Baracky!

[PEP]

Anyone post this yet?


RyhIBXNfqMA

[clambake]

you've turned into an attention whore.

[Ignignokt]

you've turned into an attention whore.

i think you just want to be someones bitch, for instance NbaDan's. For all the spamming he does you never complain.

[PEP]

you've turned into an attention whore.

You wanna be my bitch? I have this nice bayonet that I'd like to show you.

[clambake]

i think you just want to be someones bitch, for instance NbaDan's. For all the spamming he does you never complain.

wear your normal pink and lets see if you become more attractive.

[clambake]

You wanna be my bitch? I have this nice bayonet that I'd like to show you.

needs a bayonet.

that says alot about you.

[Wild Cobra]

i think you just want to be someones bitch, for instance NbaDan's. For all the spamming he does you never complain.

It appears I'm the only one that exposes Propaganda Dan...

[gtownspur]

PEP hates personal liberty


elpimpo hates national security.

[gtownspur]

wear your normal pink and lets see if you become more attractive.

your wife seems to thinks so.:lol

[Ignignokt]

what about lincoln?

[BonnerDynasty]

haha that was pretty funny.

A disgrace to put that man's head on a legend like Rocky.

But still funny.

[PixelPusher]

what about lincoln?

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — "I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't.

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

- Abraham Lincoln

[PEP]

PEP hates personal liberty

Nah not really, I just hate fighting for the liberty of those who dont deserve it and all they do is whine and bitch about this country but are too much of a pussy to do something about it but post stories and articles.

I hope that didnt come off to harsh did it?

[JoeChalupa]

I love the Baracky youtube!!
:lmao

[PEP]

Is it just me, or does Barack's head look too large for his body at 1:27.

The Empire Strikes Barack

a8lvc-azCXY

[Ignignokt]

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — "I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't.

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

- Abraham Lincoln



:rollin
:rollin

are you this stupid?

me an elpimpo were talking about civil liberties, the subject of preemptive war does not pertain. Lincoln suspended civil liberties to win the war.

have any lincoln qoutes to back that?

How bout you just post a Tom Tommorrow or modern world comic, call it a day and go play with your blocks.

[some_user86]

Killed any children lately, PEP?

[Ignignokt]

Killed any children lately, PEP?


Sucked off any terrorist.

[some_user86]

Sucked off any terrorist.

To busy designing coagulants for the military to use to save PEP's ass (and the "collateral damage" that he'll create).

[PEP]

Killed any children lately, PEP?

Do you have any?

Just wondering, how old are you? Did your father spit on returning Vietnam veterans and call them baby killers? Why dont you go down the SA airport and do that instead of asking me that on a forum.

[Don Quixote]

Pep, Forget what he said. What he said was below the belt and uncalled for.

The way to handle the children on this forum is to put them on your ignore list. Let someone else deal with them.

And, thanks for your service.

[some_user86]

Do you have any?

Nope.

But I guess in San Antonio you must get confused with all the Brownies here with non-Anglo names and your gun just accidently goes off on a couple of kids.

Iraq is turning into Vietnam, and you're losing the public at home. Guess when the government lost support for the Vietnam war? The My Lai Massacre (For review, link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre). There's been enough stories about "collateral damage" to make us fellow Americans, whom you generously offer to protect, think that you're not doing it as cleanly as you say.

LINK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi_incident (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse (torture)

These in addition to minor offenses of animal killings:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wj32twJXxsY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fy_BSksdvAM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULcj-Epr1rI&
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-QkHbgtJGK8&feature=related

You know what that's a prelude to? Animal abuse is a marker for a future serial killer. Enough of these massacres and absurd murders by your fellow comrades and you'll be greeted exactly how I greeted you. Obviously, I was trying to make a shock post, but I don't think I am far off. We got some real psychos in the military trying to "protect" us.

Meanwhile, I'll be working on my small military contracts through my grad school years, trying save your sorry ass if you get shot.

[Ignignokt]

Nope.

But I guess in San Antonio you must get confused with all the Brownies here with non-Anglo names and your gun just accidently goes off on a couple of kids.

Iraq is turning into Vietnam, and you're losing the public at home. Guess when the government lost support for the Vietnam war? The My Lai Massacre (For review, link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre). There's been enough stories about "collateral damage" to make us fellow Americans, whom you generously offer to protect, think that you're not doing it as cleanly as you say.

LINK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi_incident (massacre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse (torture)

These in addition to minor offenses of animal killings:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wj32twJXxsY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fy_BSksdvAM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULcj-Epr1rI&
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-QkHbgtJGK8&feature=related

You know what that's a prelude to? Animal abuse is a marker for a future serial killer. Enough of these massacres and absurd murders by your fellow comrades and you'll be greeted exactly how I greeted you. Obviously, I was trying to make a shock post, but I don't think I am far off. We got some real psychos in the military trying to "protect" us.

Meanwhile, I'll be working on my small military contracts through my grad school years, trying save your sorry ass if you get shot.


Way to go ass,

If you were to die, someone else would pick up your task, you're nothing special.


And you said you were republican... what a disingenous asshole.

[some_user86]

And you said you were republican... what a disingenous asshole.

The more that comes out, how could anyone support this shit?

Being a Republican means being Patriotic(TM) to the core, right? So that means accepting representation by the same fools who committed the above massacres? Those specific soldiers (not all, but those bad apples) give a bad name to our military and our country. They damage our reputation. If I don't support what my country does at all times, I am automatically a traitor and unpatriotic? I can't be with a party with which I share ideologies, but not its actions? You are the one who is disingenuous if you actually share the administration's viewpoints and think that it matches with the meaning of being a true Republican and a true patriot.

I don't think or believe PEP has committed any war crimes (as mentioned, I was creating a "shocking" comment). But at this point, with what information is available, it seems that thuggery and sociopathy are more prevalent in the military than at any other time in US military history. The army is stretched so thin that we're accepting more ex-cons (LINK: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,125220,00.html).



Way to go ass,

If you were to die, someone else would pick up your task, you're nothing special.

Honestly, the administration thinks the same of the soldiers. And frankly, all humans our expendable. Nothing we do is so special that someone else can't do it. Of course, the barrier to doing the more difficult task rises with training, acuity, talent, and ability. At some point, the threshold required means only a finite number can perform the task.

[some_user86]

I'll readily admit that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder may also cause some otherwise good soldiers to snap. But, here is a good read for what I am talking about in terms of possible war crimes.
=================================


American soldiers and war crimes in Iraq
James M Skelly
The complicity of senior United States military leaders in the killing of Iraqi civilians at Haditha and elsewhere should be investigated, says James M Skelly.
9 - 06 - 2006

Why do American and British soldiers in Iraq kill innocent Iraqi civilians? To understand properly how massacres like those in the Iraqi town of Haditha in November 2005 can occur, it is important to appreciate how the stresses that soldiers experience are playing out in Iraq. It is true that soldiers suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and committed war crimes in Vietnam, but one of the differences between Vietnam and Iraq is in the nature of the collapse of the armed forces: in Vietnam this was ultimately because of combat refusals, whereas in Iraq it tends to be more profoundly psychological in nature.

This generally shows up individually in post-traumatic stress cases like that of Chuck Norris (as revealed in this New York Times Magazine profile); but it also manifests itself collectively in the rage that soldiers who commit war crimes feel. Although the details of individual cases may differ, this emotion is something that the United States troops involved at Haditha and elsewhere evidently experienced.

Although some of the stresses that soldiers confront in Iraq are sufficient to cause even normally well-integrated individuals to break down psychologically, the Pentagon is so desperate for soldiers that it has been recruiting individuals who have already demonstrated psychological problems that make them more likely to "cross the border" and commit atrocities.

An example of such individuals is Sergeant Jeffrey Waruch, who was discharged from the United States army in late January 2006 after shooting a mother, Shaha Jawad al-Jabouri, and her two daughters in mid-February 2004. The group was weeding a beanfield about a half mile from where an improvised explosive device (IED) hit an army convoy near the village of al-Abbassi.

The IED caused only minor injuries. Yet Waruch, who spotted the women tending their crops, ran hundreds of yards from the bomb site toward al-Jabouri and her daughters, Samira and Intisar. As they attempted to flee, Waruch shot them all. Intisar al-Jabouri, 13 years of age, died of her wounds.

An investigation by Major Samuel Schubert found that Waruch's actions were not in accordance with the rules of engagement. But the commander of the 25th infantry division in Iraq, Major-General Benjamin R Mixon, discharged Waruch without criminal charges because, he said, there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

The deeper reason may have been that the army did not want to publicise Waruch's problematic psychological character and that they were relying upon soldiers like him to supposedly win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. In the months leading to his deployment, two women who alleged domestic abuse by Waruch won temporary restraining orders against him that included the proviso that he surrender his weapons to the police.

His military supervisor prior to his deployment, Staff-Sergeant Marcus Warner, tried unsuccessfully to prevent Waruch from being sent to Iraq because, "he was a cancer to my soldiers" whom Warner wanted "to get … out of my platoon." An army spokesperson, asked why Waruch was allowed to continue training following the issuance of the two restraining orders and why he was later sent to Iraq, said: "We don't have specific information on this case." It is noteworthy that the army did not conduct a formal investigation of the killing of Intisar al-Jabouri until a year after the shootings and a request for official records from the Dayton Daily News which was reporting about related incidents.

Who is responsible?

Who is responsible for the atrocities at Haditha and elsewhere, as well as the killing of Intisar Jabouri? It is clear that Jeffrey Waruch at al-Abbassi, and the soldiers who were complicit in the crimes that occurred in Haditha and elsewhere in Iraq, are responsible for their specific actions. However, those who are responsible for creating the context, the general climate in which such atrocities flourish – "atrocity-producing situations" – also bear major responsibility.

As I noted in an earlier openDemocracy article, "Iraq, Vietnam, and the dilemmas of United States soldiers", the political and military leaderships do everything they can to maintain that wars like those in Vietnam and Iraq are not organised murder, because they themselves are fundamentally complicit. As Philip Caputo argued in Rumor of War, civilian deaths cannot be admitted to be the inevitable product of the war itself; for that would have raised the question of "the morality of the American intervention in Vietnam" (and, currently, in Iraq as well).

Remember that Joshua Keys, a US soldier who served in Iraq and is now seeking asylum in Canada, said that he and his comrades in arms were told that international law governing armed combat was just a "guideline". Keys also said: "It's shoot first, ask questions later. Everything's justified."

Ben Griffin, the British former SAS soldier said that the American soldiers he served with in Iraq had "a well-deserved reputation for being trigger-happy." His compatriot, Brigadier-General Nigel Aylwin-Foster, noted that US troops suffered from "the erroneous assumption that given the justness of the cause, actions that occurred in its name would be understood and accepted by the population, even if mistakes and civilian fatalities occurred in the implementation."

Moreover, a 2003 Human Rights Watch report said that civilian deaths in Iraq "reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal forces." Such assessments are echoed in the comment of the new Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki after the exposure of Haditha that violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people" and "crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion."

The Nuremberg precedent

According to the legal principles deriving from the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunal following the second world war, those who are complicit in war crimes – including those who have placed the soldiers involved in the "atrocity-producing situations" in Haditha and elsewhere – share the guilt of those who pull the trigger.

In September 2003, I co-authored with Guy Grossman an open letter to soldiers involved in the occupation of Iraq. In it, we cited the analysis by Telford Taylor, chief US counsel at the Nuremberg tribunals, that – according to the standards developed there – members of the US joint chiefs of staff might be guilty of war crimes for atrocities that occurred in Vietnam.

We also noted that other junior officers and I had requested that the secretary of defence during part of the Vietnam war (1969-73), Melvin Laird, convene a military court of inquiry to determine if the joint chiefs qualified as war criminals under Article 135 of the uniform code of military justice. Article 135 provides a legal mechanism that allows those subject to military law who believe that other military personnel have violated the uniform code to be formally investigated and ultimately brought to justice by convening an initial court of inquiry. It would be perfectly legal for soldiers today to publicly request that the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, convene a court of inquiry to determine whether the members of the joint chiefs of staff are complicit with the war crimes that have occurred in Haditha and elsewhere in Iraq.

Such an action might be considered even more appropriate in light of the fact that Rumsfeld, and his longtime friend and political ally Dick Cheney, have a history of suppressing war-crimes investigations. Cheney was White House chief of staff, and Rumsfeld secretary of defence, in November 1975 when the army investigation into the horrific atrocities committed by Tiger Force in Vietnam was stopped by the White House and the Pentagon; this ensured that no one was charged with well-documented war crimes.

The request to convene a court of inquiry into the possible complicity of senior military figures in war crimes committed in Iraq may not succeed. But it would put those in charge of military operations in Iraq on notice that they are the ones who may ultimately be judged as war criminals. It would also check the tendency of those in command to place all the blame for war crimes on a few so-called "bad apples" who often bear the brunt of military "justice". It is the lower-ranking soldiers – in Iraq, as in Vietnam – who know all too well that "military justice is to justice, as military music is to music."

LINK: http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/iraq_warcrimes_3627.jsp

The article has links within it, which I could not duplicate.

[some_user86]

War Stories Echo an Earlier Winter
By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 15, 2008; Page B01

Grim-faced and sorrowful, former soldiers and Marines sat before an audience of several hundred yesterday in Silver Spring and shared their recollections of their service in Iraq.

The stories spilled out, sometimes haltingly, sometimes in a rush: soldiers firing indiscriminately on Iraqi vehicles, an apartment building filled with Iraqi families devastated by an American gunship. Some descriptions were agonized, some vague; others offered specific dates and locations. All were recorded and streamed live to the Web.

The four-day event, "Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan -- Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations," is sponsored by Iraq Veterans Against the War and is expected to draw more than 200 veterans of the two wars through tomorrow. Timed for the eve of the fifth anniversary of the war's start next week, organizers hope the soldiers' accounts will galvanize public opposition.

For some of the veterans speaking yesterday, the experience was catharsis.

Former Marine Jon Turner began his presentation by ripping his service medals off his shirt and tossing them into the first row. He then narrated a series of graphic photographs showing bloody victims and destruction, bringing gasps from the audience. In a matter-of-fact voice, he described episodes in which he and fellow Marines shot people out of fear or retribution.

"I'm sorry for the hate and destruction I've inflicted upon innocent people," Turner said. "Until people hear about what is happening in this war, it will continue."

Winter Soldier is modeled after a well-known and controversial 1971 gathering of the same name at which veterans of the Vietnam War gathered to describe alleged atrocities. John Kerry, then a young veteran, spoke at the Detroit event, which brought him to prominence. The soldiers' claims sparked lasting enmity, which resurfaced during Kerry's run for president in 2004.

The 2008 Winter Soldier will probably be no different. The event drew dozens of counter-protesters who were kept from the conference site at the National Labor College by a contingent of Montgomery County police. Although entrance to the event was limited to participants and the media, one protester managed to slip in and walked toward the stage, interrupting a speaker.

"Kerry lied while good men died, and you guys are betraying good men," the man yelled. The protester was roughly hustled from the room by several men in red knit shirts and jeans -- members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, who are providing security for the event.

Counter-protesters outside derided the event and were deeply skeptical of the claims being made inside. "We want absolute specifics," said Harry Riley, a retired Army colonel who leads Eagles Up!. "This is too important to our nation. The credibility of our nation and the credibility of our soldiers are involved."

Riley said those making allegations against the U.S. military should have to give sworn testimony instead of speaking at an antiwar conference.

Organizers said they have sought to verify the records of all soldiers speaking, including reviewing their service records and talking to other members of units. Some soldiers had videos and photographs, which were displayed yesterday on a large screen in the auditorium.

"The ubiquitous nature of video, photo and technology really sets this apart" from the original Winter Soldier, said Jose Vasquez, an IVAW member who directed the verification process. Organizers and speakers said Winter Soldier is not meant to vilify soldiers. Instead, they said, it is aimed at changing war policy.

"These are not bad people, not criminals and not monsters," said Cliff Hicks, 23, a former 1st Armored Division soldier from Savannah, Ga., who spoke about his experiences in Iraq. "They are people being put in horrible situations, and they reacted horribly."

A Defense Department spokesman said he had not seen the allegations raised yesterday but added that such incidents are not representative of U.S. conduct.

"When isolated allegations of misconduct have been reported, commanders have conducted comprehensive investigations to determine the facts and held individuals accountable when appropriate," Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said.

Yesterday's panels included two sessions on "Rules of Engagement," in which soldiers and Marines described in emotional and often graphic terms incidents in which they said unarmed and innocent civilians were killed.

Most of the stories involved Iraq, though some took place in Afghanistan.

Two former soldiers who served with the 1st Armored Division described an attack by an AC-130 "Spectre" gunship on an apartment building in southern Baghdad that they said took place Nov. 13, 2003.

"It was the most destructive thing I've seen, before or since," said Hicks, one of the soldiers.

Adam Kokesh, a student at George Washington University who served with the Marine Corps in Iraq, said Marines were often forced to make snap decisions about whether to fire on civilians.

"During the siege of Fallujah, we changed our rules of engagement more often than we changed our underwear," he said.

On the screen, a photograph showed him posing next to a burned-out car in which an Iraqi man was killed after approaching a Marine checkpoint.

"At the first Winter Soldier in 1971, one of the testifiers showed a picture like this and said, 'Don't ever let your government to do this to you,' " Kokesh said. "And still the government is doing this."

At a session on shortcomings in veterans' health care, audience members sobbed as Joyce and Kevin Lucey described the suicide of their son, Marine Cpl. Jeffrey Lucey, a death they blamed on his inability to get treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mental health specialists were on hand to help speakers and audience members, and a workshop was offered on PTSD.

Those who spoke yesterday described the experience as intimidating.

"It was terrifying for me," said Steven Casey, a former 1st Armored Division specialist from Missouri who also described the AC-130 attack. "I knew somebody needed to hear it. All I wanted to do is say what I saw. I'm not accusing anyone of a crime."

The conference can be viewed athttp://www.ivaw.org.

Staff writer Hamil R. Harris contributed to this report.

LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403887.html?sid=ST2008031403909

[some_user86]

US military recruits more ex-cons

Statistics released by a congressional committee show 861 people were granted waivers to enlist, up from 457 in 2007.

The crimes included assault, sex crimes, manslaughter and burglary.

The Army says waivers are only granted after careful review and are in response to the challenges of recruiting in a changing society.

The number of people granted waivers are just a small fraction of the more than 180,000 people who entered active duty in the armed forces during the fiscal year that ended in September 2007.

But the perceived lowering of standards is causing concern in some quarters.

"The significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war," said Democratic Representative Henry Waxman.

Mr Waxman chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that released the figures drawn up by the US Department of Defense.

These show that:

* The Army granted 511 felony waivers in 2007, up from 249 the year before

* Some 350 people with convictions joined the Marine Corps, up from 208 in 2006

* The Navy actually recruited fewer people with convictions, down from 48 to 42

* The Air Force did not recruit anyone with a felony conviction

Among the convictions, many were for stealing, including burglary and car thefts, and drug offences.

Waivers were also granted to three people convicted of manslaughter, nine guilty of sex crimes, and nine convicted of making terror threats, including bomb threats.

In addition, the Army and Marine Corps granted 27,671 "conduct waivers" covering what are regarded as serious misdemeanours , up from 25,098 in 2006.

Pentagon officials say that the need to recruit troops for continuing operations abroad, low unemployment at home, and declining interest in serving pose a challenge.

"We're digging deeper into the barrel than we were before," an official told the Washington Post.

The Army also argues that its ranks reflect the society they are drawn from.
Only three in 10 Americans of military age meet the army's medical, moral, aptitude, or administrative requirements, army officials point out.

"We're growing the army fast, and there are some waivers - we know that," said Army Lt Gen James Thurman, deputy chief of staff for operations.

"It hasn't alarmed us yet."

LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7360157.stm

[some_user86]

I would love to be proved wrong, but I fear that I probably won't be.

Is it unpatriotic to try to find the truth?

Yeah, I was probably a little harsh for calling out PEP, but to hide behind the shield of military service and lob attacks at anyone who disagrees with him is deceitful. None of us can know the stuff that the soldiers go through. But your fellow soldiers do. And when they speak up on the atrocities that others have committed from behind your honorable military shield, it taints that shield a little bit each time. It diminishes from that self-righteousness that you seem to have. So far, PEP had never argued using facts, just his smug, holier-than-thou attitude. I would hope he moves away from that.

[Ignignokt]

I would love to be proved wrong, but I fear that I probably won't be.

Is it unpatriotic to try to find the truth?

Yeah, I was probably a little harsh for calling out PEP, but to hide behind the shield of military service and lob attacks at anyone who disagrees with him is deceitful. None of us can know the stuff that the soldiers go through. But your fellow soldiers do. And when they speak up on the atrocities that others have committed from behind your honorable military shield, it taints that shield a little bit each time. It diminishes from that self-righteousness that you seem to have. So far, PEP had never argued using facts, just his smug, holier-than-thou attitude. I would hope he moves away from that.

Proved what? You don't know the facts, you are convicting the troops before there has been definitive evidence.

[Ignignokt]

[QUOTE=some_user86;2459665]I would love to be proved wrongQUOTE]

if you're so set on your belief about the murders, then let your actions speak and quit your job. Because you're being an enabler.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[some_user86]

Proved what? You don't know the facts, you are convicting the troops before there has been definitive evidence.

Proved what? Proved nothing. I didn't say I proved anything. Are you putting words in my mouth? I just provided the facts that have led me to my opinion. There has been enough details to say that we have more criminals in our military than at any other time, and they're putting true loyal soldiers in harms way. Witness the death of Pat Tillman by "friendly fire".


if you're so set on your belief about the murders, then let your actions speak and quit your job. Because you're being an enabler.

Put your money where your mouth is.


My job is to create medicines that'll save all soldiers, wether patriots or criminals, in addition to the possible innocent civilians/collateral damage that'll get treated by the US military. These medicines will trickle down to general US civilian use in the future. If I was a weapons manufacturer, I'd be enabling war. As it is, medicines don't give a crap who you are or what you do. I'm more than willing to create medicines that'll save if only just one innocent, good-hearted man.