On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:41:44 GMT, Paul Treadaway
<paul.treadaway@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Well one of the places is the UK. and we did not vote specifically for
it,
>as we don't vote specifically for any policy, and neither does anywhere
>else - rather we vote for a party, which is a package of policies. Except
>maybe Switzerland, where they can have a referendum on anything if
>enough people sign up for it.
In the UK they were built during WW2 war and were supposed to
tem****ary.
They even built some where they weren't supposed to.
Like Bushey Park when they had been allocated land in Bushey maybe 40
miles away.
But they broke their promise and stayed on.
There is also the Visiting Forces act which gives the camp commander
all rights concerning charges and punishments against his soldiers.
There was a case where a drunken sergeant took a jeep and drove on the
wrong side of the local roads, killing a kid on a motorcycle.
The commander had the arrogance to stop the inquest on the boy. The
coroner told him to eff off and he came back with a lawyer who pointed
out the relevant ****tion of the Visiting Forces act.
Under which even though the victim of the DUI was British, the
commander had sole control.
The sergeant was sent back to the USA and the case never resolved to
local satisfaction.
Not even an apology.
They behave far worse in many other countries. Like when a USAF
training flight at low level flew up the wrong valley bringing down
the cable cars going up the mountain. There was no admission of wrong
doing.
Or the stuff re****ted in Okinawa.
>"Katt" <kahgfghttt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>news:dCJhk.8809$5O6.1269@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Saw this somewhere and wondered if it's actually accurate...
>> -----
>> "Wa****ngton and its apologists continually insist that the US is 'not
>> an imperial power'. Yet of the 192 supposedly 'sovereign' states
>> recognised by the United Nations, no fewer than *133* have a US
>> military presence -- which, in each and every case, the population
>> was not consulted about; did not vote for; and cannot choose to
>> remove..." -----
>> Anyone know how I can confirm the figures...? The '192' does appear in
>> the wikipedia page for the UN...
>>
>> Ta.
>>
>> K.
>>
>>
>>
|
