RE: Jihad Jane??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 5:58:16 PM)

"no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements."

That means, that to commit fraud, you don't need to outright lie. You can 1/2 lie. You can misdirect. AND you can make statements which you SHOULD HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT THE VALIDITY OF. Bush had REASONABLE GROUNDS to suspect any of the "Iraq is a danger" false intel, based on the content of the NIE. If you do not use "DUE DILLIGENCE", it's as bad as lying outright.

In other words, after the accountants told Ken Lay there were issues, Lay should not have made public statements to investors and analysts saying that there were no issues. That's fraud. And he got convicted of it, too. I still think there's a hobo in that box.

When the CIA told the White House the Niger Yellow Cake claims were false, the White House then had a positive duty to not make that statement, at the very least without certifying it. Since Bush did not verify the intel, but gave his SOTU address and told us about that intel, which he had foreknowledge of it's falsity, that's a positive act to the commission of the fraud.

What did Martha Stewart go to prison for, again?





Thadius -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:01:28 PM)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'


The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs


Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.


<image deleted>

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."




farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:03:32 PM)

Yes? AND CLINTON'S STRIKES WORKED. As per the December 2001 NIE. Hussein was NO THREAT.





Thadius -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:08:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Yes? AND CLINTON'S STRIKES WORKED. As per the December 2001 NIE. Hussein was NO THREAT.




I see, those couple of strikes wiped out the entire programs and or stockpiles.  Makes sense to me.  Hell I am willing to put him up for sainthood now, seeing as he defanged the tyrant without troops on the ground.




farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:11:46 PM)

Wanna know a secret? IRAN isn't a threat to you either. Wanna know why?

MAD, baby. We fucking stood toe to toe with the rooskies, AND THEY FUCKING BLINKED. We lived for decades with the potential of INSTANT TOTAL NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION of the WHOLE FUCKING PLANET!

And did we ban toothpaste in our carry-ons? No.

And did we go whining, "What if they get a nuke?" No.

Because everyone KNEW if they USED a nuke, we'd turn them into glass.

We have what, 4000 warheads left?

Hussein KNEW that. Adminidjahad knows that, and so does every 300 year Ayatollah.

Bush played you all like any old conman plays a mark.





farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:14:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Yes? AND CLINTON'S STRIKES WORKED. As per the December 2001 NIE. Hussein was NO THREAT.




I see, those couple of strikes wiped out the entire programs and or stockpiles. Makes sense to me. Hell I am willing to put him up for sainthood now, seeing as he defanged the tyrant without troops on the ground.



Frankly, I don't see how you can argue against the December 2001 NIE. Hussein was not a threat. I suppose the clinically paranoid, or those with an eye for the con would disagree. But the Intelligence Community got it right, and Bush then either ignored it and just plain fucked up because he's in incompetent retard, or he intentionally disregarded it, and is just a plain criminal.






thompsonx -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:24:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Thadius:
Rather than the "horses mouth" I should think that a quote from "military times would seem to most to come from the other end of the horse.
Those retention numbers also incorporate those service personel who have their enlistments extended at the convenience of the government.
A simple google search will lead you to official DoD records that show that they are lowering the enlistment standards...now you can get in if you have only one felony conviction.  To suggest that you are out of the loop vis-a-vis troop retention and enlistment is hardly a leap but rather obvious when one reads your posts.
The assertion that you were a marine give more weight to your arguement for what reason?  Many would claim membership in that organization perhaps you might tell us where you went to boot camp and what your platoon number was?
I think I have mentioned on more than one post that I was in the military and where I had been tactically deployed.
thompson


As to where, I was a hollywood maggot, company 022.  I was stationed at PMTC Pt Mugu, electronic warfare division; and a few TAD to Camp Pendleton.  I went to my A school in Millington, NAS Memphis. Also made a trip back for C school.  Specifics to which squadrons, and or units that I was billeted is nobody's business but mine and the record keepers in Missouri.

Have a nice day,
Thadius


Thadius:

Marine recruits at MCRD San Diego are assigned a series and a platoon not companies.
A and B school are at NATTC Memphis next to the small town of Millington not NAS Memphis.
C schools are not a function of NATTC.  You sound more like a squid.  One last chance to redeam yourself.  What is the grinder and between what two buildings is it located at MCRD.
thompson




Thadius -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 7:21:14 PM)

Check your email.




Sinergy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 7:49:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Check your email.


The location of those is in an email?  Cool.

So you download MsMilitaryComplex for Internet Explorer?

Sinergy

p.s.  Hate to say it, but it sounds like you dont know how to stand up and admit that you screwed the pooch with your post. 

Dont worry, Monkeyboy taught us that if you smirk and deny long enough, people will become disinterested in your machinations.




WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:02:25 PM)

      Thought you'd studied the psychological impact of military boot camp, Sinergy.  I'd imagine a lot of people who ran through the Corps' version couldn't say which way was up, for a healthy chunk of the experience.




thompsonx -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:07:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Check your email.


The location of those is in an email?  Cool.

So you download MsMilitaryComplex for Internet Explorer?

Sinergy

p.s.  Hate to say it, but it sounds like you dont know how to stand up and admit that you screwed the pooch with your post. 

Dont worry, Monkeyboy taught us that if you smirk and deny long enough, people will become disinterested in your machinations.


Sinergy:
This is a jarehead thing...I would respectfully request that you shut the fuck up and butt out.  Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
thompson




Sinergy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:08:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

     Thought you'd studied the psychological impact of military boot camp, Sinergy.  I'd imagine a lot of people who ran through the Corps' version couldn't say which way was up, for a healthy chunk of the experience.


Fair enough, WyrdRich.

By your own statements you have gone through boot camp.

And by your own statements, people who have gone through boot camp dont know which way is up.

Understood.

Sinergy

p.s. If you would be willing to make an intelligent argument, as opposed to this intemperate sniping at me, it might be interesting to have a discussion with you.  But I piss people off, scare them, irritate them for a living and I really hate taking my work home with me.




thompsonx -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:12:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

     Thought you'd studied the psychological impact of military boot camp, Sinergy.  I'd imagine a lot of people who ran through the Corps' version couldn't say which way was up, for a healthy chunk of the experience.


WyrdRich:
There is no one who has gone through marine corps boot camp who has forgotten a moment of it.
thompson




MsPoetress -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:19:02 PM)

From what I have read the nature and extent of this psychological conditioning varies from one military service to another. Some systems of training seek to totally break down the individual and remold that person to the desired behaviour. Other systems attempt to change the individual to suit the organization, whilst retaining key elements of the recruit's personality.

Though I do not have first hand knowledge, I do read some.

Is this true?

~poe




thompsonx -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:31:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsPoetress

From what I have read the nature and extent of this psychological conditioning varies from one military service to another. Some systems of training seek to totally break down the individual and remold that person to the desired behaviour. Other systems attempt to change the individual to suit the organization, whilst retaining key elements of the recruit's personality.

Though I do not have first hand knowledge, I do read some.

Is this true?

~poe


MsPoetress:
Those are not the only options.
thompson




juliaoceania -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:33:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsPoetress

From what I have read the nature and extent of this psychological conditioning varies from one military service to another. Some systems of training seek to totally break down the individual and remold that person to the desired behaviour. Other systems attempt to change the individual to suit the organization, whilst retaining key elements of the recruit's personality.

Though I do not have first hand knowledge, I do read some.

Is this true?

~poe


Which is why when I was thinking about joining the military my top choice was the Air Force which accepted me... theirs was the "wimpiest" bootcamp around, not to mention that the goal was to reshape recruits for that service, not to break them completely down. I was pregnant the same weekend I took the oath by my husband who was also in the Air Force.




thompsonx -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:35:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements."

That means, that to commit fraud, you don't need to outright lie. You can 1/2 lie. You can misdirect. AND you can make statements which you SHOULD HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT THE VALIDITY OF. Bush had REASONABLE GROUNDS to suspect any of the "Iraq is a danger" false intel, based on the content of the NIE. If you do not use "DUE DILLIGENCE", it's as bad as lying outright.

In other words, after the accountants told Ken Lay there were issues, Lay should not have made public statements to investors and analysts saying that there were no issues. That's fraud. And he got convicted of it, too. I still think there's a hobo in that box.

When the CIA told the White House the Niger Yellow Cake claims were false, the White House then had a positive duty to not make that statement, at the very least without certifying it. Since Bush did not verify the intel, but gave his SOTU address and told us about that intel, which he had foreknowledge of it's falsity, that's a positive act to the commission of the fraud.

What did Martha Stewart go to prison for, again?




farglebargle:
Martha went to jail for lying which her lawyer explained to her was a lighter beef than stock fraud.
thompson




Sinergy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:43:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Martha went to jail for lying
thompson


Lying is a crime?

So technically, a sitting President who uses information he knows is incorrect would be guilty of lying?

Interesting.

I dunno, they impeached CigarBoy for lying...

And if it is a crime...

Sinergy




MsPoetress -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:44:50 PM)

quote:

Which is why when I was thinking about joining the military my top choice was the Air Force which accepted me... theirs was the "wimpiest" bootcamp around, not to mention that the goal was to reshape recruits for that service, not to break them completely down. I was pregnant the same weekend I took the oath by my husband who was also in the Air Force.


I spoke to a crappy Air Force recruiter!. I went in, talked to him, was already to take the ASVAB, and he told me that I had to enlist before I took it. Which is not what I understood to be correct. I then proceed to seek out another recruiter who tried to do the same. I gave up and found a wonderful career in retail at the time.

~poe




WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 8:52:08 PM)

     Hehehehe...  Yeah, it was an early morning, followed by a day long enough to put me in traffic hell coming home.

    Poe is correct.  The various boots are designed to the needs of the service.  Contrary to what Thom offered (with such civility), every vet I've known will tell you much of the first few weeks is a blur of 'hurry up-wait,' men in funny hats (best NOT to laugh) yelling, and intentionally brutal culture shock. 

    Some things remain vivid, I recall the haircut very well, and a washout's sobbing meltdown that we all knew was coming.

    The AF needs people who can perform technically precise work under stressful conditions.  If you are incompetent to fold a pair of tighty-whities into a perfect 6 inch square, with an R. Lee Ermey wanna-be breathing down your neck, you won't be much good to repair a radar system before the next wave of bombers comes in.  It doesn't really matter if you can march 30 miles in full pack and sleep on rocks.




Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125