriously fun debate!

and I can say now I have my own issues tos state on the subject

Damn right I'm angry. Not at you, you're too cool (*cough* and hot *cough*). I'm angry at all the bullshit journalists that think the only thing worth reading is the bad stuff, and all the dumbass people that think the only stuff that happens is what they read. And the dumbass people that don't demand that journalists report more than just the bad stuff. But we have a fascination with the abomination that we can't escape, so that stupid [censored] sells. I know more horrible things than that happen. Every few months a guy here will go out in town and rape a local chick. Fights happen almost every night. My dad's been called in to work every night at 4am for the past week because some stupid Marines got drunk and got in bar fights. But you know what? There are millions of people in the armed services that do their jobs, and do them impeccably. There are a few thousand people who [censored] things up. Nobody knows about the millions of amazing Americans who represent our country flawlessly, who make this a great country to live in. Everybody knows about the relatively few people who screw up and give themselves, the military, and the United States a bad name. And you know why I think that is? Because the majority of Americans realize that they don't do [censored] in their lives, that they're pathetic and meaningless, and look at people who have values worth dying for and realize they can never compare to those individuals, can't ever come close. This isn't just with the military, this is with everything. People are looking for examples of [censored] ups in quality organizations. If you can look at somebody who represents high ideals, who should be holding himself to something greater than himself, and who falls, then you can begin to feel as though your life is worth slightly more than the dogshit you pick up every day. This isn't directed towards anyone here, but to the gutless slobs that make sweeping generalizations about any group of people in order to give themselves some worth.

read this.. it made me giggle. cuz it's true and creative! http://maddox.xmission.com/bomb_iran.html

In order to get elected, a potential presidental candidate has to make a vast amount of money on a weekly basis in order to get the amount of political exposure (not Clinton style) required to get elected.

The only way for a candidate, be they Republican (Go Arnie!!!) or Democrat to accrue such vast (and I mean vaaasst) funds is to utilize corporate sponsorship, as a direct result of such a system, Political leaders directly reflect the opinions of their sponsors. These sponsers are invariably Health Insurance Companies, Oil Companies and large scale industries.

Therefore, no matter who is elected, the overall system will never change, people will always be royally porked over things like health insurance and oil will always be the driving force behind political occupations. UK gets socialist health care, they don't have to pay for operations or anything... If you get shot, they look for the exit wound not the certificate of insurance.

The truth is, that prior to 1991 Saddam was considered an ally of the US and UK, infact both sides sold weapons to the Iraqi's and provided military training to assist in the campaign (which yeah they did kind of use chemical weapons... whoops why didn't we go in then???) against Iran (who we like now apparently).

The invasion of Kuwait was premeditated and ran under a flag of so called retrieval of territory by Saddam, he even applied to the UN for authorisation...

Naturally as Kuwait has/had a massive percentage of the worlds oil supplies, the rest of the world could not allow one man to corner such a market share as it would grant him almost limitless political power. How long would America last without oil??? Imagine if your petrol went up 400% in price... (Then I would authorise gamma strikes but that's just me)

This war and the first war were portrayed as a liberation, when they were both merely an exercise in maintaining the geo-political status quo, no matter whether it was a flag of righteousness of a banner of war, the motive remains cold and political.

George Bush when all is said and done is a smiling veneer to the corporations he represents... The guy was alleged to be a regular cocaine user, I mean not that I don't approve of his funding South American economies, but just doesn't seem like the moral paradigms of a truly righteous and honourable man.

There are positives to the war however, Saddam Hussain's removal as leader was welcomed by the people of Iraq, I mean... they had to make him a cake on his birthday (no [censored], everyone did... how [censored] up is that) but that's totally not the point... oh yeah, However, an occupying army will not be welcomed for long, and the people of iraq are already tired of it's presence, American and British troops are being killed by the dozen right now. - People concern themselves with the repercussions to the countries' leaders however, we should be more concerned with the plight of our people out there under threat.

Noone will likely read this post because it is long and boring... but yeah.

okay I need a lie down now.

you make some good points. but i do disagree on a few things. first: i don't really think we like iran too much. the way i see it, after iraq, it's gonna be syria then iran. no matter how you look at it, these countries are still funding terrorism, so yeah. second: you make it sound like the world was wrong to stop iraq from invading kuwait. remember what happened when the world turned away to hitler invading the czech? third: the majority of the iraqi ppl still want the americans there. around 3/4. while it's not a lot, it's better than what some ppl want you to think. the iraqi ppl know that if the americans leave, another saddam is just gonna stroll in again. and if it's between that and the americans, they choose the americans. and fourth: ppl aren't dying by the dozens. from all the allied countries fighting, there is an average of 2 people per day. that's an average since the beginning of the war. 328 people, by roughly 159 days. do you want me to compare this to other wars? such as ww2, where 500,000 americans (just americans) were killed. it comes to roughly 400 americans per day. 1942-1945, 500,000/3*365. anyway, that's f'now.//

I wasn't suggesting (or i didn't mean it to appear) that we were wrong to invade Iraq (the first time), I was implying that the motives for the 'liberation of Kuwait' were not as clear cut and morally just as the government would have had us believe.

This was apparent when, the end of the iraqi (is that how you spell it??) occupation of Kuwait indicated a restoration of the political status-quo. Bush ("Read my lips" senior) having encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, pulled Allied Forces out allowing him [Saddam] to slaughter all of his perceived opponents. We stood idly by as he gassed thousands (and this time I do mean thousands) of Kurds. Where were we then as a peacekeeping humanitarian force?

I do agree though in so far as in terms of human casualties, this war pales into insignificance with regard to comparative body count. However, as for the number of Americans dying, how many is enough? In my opinion, a proud military with a great sense of tradition and honour is being betrayed by it's government for the sake of oil, not justice.

Do you think Bush loses sleep over those two American sons who are never coming home again to their families?

Essentially my point relates not to the moral standing and outlook of your average American, more the core motivation of your average former coke addict commander in chief. I personally cannot get in support of a man who is already buoyed and influenced by an 'army' of corporations. (was going to write 'cannot get behind a man who...' yeah that didn't work for me)

This rant isn't necessarily whining that Bush is a particularly bad example of a president, it is suggesting that the apparent moral decay found within his administration is inherent in most modern political figures due to the nature of modern politics.

" (was going to write 'cannot get behind a man who...' yeah that didn't work for me)" - lol

i'd have to say, the majority of ppl over there giving their lives, believe this is a just war. let's assume for a minute here that the ONLY reason for this war is oil, and for profit. in my eyes, the ending of saddam's dictatorship, the freeing of the iraqi ppl, and another step towards ending large (country funded) terrorist groups is more than just. now i know the terrorist part of this is a bit hazy. bringing down saddam could possibly make things worse. but its like getting a hook stuck in your flesh. you have to push it through to get it out. i dunno, that's just what i think. and as far as corruption in politics. yeah...what else is new, lol. but at least if you look at this in the long run. the ends will justify the means. assuming all goes to plan.//

in reply to Gollum's statement about bush.

I totally agree with "Fleshwound".
If Iwere you "Gollum" I would wake up b\4 it's to late! Any president that tells his\her people that they have absolute proof of W.O.M.D, and that they know exactly where they are and then cannot locate even one of them is either been lied to by his\her security people, or he\she is the one who is doing the lying.
Just something to think about.

In reply to Fleshwound's comments,

I am glad to finally hear from someone who has their feet on the ground and their eyes wide open to the truth!
Thanks for not buying into all the repulican crap.

A general reply.

I'm not against the liberation of oppressed ppl, but that is not why we went to war with iraq.
I am against a president that continually lies to his own ppl. I believe he went to war with iraq for the following reasons:
1. Saddam tried to kill his father. So revenge is part of this reason.
2. If he killed Saddam it would be a large feather in his hat, and go a long way toward getting him re-elected!
3. It does have alot to do with the control of the oil fields. If it didn't, then why were the oil fields the first things repaired,not the hospitals,not the power
stations, but the oil Fields.
Need I go on to show where his thinking is going.

i'd just like to say to your first two reasons he went to war: that's assuming bush can say "let's go to war" and we go to war. congress has to let him go to war as well. i dont' think congress is going to go to war b/c saddam tried to kill GW's father.
and for #3. oil fields are a lot easier to secure than hospitals and power stations, which are located in or near cities/towns. you can use perhaps a few squads of men or women to secure an oil field. however, hospitals in towns take a lot longer. you're not gonna start sending in doctors if the enemy is just gonna start shooting them. yes, it is against the geneva convention, but when has that stopped them (or hitler) b4? you have to make sure the city is safe b4 you do stuff like that. not to mention, oil fires can create havoc for the environment, health issues, and be very dangerous if they get out of hand.
also, look at the current state of iraq. generally, iraq as a nation is doing much much better than it ever was b4.
and as far as womd. i've decided that yes it is important to find them for one reason. just so our government can't go to war for any reason. but...i also believe that the womd aren't there anymore, that they've been moved to syria or iran. i do still believe this was a just war. and that a lot of good did come out of it. the iraqi ppl are beginning to set up their own democratic government etc...
obviously it's not all sunshines and rainbows over there, but it is getting much better. and i think it's getting better quicker than it could have.
i think too many ppl expected iraq to be a changed nation overnight.
also, why must ppl believe that our government is corrupt? and evil? does it fill some sort of void? i may not be a conspiracy theorist, but i also wouldn't trust the government about everything. i guess most of it is all just a POV. you're three comments there are not based on fact...but just observations and reasoning. but most of my reply was the same, with a few exceptions. i just reasoned it a different way. i have no reason to think that GW is an evil man, or that he wants our government to control the world. how can i judge his character by actions that unless i wnat to think otherwise, and assume he's a bad person, have some validity.

perhaps i'm just an optomist. but fromw hat i've seen, most of what's happening is good. but how can you make an arguments based on your judgements about what he wants without any fact to back it up? on the other hand, if you do have facts to back it up, i'd be more than happy to hear them...i'm a very open person (purely non-sexual of course...i mean, i've been curiuos but...ahh, wait, getting OT here. =P) anyway, to sum it up...i see or hear good in what he's done, therefore i can say "hey, he's done good from what i've heard" obviously i don't KNOW, but i have some sort of evidence to back me up. lots of other ppl theorize that bad things happen and they say "hey, he did bad things and screwed up...he's a bad person" and they say it whether or not they KNOW or have heard anything. and i've seen that some ppl flat out lie about what they've heard to make him sound bad. i'll stop here otherwise i'd just keep writing about nothing, lol.
anyway, i wanted to just write up a quick reply, but got carried away. lol //

The Iraqi people aren't setting up a democratic government. We're setting up a democratic government. The problems in Iraq go back a hundred years, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, when the middle east was simply partitioned by the major European nations. You've got people who've hated each other for centuries, and are unable to get past their differences, living in the same country, under the same government. Democracy and capitalism have worked well in America, but who's to say that's what would work in Iraq? You can't reasonable expect the arabs, persians, and kurds to put together a functioning government, or even work together under a government we establish.

In reply to Gollum,

Youv'e made me change my thinking alittle on the 3rd reason. I still believe one of the major points for us going to war was the oil.

Thanks for the reply.