clarksville
|
posted on August 13, 2003 08:56:06 AM new
On the news yesterday I heard the reason the government is fining the "human shields" was for their "travel" to Iraq.
I can't find any links on the internet that specifies their reason for the fines for verification.
If this is so, then can we expect Sean Penn to be fined as well? Or are they just picking on those who are preceived as being vulnerable, who would simply pay the fine without fighting it?
The news report also stated they have been actively fining those who traveled to Cuba, so they aren't picking on just the travelers to Iraq.
|
mlecher
|
posted on August 13, 2003 08:59:11 AM new
The bigger question:
Will they fine the large corporations that were "caught" doing business with Iraq? Such as the tobacco companies?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 10:25:06 AM new
Here's a link from Fox News 
Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."
She and others from 30 countries spread out through Iraq to prevent the war. She spent about three months there. Only about 20 of nearly 300 "human shields" were Americans, she said.
Fippinger, who returned home May 4, is being fined at least $10,000, but she has refused to pay. She could face up to 12 years in prison.
So....this is just one case. Should Sean Penn?? I don't think they could as I don't believe he acted as a 'shield' did he? He was just another embarassment to our country, imo.
forgot to add the link. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94366,00.html
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 13, 2003 10:26 AM ]
|
mlecher
|
posted on August 13, 2003 11:20:53 AM new
Linda
How many Americans got killed because of this "embarassment" called Sean Penn?
How many Americans got killed because of the lies spoken by the "embarassment" we call the President?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 11:29:22 AM new
mlecher - We won't ever know the amount of lives that were taken because of the Americans who protested this war. More specifically those who continued to protest after our troops were sent over there. That gave Saddam the support he needed/wanted. Personally I believe that's giving 'aid and comfort' to our enemies.
As far as the 'lies' I haven't seen that proven as of today. Just accusations from those who are from the 'angry left' who always opposed Bush.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on August 13, 2003 11:59:11 AM new
Linda, in my eyes, it's the protesters that are the checks and balances in any situation. Bush went to war with Iraq because of the al qaeda connection and the imminent threat of nuclear attack, both of which remain unproven. I believe so many have died in this war because it was a mistake and poorly thought out. Also, it might end up being a criminal act if nothing is found to substantiate Bush's claims, so in fact, HE'S the one that's responsible for so many deaths, not the protesters.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 12:19:43 PM new
Yes, KD...I know you disagree. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find one or two democrats that have stated removing a leader like Saddam was the wrong thing to do.
Nothing has been proven at this point. It's just politics as usual.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on August 13, 2003 12:31:56 PM new
"mlecher - We won't ever know the amount of lives that were taken because of the Americans who protested this war. More specifically those who continued to protest after our troops were sent over there. That gave Saddam the support he needed/wanted. Personally I believe that's giving 'aid and comfort' to our enemies. As far as the 'lies' I haven't seen that proven as of today. Just accusations from those who are from the 'angry left' who always opposed Bush."
Saddam did not "need/want" emotional support from the American people. That's a silly concept. And I am so tired of redirected blame from you Bush lovers. George W. Bush and his administration are directly responsible for the thousands of lives that were lost in Iraq and for the daily number of wounded and dead. I can see that you are having difficulty recognizing the possibility that your president lied to the American people. Since no weapons were found, ready to be deployed in 45 minutes, you will have to admit that this administration was at the very least, grossly incompetent. They deliberately manipulated and exaggerated the information used to justify war to the American people -- outrageous lies! And, you bet, the people are angry about that!!!
Removing saddam was not a good thing to do at the expense of thousands of lives and loss of credibility throughout the world and at home.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 12:40:44 PM new
That's a silly concept. Not silly at all. Especially given the fact that Saddam used the protestors to show the support he had against the invasion. He said it himself Helen. No denying that.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on August 13, 2003 12:44:06 PM new
It's beyond silly. It's ludicrous to think that the war protesters offered support to Saddam.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 12:56:02 PM new
Removing saddam was not a good thing to do at the expense of thousands of lives and loss of credibility throughout the world and at home.
How casually you gloss over all the massive grave sights that have been found of those murdered by Saddam. Do their lives not matter to you to the point you think it would have been better to have let that continue?
Do you have one or two elected democrats that you've read say it's not a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power? I haven't.
This is just one example of what leads me to believe that your political opinions are only shared by a very small minority of the **extreme** far 'left'.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:05:17 PM new
"Nothing has been proven at this point. It's just politics as usual."
How casually you say, "It's just politics as usual."
That latest spin on the lie, "it's just politics" must be devastating to those families who lost a son or daughter in Iraq.
Those massive graves are partially populated by the dead from previous wars. Besides that, Americans did not support this war because of "mass graves". You know that. Americans thought that the country was in danger.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:06:26 PM new
Linda, I'm not trying to be disagreeable - just so you know.
You can't go to war with another country just because the leader is bad. There has to be an immediate threat. You are right. Saddam is bad and needed to be ousted, but that still isn't a good enough reason to go to war. Terrorists and nuclear WOMD is what was needed to show immediate danger, so that's what was told to justify things. Those 2 things. All the "lefties" want, is to see these 2 things and there will be no more arguing. Why is that wrong?
|
mlecher
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:19:57 PM new
Want to know why it is wrong, KD.
Because it is not possible. It is not possible to prove those two things. So it is either spin, spin, spin or admit what everyone else with more brains than God gave a rock already knows, BUSH LIED! The CLUB OF THE COMPLETELY FOOLED would be forced to admit a few things:
The Protestors were right!
The Bush Presidency is nothing more than a fascist cabal gradually seizing absolute power!
And worst of all, THEY ARE WRONG!
They would rather lie to themselves than admit to that.
Coming up next in a neo-con second.....BLAME CLINTON!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:20:46 PM new
Helen - I am the parent of a currently serving Marine. ALL parents worry about their childrens safety. NO parent wants their child to be maimed or killed. PERIOD.
The soldier themself made the decision to enlist. They are aware they might be called on to do as their Commander in Chief requests. Just as they were when Clinton took our troops to foreign lands...and other presidents had done before them.
I have read many accounts from families of the service people. They supported the war. We hear both sides....you listen to only the side that most supports your political position. That's what I meant by it's all politics.
Now, you're saying we're putting a 'spin' on the charge that an unproved spin has been placed on the supposed lie. LOL.... Helen....that's called 'crazy making'.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:28:23 PM new
KD - You can't go to war with another country just because the leader is bad. There has to be an immediate threat.
Where's that written in the law? A president can do exactly what he did.....hell clinton did it and he didn't go before congress and get the okay that Bush did.
How do you see a difference here when clinton, and bush1 and all their intelligence said and did the same thing about/with Saddam?
I've never been able to understand how you guys can blame bush for this when bush1 and clinton said and did the same thing.
I'll support any president of my country who feels there is a threat to our nation to take action that they believe is necessary. This is just a political 'tool' the democrats have used.
And I've asked before...but received no answer [that I can remember] about why would Saddam have fought the UN for 12 years if he had no WOMD? He could have had the US off his back since 1991. He didn't. He played games with the UN inspecters for years.
The blame lies at his feet....not any of the three presidents who were doing there best to keep Saddam in control....or with Bush who decided to just remove the threat, once and for all.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:29:55 PM new
clarksville - we have, once again, gotton off your topic of the 'human shields' and Sean Penn.
sorry for my part in that. I did try and stay on topic.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on August 13, 2003 01:31:38 PM new
A lie is a lie, Linda.
It's not an "uproved spin" or a "supposed" lie, it's a definate falsehood.
LOL....Linda
|
Helenjw
|
posted on August 13, 2003 02:13:16 PM new
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when Clinton was president! But after bombing and after years of sanctions and the harassment of inspections, Saddam's arsenal was reduced and ultimately disposed of so that, when Bush wanted to go to war, there were no WMD. At that point, what did Bush do? He lied and said there were some of the most lethal weapons ever devised in Iraq.
When Clinton told the American people that there were WMD in Iraq, he told the truth.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
|
Linda_K
|
posted on August 13, 2003 02:24:32 PM new
But after bombing and after years of sanctions and the harassment of inspections, Saddam's arsenal was reduced and ultimately disposed of so that, when Bush wanted to go to war, there were no WMD. LOL LOL LOL
Glad you're so sure of that. Clinton wasn't sure of that when he recently stated....we didn't know what was destroyed and what was still there. [paraphrasing - you've read the post here before]
Want to answer any of MY above questions.....maybe in another thread where we'll be on topic?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on August 13, 2003 02:46:57 PM new
The WOMD Clinton was looking for were chemical and biological, unlike the nuclear ones Bush is looking for. Even then, Iraq was only suspected of wanting to go nuclear because they were supposedly, trying to get nuclear power plants operating.
But even if you get rid of all the Bush said, Clinton said, you're still left with what they've done. If you'd still choose another 4 years of war, job losses, corruptness and unreal defecit spending, and say that's better than what Clinton did, then you're bonkers. 
|
austbounty
|
posted on August 13, 2003 03:08:43 PM new
“””Prohibited American citizens from engaging in
"virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq." “””
Who would have guessed that meant, recreational trips too Iraq or political protest/demonstration in Iraq.
If they meant to prohibit TRAVEL to Iraq, why didn’t they just say so.
What’s the difference you asked Linda:
Here’s one:
When Bush II went to war, he knew that after 12 years the biological weapons had lost their ‘fizz’; they were X-WOMD.
Bush II’s motive had X-Validity.
|
colin
|
posted on August 13, 2003 03:10:02 PM new
Sean will pay for his decision with a lack of work. He's lost his "Star" statues already.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
Rt. 67 cycle
http://www.rt67cycle.com
|
austbounty
|
posted on August 13, 2003 03:23:32 PM new
Dixie Chicks are still doing ok I hear.
Real Patriots aren’t afraid to nuke’em! 
Yeah! Forget Sadam & Ossama, let’s get Sean Penn.
|
clarksville
|
posted on August 16, 2003 10:55:58 AM new
Linda_K
Thanks for the info, but that doesn't satisfy my quest of knowledge.
I am trying to find out the specific laws covering "traveling" to designated countries such as Cuba and Iraq.
What I found the other day when I did a brief search was references to "travel ban" and "pre-war travel ban".
I did google searches for these two and found nothing.
It was either NPR.org or Fox radio that a government representative said that because they "traveled" to Iraq, they are being fined. So if just "traveling" to Iraq is forbidden, then why not Sean Penn.
|
orleansgallery
|
posted on August 18, 2003 01:42:25 PM new
Sean Penn should be fined for being ugly as sin and making movies that suck.
He used the war for publicity, just like marrying the ho bag madonna. Except in Penns case everyone wanted him to be a human sheild so badly!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on August 18, 2003 02:20:11 PM new
"... just like marrying the ho bag madonna"
And here I thought you were really religious orleansgallery. 
|
orleansgallery
|
posted on August 18, 2003 02:28:31 PM new
I think Ho bag is a great term for madonna. She pretends to lick women's coochies in her videos knowing full well America's kids are watching. She is a vile person without any artistic merit and she uses sex to exploit herself and others. In other words a "ho bag".
And Sean Penn is as ugly as satan after a hangover.
\
I don't know why you got your smily face going I ain't said nothing funny, not nearly as funny as the paranoid things you write on this forum. When do you have time to sell to the captilistic pigs on Ebay?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on August 18, 2003 02:34:03 PM new
Huh??
|
orleansgallery
|
posted on August 18, 2003 02:39:41 PM new
Huh yourself. You haven't caught a Madonna video on Satans MTV lately? the garbage dump of decadent American Youth on a boredom binge to sex corruption and
a alternative rock n roll hell? shes a washed up old wind bag hanging on by the last facelift she can have without erradicating her mouth.
Whats with the political bent of this forum anyway. Why is always boring pointless political drool when there are so many more fun things to talk about?
|
