PDA

View Full Version : will there be a draft after the midterms?



evince
08-23-2006, 04:30 PM
Do you think they will do it?

Damocles
08-23-2006, 04:35 PM
No. I don't think so.

Cancel7
08-23-2006, 04:38 PM
Do you think they will do it?

Not just out of the blue, they will need a reason. He is going to attack Iran, I believe that, whether he still believes after the Israeli debacle that he can do it with air power only, I don' t know.

We'd need a massive terrorist attack to take place, larger even than 9/11, they would waste no time pinning it on Iran, and then we would have our draft. I think that's how it would have to happen, if it does happen.

My personal feeling is that, before he is out of office, we may very well need one. He is pretty much dead set on fighting WWIII, as you probably have noticed Desh.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 04:39 PM
Do you think they will do it?

Doubt it. Outside of your volunteer professional army, I doubt virtually anyone is willing to die in Iraq, or in a war against Syria or Iran.

God knows virtually none of the NeoCons who cheer for a war with iran and syria, would go there to die.

A draft - particullary for unneccessary NeoCon wars - wouldn't be accepted by the american people.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 04:40 PM
Do you think they will do it?

Concerned of being drafted or don't fit that category? I doubt it will happen, not with the current circumstances, but that has been known to change overnight too...

evince
08-23-2006, 04:44 PM
If there is another 911 incident I think Bush could get the votes.

It terrifies me like nothing OBL ever did.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 04:45 PM
A draft - particullary for unneccessary NeoCon wars - wouldn't be accepted by the american people.

:bs:

Although morons like yourself would call me a neocon which I am not, I would certainly take pride in being drafted. I have no fear of being drafted, don't think I would fit the bill but I would'nt have to be asked twice.

And why is it you are certain in speaking for the American people, what is it that makes you think that your opinion resides in the mind of the American people to begin with?

I see it a bit different I guess but hey, if ya get drafted you can always run off to Canada instead......:igive:

evince
08-23-2006, 04:50 PM
how can anyone but a neo con support this stupid war?

Cypress
08-23-2006, 04:53 PM
If there is another 911 incident I think Bush could get the votes.

It terrifies me like nothing OBL ever did.

Bush is now a known liar. All polling show that the majority consider him a liar.

He blew his chance for greatness. I don't think he can lie us into another war.

Next time, if saudi, afghan, and pakistani-backed terrorists hit us again (like they did on 9/11), but won't be able to point to ANOTHER country (say, Syria for example) and say to the american people: "Hey, look over there! Syria is involved in this!"

He pulled that shit and diverted us to iraq. I think he will be questioned if he tries it again.

NOVA
08-23-2006, 04:58 PM
You must be assuming a Democratic win in the mid-terms...

after all, they are the only freekin' idiots that would introduce that kind of crap.....as they have in the past
--------

The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (search), D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.

The legislation in both chambers declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen and resident between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 05:01 PM
You must be assuming a Democratic win in the mid-terms...

after all, they are the only freekin' idiots that would introduce that kind of crap.....as they have in the past
--------

The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (search), D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.

The legislation in both chambers declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen and resident between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service.

Yeah, but we're only gonna institute a draft in congressional districts who's members voted for the war. The people who cheerled us into this disaster, should go serve in their war.

;)

evince
08-23-2006, 05:08 PM
IF enough of the people who back this stupid mess would join up and go we might have enough troops.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 05:20 PM
how can anyone but a neo con support this stupid war?

First, why not tell me what in your opinion is a necon?

I support the iraq war for many reasons unlike the so called 911 link that the majority here think was a big reason for going to war to begin with, as well as the wmd issue. Let me explain it this way, had the subject of wmd's had never of even come up prior to invasion I would of been in support of the idea of invading iraq. There was no way that saddam was ever going to comply with international law, who sits on opinion for this issue? The UN, in which had already sat on the issue for 12 years without a single knock towars iraq. saddam knew as well as most in the world that the UN is nothing to be worried about, it's a failed orginization by all means just about.

After 911 bush declared a war on terrorism wherever it is, I support that idea 100%, and to think that it could'nt have anything to do with iraq is rediculous, it is documented that there has been terrorist camps all along there.

So now that things have not gone smoothly what to do? Novel idea, let's not support the whole thing anymore..:rolleyes: I got news for you, the conservs were'nt the only ones in support of this idea initially.

NOVA
08-23-2006, 05:26 PM
Back in 2003 we had 1.4 million in the Armed Service...so in reality, there is more than enough...

Damocles
08-23-2006, 05:33 PM
Back in 2003 we had 1.4 million in the Armed Service...so in reality, there is more than enough...
That's only active duty. There is another million in the Reserves and Guard...

Care4all
08-23-2006, 06:46 PM
my husband has been having all of these unsettling nightmares that President Bush will declare martial law after another attack that will happen right at the 2008 election time, keeping President Bush in absolute power!!!

it is a reoccurring nghtmare!!! he's had it at least 5 times already...

and he's the republican in our family unit! hahaha! or, ex-republican!!!

you'd think, i would be the one, as the Democrat, having that nightmare!

i think his guilt for supporting bush in 2000 is catching up to him! hahaha! poor guy!!! well, at least in 2004 bush did not get his vote! :D (here's where you say, thank you care4all for knocking some sense in him! )

but i say NO on the draft...unless another terror incident happens....then ya better watch out!

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 06:54 PM
but i say NO on the draft...unless another terror incident happens....then ya better watch out!

It's inevitable, it's only a matter or when! You can refer to this post on why I see it as inevitable:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=10428&postcount=80

Thing is, who's fault will it be as if it will be the most important topic of the day!

NOVA
08-23-2006, 06:59 PM
There is help for this Care.....


Movement to Classify 'Liberalism' as Mental Disorder Gains Steam

Worry_thumbThink that some of President Bush's judicial nominees are 'out of the mainstream'? Worried that John Bolton may not have the temperament to represent the U.S. at the U.N.? If some Republicans get their way, there may soon be an official diagnosis of what really ails you: political paranoia disorder.

American Psychiatric Association approves the inclusion of "Political Paranoia" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

By Hermione Slatkin, medical correspondent

Selftest_1NEW YORK, NY—When Zacharia Goodman recently sought out the help of a therapist, it was no mystery as to what was ailing him. The 27-year-old copy editor was so consumed by his belief that President George W. Bush stole the 2004 election that he was having trouble sleeping, completing rudimentary tasks at work, and carrying on conversations about topics not related to politics.

The therapist he consulted wrote Goodman a prescription for the social anxiety drug Paxil and encouraged him to spend less time reading left-wing Web logs and listening to Air America.

tianabautre
08-23-2006, 07:03 PM
Well if we have to, lets start with red districs. But before we get to that point, I think the army should heavily recruit at republican events.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 07:06 PM
Well if we have to, lets start with red districs. But before we get to that point, I think the army should heavily recruit at republican events.

And why would you think that?

tianabautre
08-23-2006, 07:13 PM
And why would you think that?

Well, repubs/bush apologists have been cheerleading this debacle from the beginning. Since they are the ones that are so motivated I think they'd have better luck getting those people to join their quagmire.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 07:17 PM
Well, repubs/bush apologists have been cheerleading this debacle from the beginning. Since they are the ones that are so motivated I think they'd have better luck getting those people to join their quagmire.

Ok, but are you suggesting that only repubs/bush apologists as you would put it are the only ones in support of this particular war?

Man, the mainstream thinker here is quick to classify! Would it be a fair assesment then to assume all lib/dems are in favor of an instant pullout? I doubt it, but who am I to say as an instanly classified staunch neocon bush supporter.

maineman
08-23-2006, 07:23 PM
We went in to depose Saddam: mission accomplished

We went in to rid the world of Saddam's WMD's: mission accomplished even before we set one foot in Iraqi territory.

When did Bush ever tell us that we had to stay until the Iraqis were done with THEIR civil war before we could declare victory and leave?

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 07:27 PM
When did Bush ever tell us that we had to stay until the Iraqis were done with THEIR civil war before we could declare victory and leave?

I dunno, did he state that?

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 07:28 PM
:bs:

Although morons like yourself would call me a neocon which I am not, I would certainly take pride in being drafted. I have no fear of being drafted, don't think I would fit the bill but I would'nt have to be asked twice.

And why is it you are certain in speaking for the American people, what is it that makes you think that your opinion resides in the mind of the American people to begin with?

I see it a bit different I guess but hey, if ya get drafted you can always run off to Canada instead......:igive:

I was drafted and believe me it sucks.
Why wait to be drafted Evil, just join up. Or are you all blow and no go ?

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 07:30 PM
Well if we have to, lets start with red districs. But before we get to that point, I think the army should heavily recruit at republican events.

I wonder how the recruitment figures are at the ivy league schools ?

maineman
08-23-2006, 07:31 PM
He sure is saying we have to stay there and I cannot understand why. the things we went in there to do we've done.... and done poorly....

let's declare "victory" and leave. We have fucked up the middle east bigtime by removing the only guy who had been capable of keeping a lid on Iranian hegemony...now they are pulling strings all over the place.

The civil war will ultimately end up with the shiites - who are an overwhelming majority - winning and aligning themselves with Iran even further solidifying Iran's dominance.

Face it: we fucked up and stay there any longer will not unfuck things...it will only make us fewer, poorer, less safe, and more despised.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 07:33 PM
I was drafted and believe me it sucks.
Why wait to be drafted Evil, just join up. Or are you all blow and no go ?

Age is the issue pops, but tell ya what, got me a beautiful little daughter that needs me just the same but that did'nt stop my attempt to try. Now, got any brilliant ideas on how I can stymie my birth certificate so I could do this? Well even so as far as you and the like minded would feel it would be one last supporter, one last neocon, one last whatever else y'all like to call someone with opposing views...

So with that tidbit out of the way, hows it hanging pops? :cof1:

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 07:34 PM
We went in to depose Saddam: mission accomplished

We went in to rid the world of Saddam's WMD's: mission accomplished even before we set one foot in Iraqi territory.

When did Bush ever tell us that we had to stay until the Iraqis were done with THEIR civil war before we could declare victory and leave?

I guess you did not read the fine print written in disappearing ink. What is the matter with you? You are supposed to read all of that stuff. :)

Immie

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 07:36 PM
There is help for this Care.....


Movement to Classify 'Liberalism' as Mental Disorder Gains Steam

Worry_thumbThink that some of President Bush's judicial nominees are 'out of the mainstream'? Worried that John Bolton may not have the temperament to represent the U.S. at the U.N.? If some Republicans get their way, there may soon be an official diagnosis of what really ails you: political paranoia disorder.

American Psychiatric Association approves the inclusion of "Political Paranoia" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

By Hermione Slatkin, medical correspondent

Selftest_1NEW YORK, NY—When Zacharia Goodman recently sought out the help of a therapist, it was no mystery as to what was ailing him. The 27-year-old copy editor was so consumed by his belief that President George W. Bush stole the 2004 election that he was having trouble sleeping, completing rudimentary tasks at work, and carrying on conversations about topics not related to politics.

The therapist he consulted wrote Goodman a prescription for the social anxiety drug Paxil and encouraged him to spend less time reading left-wing Web logs and listening to Air America.


What no link ?

maineman
08-23-2006, 07:36 PM
Age is the issue pops, but tell ya what, got me a beautiful little daughter that needs me just the same but that did'nt stop my attempt to try. Now, got any brilliant ideas on how I can stymie my birth certificate so I could do this? Well even so as far as you and the like minded would feel it would be one last supporter, one last neocon, one last whatever else y'all like to call someone with opposing views...

So with that tidbit out of the way, hows it hanging pops? :cof1:

why didn't you serve your country when you were of fighting age?

maineman
08-23-2006, 07:37 PM
Age is the issue pops, but tell ya what, got me a beautiful little daughter that needs me just the same but that did'nt stop my attempt to try. Now, got any brilliant ideas on how I can stymie my birth certificate so I could do this? Well even so as far as you and the like minded would feel it would be one last supporter, one last neocon, one last whatever else y'all like to call someone with opposing views...

So with that tidbit out of the way, hows it hanging pops? :cof1:

why didn't you serve your country when you were of fighting age?

"other priorities" like Dick "shooter" Cheney?

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 07:41 PM
He sure is saying we have to stay there and I cannot understand why. the things we went in there to do we've done.... and done poorly....

Oh, you can't understand why? write him and tell him so, I'm sure it will weigh heavy on his mind and maybe he will have a change of heart!



let's declare "victory" and leave. We have fucked up the middle east bigtime by removing the only guy who had been capable of keeping a lid on Iranian hegemony...now they are pulling strings all over the place.

Well I agree Iran is in all over the place but to say that we fucked up the middle east is pretty sad, I think they probably helped the matter a bit themselves! You act if saddams influence was all that widespread outside of his own country, as if he would really make a difference in what Iran, and Syria have in mind with their visions for the middle east. So in essence the middle east would pretty much be at peace had we not went into Iraq?



The civil war will ultimately end up with the shiites - who are an overwhelming majority - winning and aligning themselves with Iran even further solidifying Iran's dominance.

Face it: we fucked up and stay there any longer will not unfuck things...it will only make us fewer, poorer, less safe, and more despised.
[/quote]

Well if you say so it must be true, think I will try an convert myself now!

Cypress
08-23-2006, 07:47 PM
I wonder how the recruitment figures are at the ivy league schools ?


Probably as shitty as they are at college republican clubs, and on rightwingnutter websites like FreeRepublic.com .

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 07:47 PM
why didn't you serve your country when you were of fighting age?

"other priorities" like Dick "shooter" Cheney?

Nope no real priorities, and still I classify myself as fighting age. I have no excuse other than the fact that there was no reason for it at the time, taking care of family seemed more important then doing the service routine, money was good and it would have been had I simply joined. Come to think of it I probably could have and should have enlisted during the initial gulf war, so I guess ya got me there. So what does this mean, I'm talking shit? that's cool, would'nt of expected you to accuse me of being truthful anyway.

So coon, whats your track record outside the UN service? don't feel the need to reveal, just curious.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 07:50 PM
why didn't you serve your country when you were of fighting age?

Anyone with a "little daughter" is almost certainly 42 years old or younger.

Bush raised the enlisment age up to 42 this year.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 07:51 PM
Maximum enlistment age upped to 42

By Melissa Vogt
Army Times staff writer

The Army has again raised its age limit for active-duty and Army Reserve recruits in hopes of expanding its pool of potential soldiers.

The new maximum enlistment age is 42 for both components, Recruiting Command announced Wednesday.


http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1886067.php

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 07:54 PM
Age is the issue pops, but tell ya what, got me a beautiful little daughter that needs me just the same but that did'nt stop my attempt to try. Now, got any brilliant ideas on how I can stymie my birth certificate so I could do this? Well even so as far as you and the like minded would feel it would be one last supporter, one last neocon, one last whatever else y'all like to call someone with opposing views...

So with that tidbit out of the way, hows it hanging pops? :cof1:

They just raised the enlistment age.
Did you have the daughter at 19 ?
Is it better to draft em and kill em off before or after they have children ?
You really need to condiser her safety from the islamofacialist terrorist types, heck she might wind up marrying one .

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:54 PM
NO kidding... Which blog is that from?

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:57 PM
Anyone with a "little daughter" is almost certainly 42 years old or younger.

Bush raised the enlisment age up to 42 this year.
Talk to David Letterman about that one. People are known to have daughters above the age of 40...

Cypress
08-23-2006, 07:58 PM
Talk to David Letterman about that one. People are known to have daughters above the age of 40...

LOL you're totally right.

Somebody just posted the other day, that 70-year old John McCain has an 18 year old son. Way to go John! He must have a young trophy wife ;)

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:59 PM
You must be assuming a Democratic win in the mid-terms...

after all, they are the only freekin' idiots that would introduce that kind of crap.....as they have in the past
--------

The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (search), D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.

The legislation in both chambers declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen and resident between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service.


A link:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13015&only

If you are posting other's copyrighted material please post a link... Thank you.

maineman
08-23-2006, 08:00 PM
Well I agree Iran is in all over the place but to say that we fucked up the middle east is pretty sad, I think they probably helped the matter a bit themselves! You act if saddams influence was all that widespread outside of his own country, as if he would really make a difference in what Iran, and Syria have in mind with their visions for the middle east. So in essence the middle east would pretty much be at peace had we not went into Iraq?


isn't that curious? When youy guys were selling this war, Saddam was a global threat to us so imminent we couldn't even wait another six weeks for Blix to tell us what we know now: that he didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's... but now that the place has turned to shit and the one thing that Saddam did well - contain Iran - ain't getting done and Iran is exerting HUGE influence all around the region...NOW... Saddam didn't have any influence outside his own country?? What WAS he? Terrrorist mastermind with his evil finger on the nuclear trigger...a threat so real and powerful we needed to waste a half a trillion dollars, kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 2613 Americans to depose right this instant? or regional tinhorn with no real influence?

You guys try to play this from both sides...it would be comical.... if it weren't so sad and so deadly

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:01 PM
NO kidding... Which blog is that from?
On the enlistment age Damo ? It is not a blog, I think it is 45 for the guard, but not entirely certain on that one. And some reservists specialists like DR's and such have been called up at nearly 60 yrs old.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:01 PM
Anyone with a "little daughter" is almost certainly 42 years old or younger.

Bush raised the enlisment age up to 42 this year.

Man if you just about the biggest pussy on this board! But yeah ya got me there, I am just below that age so it must of been a bit of a bullshit story I made up eh?

You wanna keep me on your ignore list and go ahead and quote others to say something to me? go ahead, it shows your true courage when it comes to debating an issue!

lalalalalalalalaloser.......

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:02 PM
On the enlistment age Damo ? It is not a blog, I think it is 45 for the guard, but not entirely certain on that one. And some reservists specialists like DR's and such have been called up at nearly 60 yrs old.
No, on the article from bravo. I found it and added it.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 08:06 PM
isn't that curious? When youy guys were selling this war, Saddam was a global threat to us so imminent we couldn't even wait another six weeks for Blix to tell us what we know now: that he didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's... but now that the place has turned to shit and the one thing that Saddam did well - contain Iran - ain't getting done and Iran is exerting HUGE influence all around the region...NOW... Saddam didn't have any influence outside his own country?? What WAS he? Terrrorist mastermind with his evil finger on the nuclear trigger...a threat so real and powerful we needed to waste a half a trillion dollars, kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 2613 Americans to depose right this instant? or regional tinhorn with no real influence?

You guys try to play this from both sides...it would be comical.... if it weren't so sad and so deadly

The denials from war apologists, that they went to war primarily over WMD and nuclear programs have been coming fast and furious recently.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:07 PM
They just raised the enlistment age.
Did you have the daughter at 19 ?
Is it better to draft em and kill em off before or after they have children ?
You really need to condiser her safety from the islamofacialist terrorist types, heck she might wind up marrying one .

Listen up dickhead! I can flame with the best of em, I can take being flamed all day long, but tell ya what, let's leave my daughter out of the equation right fucking now!

So what is it pops, ya wanna here me say that I am off to enlist tomorrow? well would ya believe me if I said I am in? Well ya know how that scenario goes...

maineman
08-23-2006, 08:12 PM
don't you think that YOUR children deserve the chance to be all sad and proud of their dead daddy like the kids of the 2613 GI's who have already died for this goatfuck?

Cypress
08-23-2006, 08:15 PM
don't you think that YOUR children deserve the chance to be all sad and proud of their dead daddy like the kids of the 2613 GI's who have already died for this goatfuck?

I actually think the idea of a draft has merit.

Let cheerleaders for unneccessary war face the prospect of dealing with the consequences of their choices.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:16 PM
Evil,
Of course I would not believe you. Why should I even believe you have a daughter. Most of your posts on here have been to snipe and flame, so why would I believe you ? But I said nothing bad about her (if she exists), and would not threaten anyones daughter. You brought a daughter up as the reason you did not enlist.
So don't bring up any rweasons why you sluff off on your military service and then take offense if someone discusses that subject.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:16 PM
A draft with no college exemptions and such.

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:18 PM
isn't that curious? When youy guys were selling this war, Saddam was a global threat to us so imminent we couldn't even wait another six weeks for Blix to tell us what we know now:

Who is you guys? it's really a convienient statement is't it? I mean because I support a particular issue I am conglomerated with the rest. Well guess ya better start hacking up Hillary as well seeing as she supported it as well at that time... O'oops I see that has already taking place here.. talk about the with us or against us mentality...:rolleyes:



that he didn't HAVE any fucking WMD's... but now that the place has turned to shit and the one thing that Saddam did well - contain Iran - ain't getting done and Iran is exerting HUGE influence all around the region...NOW... Saddam didn't have any influence outside his own country?? What WAS he? Terrrorist mastermind with his evil finger on the nuclear trigger...a threat so real and powerful we needed to waste a half a trillion dollars, kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 2613 Americans to depose right this instant? or regional tinhorn with no real influence?

You guys try to play this from both sides...it would be comical.... if it weren't so sad and so deadly

So when you stae an issue of influence, turn it back to WMDs or the mastermind of 911? is that noty withing half the already existing threads? I guess absolutely nobody in the world ever considered the fact that iran could become an issue here, as if they were just another quiet bunch minding their own business in the region.
I think the issue has probably been discussed somewhere along the line, but then again maybe none of the brass could possibly think at your super genius level! Hmmmm, I would guess that iran picked the perfect time, did ya not see it coming, was it all a sudden surprise?

maineman
08-23-2006, 08:19 PM
and I would not want evil or any other American to die in this stupid stupid counterproductive war in Iraq. NO American children should have lost their father or mother for this idiocy

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:21 PM
Ebvil we are paying people a lot of money to run our govt that should be smarter than burger slingers, but apparently they are not. and refused to listen to those who were smarter than they were. I guess loyalty is above quality now in our govt.

maineman
08-23-2006, 08:23 PM
Bush didn't even know there were such things as sunni and shiite muslims...he was completely unprepared and unqualified to make decisions about this war.... the shiites are going to win this bloody civil war... and they will undoubtedly align themselves with Iran.... and we will have gotten THAT putrid result and that alone, for all those lives and all that money when we could have been making our country safer..when we could have been fighting the folks who attacked us and disabling their network...

can't you SEE how terrible this thing has turned out?

NOVA
08-23-2006, 08:24 PM
http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/05/

Heres your link USCitizen...

I just hang onto it for laughs....Care's post was just the perfect time to use it..

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:25 PM
Evil,
Of course I would not believe you. Why should I even believe you have a daughter. Most of your posts on here have been to snipe and flame, so why would I believe you ? But I said nothing bad about her (if she exists), and would not threaten anyones daughter. You brought a daughter up as the reason you did not enlist.
So don't bring up any rweasons why you sluff off on your military service and then take offense if someone discusses that subject.

You got me there, I have not made any sense with a topic I chose to debate amongst because my opinion is the wrong one. That could be pops, but ya see, I at least express my opinion, yep my own. I think some of them may even be well thought out, but anyways while on the subject would ya wanna direct me to a few of your threads that exclude your two line wonders, or your copy & pasted articles?

Oh and by the ways pops, if you haven't noticed my flame thread is pretty large, I think 6 pages last I remember... pretty funny how a flame thread gets so large while I am the only one slinging them!

Damn, you guys make debating a topic fun! usually I can just refer to half the other topics posted and use the same replies...

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:29 PM
Ebvil we are paying people a lot of money to run our govt that should be smarter than burger slingers, but apparently they are not. and refused to listen to those who were smarter than they were. I guess loyalty is above quality now in our govt.

Ya think so? where is your beloved party outside of shooting down every damn thing this administration attempts to do, is it not a partisan thing going on there? Yeah well I have not been supportive in all their views, but is every single thing done thus far wrong?

So let's not talk loyalty and quality, not much of it exists on either side of the line, and if you think so, well........

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:31 PM
Oh and by the ways pops, if you haven't noticed my flame thread is pretty large, I think 6 pages last I remember... pretty funny how a flame thread gets so large while I am the only one slinging them!

Link = http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=539&page=4

Yeah I have noticed Dixies threads run long too, but that does not impress me.
Care has the record :)

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:35 PM
Ya think so? where is your beloved party outside of shooting down every damn thing this administration attempts to do, is it not a partisan thing going on there? Yeah well I have not been supportive in all their views, but is every single thing done thus far wrong?

So let's not talk loyalty and quality, not much of it exists on either side of the line, and if you think so, well........

I am trying to think of something good Bush has done......Perhaps if I sleep on it something will come to me. I am certain there is something he has done good that was not messed up. He even messes up supposedly good stuff like the medicare prescription pill bill, and the NCLB.
I will think on it tonight though and let you know tomorrow, might have to try and fish something off of Rush's site .

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:36 PM
Bush didn't even know there were such things as sunni and shiite muslims...he was completely unprepared and unqualified to make decisions about this war....




Let me ask ya this, do you think bush all himself comes up with the tactics used, war preperations, and such? yeah well I guess he does have to much power then..... who then is the real puppet afterall?....:rolleyes:


the shiites are going to win this bloody civil war... and they will undoubtedly align themselves with Iran.... and we will have gotten THAT putrid result and that alone, for all those lives and all that money when we could have been making our country safer..when we could have been fighting the folks who attacked us and disabling their network...

can't you SEE how terrible this thing has turned out?
Hmmm, I can't recall saying how wonderful things have turned out, are you talking to me or are you talking to what you think is MY mind ruler? I never said it was looking good, not once! but guess since I supported the damn thing I must have meant it was rosy all over!

Who exactly are the folks according to you that attacked us, and where might we find these so called folks? pinpoint that for me will ya?

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 08:39 PM
Attacked us as in 911 ? Hmm I believe several were from our good ally Saudi Arabia. Bush has said that OBL does not matter anymore ?

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:40 PM
I am trying to think of something good Bush has done......Perhaps if I sleep on it something will come to me. I am certain there is something he has done good that was not messed up. He even messes up supposedly good stuff like the medicare prescription pill bill, and the NCLB.
I will think on it tonight though and let you know tomorrow, might have to try and fish something off of Rush's site .

Tell ya what, while sleeping on that one drop your partisan ways, then rethink the issues at task.... Wonderful, now if the rest of them can do it perhaps some good stuff could turn about but for the love of god it will never happen! Ya can't even come on a website these days if you are not firmly planted with one or the other...... United we stand, divided we fall ring of any kind of bells???

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:45 PM
Attacked us as in 911 ? Hmm I believe several were from our good ally Saudi Arabia. Bush has said that OBL does not matter anymore ?

I think all may of been for that matter but what about it? have I been stating in every thread how iraq masterminded 911, have I been saying iraq harbored the 911 perps? nope, simply stated that iraq was known to be running terrorist camps, and were a problem prior to 911.

Now tell me, how is the capture of OBL going to change the face of things, he's one man! Oh I see, that may win some hearts and minds here at home and finally put a bit of a rosy picture on things?? C'mon, OBL will spend his days cave dwelling & bunker jumping! if caught it would be nice, but it ain't going to amount to shit on the grand scheme of things....

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:47 PM
What, is the bombardment over already? I figure cyphilis to be a pussy right from day one but I thought there the rest were semi hard core! C'mon now, make me a believer in the one way thinking system!!!

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 08:49 PM
So coon, whats your track record outside the UN service? don't feel the need to reveal, just curious.

Oh, no further update on this one?

Ahhh, what a buch of shitbricks.....fire me up for a good one here and then leave me hanging.......:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

maineman
08-23-2006, 08:56 PM
Oh, no further update on this one?

Ahhh, what a buch of shitbricks.....fire me up for a good one here and then leave me hanging.......:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mostly sea duty...mostly destroyers and replenishment ships... one birdfarm...command of a shore installation

Sir Evil
08-23-2006, 09:05 PM
mostly sea duty...mostly destroyers and replenishment ships... one birdfarm...command of a shore installation

Ya know what, it's really none of my business anyway, a mans track record in the service should'nt be questioned...... Ya got any proof of that record?:cof1:

Nah, I just get fired up when questioned on what I would and would'nt do but to be honest the topic did'nt need to get into that portion of personal info. Suggesting that drafting should be done at any political gethering of any sort or side is just plain assinined!!

So I guess you are an honorable man, you served I did'nt! I can live with it...

maineman
08-24-2006, 06:30 AM
the proof is hanging all over the walls in my office. but I am glad that we are square on this issue.

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 06:34 AM
the proof is hanging all over the walls in my office. but I am glad that we are square on this issue.

Because I said that you were honrable? I think anyone who has served is honorable! Now are you going to say my opinions are less valid as I have'nt served? that would tell a lot more about being square or not....

maineman
08-24-2006, 07:11 AM
you opinions about the war are no less valid than mine. Your understanding as to the consequences of war is not as well developed as mine. Your understanding of the middle east is not as well developed as mine. But I have NEVER suggested that those who have not served are any less entitled to their opinions about the legitimacy of this war. I have stated that those Iraq war cheerleaders who are of fighting age ought to go serve in this war that they so vigorously support so that members of the inactive reserve are not involuntarily forced back on active duty for lack of fresh cannon fodder.

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 07:43 AM
I have stated that those Iraq war cheerleaders who are of fighting age ought to go serve in this war that they so vigorously support so that members of the inactive reserve are not involuntarily forced back on active duty for lack of fresh cannon fodder.

Well then we need to be a little more square about things, I am far from cheerleadin any war at anytime. I don't think that anyone wants it to be a first option, I merely am in support of it. Now has your time served ever put you in the middle of a real conflict, or have you ever seen actual combat? if not how does that make you more suitable to argue either way about the conflict? if so how does it? I am friends with plenty of NAM vets that would love nothing more than to be serving right now, does that make them any better to argue this cause then you?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 07:43 AM
Back to the topic at hand, "Will there be a draft?"

I was thinking on this. They recalled Inactive Reservists in the Marine Corps, which has had no problems recruiting even during these times... I think that is a bad sign. They fill their recruitment requirements, yet they still recall them...

klaatu
08-24-2006, 08:01 AM
First, why not tell me what in your opinion is a necon?

I support the iraq war for many reasons unlike the so called 911 link that the majority here think was a big reason for going to war to begin with, as well as the wmd issue. Let me explain it this way, had the subject of wmd's had never of even come up prior to invasion I would of been in support of the idea of invading iraq. There was no way that saddam was ever going to comply with international law, who sits on opinion for this issue? The UN, in which had already sat on the issue for 12 years without a single knock towars iraq. saddam knew as well as most in the world that the UN is nothing to be worried about, it's a failed orginization by all means just about.

After 911 bush declared a war on terrorism wherever it is, I support that idea 100%, and to think that it could'nt have anything to do with iraq is rediculous, it is documented that there has been terrorist camps all along there.

So now that things have not gone smoothly what to do? Novel idea, let's not support the whole thing anymore..:rolleyes: I got news for you, the conservs were'nt the only ones in support of this idea initially.

Yes .. but if there were no WMD's he than was in compliance ... that's the enitire dispute Evil ... In the beginning I thought the same way as you .. but over time I am in agreement with the left .. we had no business going into Iraq ..and we need to get the hell out of there.

maineman
08-24-2006, 08:02 AM
Well then we need to be a little more square about things, I am far from cheerleadin any war at anytime. I don't think that anyone wants it to be a first option, I merely am in support of it. Now has your time served ever put you in the middle of a real conflict, or have you ever seen actual combat? if not how does that make you more suitable to argue either way about the conflict? if so how does it? I am friends with plenty of NAM vets that would love nothing more than to be serving right now, does that make them any better to argue this cause then you?

Go do some reading and find out what was going on in Lebanon in 1981 and 1982. See who was bombing whom.... see who was shooting at whom.... I was in the "middle" of that. In fact, my job was specifically to hop into a jeep whenever alerted to "real conflict" between UNIFIL forces and indiginous militia groups, or with IDF forces, and drive right into the "middle of the real conflict" and convince people to stop killing one another. At other times in my tour, my job was to stay on the radio at the Beirut UN office and inform New York that the buildings all around me were exploding after being struck with ordinance dropped by Israeli fighters. I would say that I have seen actual combat and that I have served in the middle of real conflict.

Again...I do not think that those who have not served are any less entitled to their opinion...I do , however, take offense when the cheerleaders of this war who are of fighting age not only do not show the courage to go fight in a war they helped bring about, but also call those of us who disagree with this horrible war cowards or traitors. Do you see my point?

And damo....I hope that if there is a draft, that we make it tight enough that the children of privilege cannot escape it by using college as a deferrment.

klaatu
08-24-2006, 08:07 AM
The dispute should no longer be do we need a draft .. it should be a time line for when we will withdraw our troops .. ... once we get this done .. a draft will not be neccessary ...

With this thought in place .. I am waiting for an assertive plan by the DNC and Congressional Candidates on how they plan to do this... Dean was not able to address this on Hardball last night ...

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 08:10 AM
Will there be a draft? When the fuck will this lying fearmongering stop? You guys have been playing the draft threat bullshit for over 2 years now, will you EVER give it up and stop trying to scare people?

It's almost been 2 years since the election and I notice we still have no draft. Nor is there any calls for one.

Isn't this very strange? The Left said leading up to the last election that Republicans would have a draft for sure, that Bush was gonna do it unless people voted for Dems and Kerry to make sure we don't get one.

To date the only politicians that have called for a draft for Iraq have been Dems.
Including Chuck Rangel, a Dem house member, who didn't just call for a draft, he introduced a bill to force one:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Where are their apologies? Will they apologize for their rampant, irresponsible and ultimately baseless fearmongering?

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 08:17 AM
The dispute should no longer be do we need a draft .. it should be a time line for when we will withdraw our troops .. ... once we get this done .. a draft will not be neccessary ...

With this thought in place .. I am waiting for an assertive plan by the DNC and Congressional Candidates on how they plan to do this... Dean was not able to address this on Hardball last night ...

So it is up to the dems to clean up Bush's mess ?

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 08:18 AM
Go do some reading and find out what was going on in Lebanon in 1981 and 1982. See who was bombing whom.... see who was shooting at whom.... I was in the "middle" of that. In fact, my job was specifically to hop into a jeep whenever alerted to "real conflict" between UNIFIL forces and indiginous militia groups, or with IDF forces, and drive right into the "middle of the real conflict" and convince people to stop killing one another. At other times in my tour, my job was to stay on the radio at the Beirut UN office and inform New York that the buildings all around me were exploding after being struck with ordinance dropped by Israeli fighters. I would say that I have seen actual combat and that I have served in the middle of real conflict.

And precisley why I made the question optional! But now that I have read your statements here are you saying that Israel was at fault during that conflict? is this about sides again? are you suggesting that terrorist groups are a solution to israel, or at least a path of no choice?



Again...I do not think that those who have not served are any less entitled to their opinion...I do , however, take offense when the cheerleaders of this war who are of fighting age not only do not show the courage to go fight in a war they helped bring about, but also call those of us who disagree with this horrible war cowards or traitors. Do you see my point?

And damo....I hope that if there is a draft, that we make it tight enough that the children of privilege cannot escape it by using college as a deferrment.
So we are back to questioning ones courage who have not yet served? So in essence you are saying that those who are in support of this war are the ones who help bring it about? well if that is the case I would think it would serve you well to go back to lebanon and join the uprise against israel then, you have pretty much used your time served as an argument here against israel, so would it be the proper assumption to make?

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 08:23 AM
So it is up to the dems to clean up Bush's mess ?

So is it up to this administration to clean up clintons mess? question of such beg to be answered, are there any definitive answers here?, do we need to go back to Lincoln and untangle the whole thing right from the begining? still I don't think one can answer the other. Bottom line is that dems will live to fight another day, and the repubs will then turn the table of argument, this is a neverending cycle so how can a who's right or who's wrong answer be determined?

klaatu
08-24-2006, 08:30 AM
So it is up to the dems to clean up Bush's mess ?

Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 08:37 AM
So is it up to this administration to clean up clintons mess? question of such beg to be answered, are there any definitive answers here?, do we need to go back to Lincoln and untangle the whole thing right from the begining? still I don't think one can answer the other. Bottom line is that dems will live to fight another day, and the repubs will then turn the table of argument, this is a neverending cycle so how can a who's right or who's wrong answer be determined?

clean up clintons mess ? Well I would much rather clean up after a donkey than an elephant. It is an issue of volume :)

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 08:39 AM
Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...

Kalatu you were for the war before you were against it ? or at leastr supported the person/group that got us into this mess. And now you expect those who were mostly against it to clean it up :rolleyes:

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 08:40 AM
Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...
The Dems won't withdraw because they have nothing to gain politically from it, people will always blame Bush and congress gets a free ride. If you doubt that then simply look at how many Dems voted for Iraq and talked about WMD and they took ZERO accountability for that, why on earth would you trust them now? Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it, the Dems lie and pretend that they were never for Iraq or thought there was WMD. You're not a naive guy klaatu, so why would you trust the same Dems now?


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

LadyT
08-24-2006, 08:43 AM
Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...


The problem is that the dems are horrible at PR battles and they ALWAYS let the republicans set the stage for debate. They've got a machine ready to label anyone a "cut-n-runner" for even suggesting getting out of Iraq as though getting out of Iraq is a bad thing.

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 08:45 AM
clean up clintons mess ? Well I would much rather clean up after a donkey than an elephant. It is an issue of volume :)

It's a partisan opinion, you are still clearyly drawing a line between the two!
Why do you see the clinton term as a huge success?

LadyT
08-24-2006, 08:46 AM
The Dems won't withdraw because they have nothing to gain politically from it, people will always blame Bush and congress gets a free ride. If you doubt that then simply look at how many Dems voted for Iraq and talked about WMD and they took ZERO accountability for that, why on earth would you trust them now? Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it, the Dems lie and pretend that they were never for Iraq or thought there was WMD. You're not a naive guy klaatu, so why would you trust the same Dems now?


One word: Lieberman.

evince
08-24-2006, 08:46 AM
Because it was!

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 08:47 AM
The problem is that the dems are horrible at PR battles and they ALWAYS let the republicans set the stage for debate. They've got a machine ready to label anyone a "cut-n-runner" for even suggesting getting out of Iraq as though getting out of Iraq is a bad thing.

I have a hard time seeing it that way, in fact I think the dems have been a huge success in the PR battle since the bush administration.

klaatu
08-24-2006, 08:49 AM
Kalatu you were for the war before you were against it ? or at leastr supported the person/group that got us into this mess. And now you expect those who were mostly against it to clean it up :rolleyes:

Well ... didnt you vote for a guy who was for the War and then against it....

USC .. you are not making any snese here.. are you telling me your big tent party isnt going to make room for people like me who have changed their minds about the Iraq Cluster fuck?

Yes... I would like the opportunity to vote for people who have a clear plan for cleaning up the cluster fuck that is Iraq .. .....

Now what is it that you dont seem to get about this position ..?

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 08:49 AM
Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it
//

When, where ? I think I must have missed that somehow.

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 08:54 AM
One word: Lieberman.
Punishing Lieberman = withdrawing support, NOT withdrawing from Iraq

The bottom line is that the house whips and senate leaders for both parties call the shots and all of those 4 are looking for a national reaction to their platforms, (not a more lefty Connecticut one).
And far more importantly than that why would they sate a group that are already supporting them, what do they have to gain?
Sure most anti-war supporters support Dems, but so do most blacks and both are largely ignored because of their overwhelming support for Dems. These are politicians looking to grow voting bases and it's not enough for them to sate their base.
I'm in the same boat, because Bush has done nearly nothing economically Conservative because Rove knows that it's not like guys like me are going to vote for even worse spending Dems.

LadyT
08-24-2006, 08:54 AM
I have a hard time seeing it that way, in fact I think the dems have been a huge success in the PR battle since the bush administration.

Ummm yeah......as exampled by their minority positions in the house, senate, and WH.

Not at all. I think the dems have had their a$$es handed to them in the realm of PR. There is no rational explanation as to why Bush won in 04. Given his track record at the time, fiscal conservatives especially should have been furious, yet moderates like Klaat and Immy still casted their vote for Monkey boy. The republicans had done a wonderful job swift-boating Kerry, villifying his wife, and painting him as a weak candidate. When hte truth is, he was infinitely better than Bush.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 08:55 AM
Yes .. but if there were no WMD's he than was in compliance ... that's the enitire dispute Evil ... In the beginning I thought the same way as you .. but over time I am in agreement with the left .. we had no business going into Iraq ..and we need to get the hell out of there.

That "really" is the BOTTOM LINE Klaatu!!!

But we do have much bigger problems than we think, and all brought ON by the moves this administration has taken.

-One, we left Saudi Arabian bases behind and moved in to Iraq...with our military, as Bin Laden had asked us to do....(He wanted us out of Saudi Arabia/Mecca, their Holy Land and said that this is the reason he set off 911, if you can remember that far back...but he did say that, cuz I remember reading about it)

So, we oblidged him...and left Saudi Arabia and closed our bases there after we attacked Iraq....:(

Now let me confess, that I was one of the Democrats at the time that thought that we should be removing our troops out of Saudi Arabia...

(in defense of myself)... because it was already 10 years after the gulf war, nothing of significance had happened with Saddam after the gulf war, and I KNEW that I had read that 97% of saddam's arsenol, including all WMD's that he had stockpiled, HAD BEEN DESTROYED....by our armies during the Gulf War and the inspections that did take place and some airstrikes there afterwards.

So I NEVER thought the administration was telling us the truth regarding Saddam's threat to us and was never caught up in the lies we were told or rather "deceitfully implied" by them...regarding Saddam's threat. And in addition to this, I had read that more than 80% of his Army had been wiped out by us in the Gulf war too....

In addition to this, Saddam had it too good imo...he was living the life of luxury, (and it turns out with all the money he was skimming from the oil for food program, he WAS living life on the hog, soto say)....

So why in Heaven's name would he give away some wmd's to terrorists that he had differences with otherwise, so that they could attack us or why would he, himslef attack us with Wmd's when HE KNOWS, THAT WITHOUT A DOUBT, the USA, would blow HIM in to oblivian if he did!

And it has never been said that saddam is stupid or an idiot...

So I thought that it was about time that we "high tailed" it out of there and voiced this at the time!

Okay, back to my point! :)

Two- We have PUT the Shiites in power in Iraq...who are the same BLOOD as the Shiites in power in Iran...the other (and more real) axis of evil.... (supposedly)

There was a protest in Bagdhad of 100,000 Shiite Iraqi's, in support of Hezbollah, and rebuking America and Americans and Israel...that ought to tell ya who the citizen's of Iraq support...NOTE, there was no counter protest in Iraq....

Hezbollah is held up and armed by Iran and Syria....and many, at least 100k of their supporters live in Iraq and are also part of the very people that we are training to defend Iraq from the so called Insurgence.

When if you go deeper in readings, you will find out that the SHIITES are causing most of the suicide bombings and are the ones that are wearing Iraqi police uniforms and slitting the Sunni's throats, TO ENTICE war and unrest...the police say their uniforms were stolen over and over again and crap like that, but COME ON, they are their relatives and tribesmen that are causing alot of the trouble over there...

And these relatives and tribes men that are really one faction of the insurgence, are Shiites FROM IRAN....yes Iran.... not AlQaeda and terrorism, but state sponsored terrorism in a way...imho.

We are in ONE HELL OF A MESS, supporting in gvt the very tribe that is in power in Iran....gees louise, what the hell were we thinking about the invaision of iraq and the further plans thereafter?

Three- Iran had dabbled in enriched uranium when he wasn't supposed to under the Clinton administration...BUT since Bush declared him "an Axis of evil", number two or number three, and Bush had already annialated and attacked number 1 PREMPTIVELY I might add....

Iran has 6 folded his enriched uranium yearly production and an estimate of 5-7 years he should have a few nukes available to him...SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH THREATENED HIM AND ATTACKED IRAQ...

part of this is because we refused to talk to him honestly and the Bush tactics and LACK OF DIPLOMACY SKILLS...

there's more to all this too...but this is already wayyyy too long!

So knowing all of this, what should we do now, with Iraq? Redeploy but most certainly stay in the region and then pursue peaceful means to stop Iran?

Not worry about it?

we are in a pickle in my opinion!

care

klaatu
08-24-2006, 08:55 AM
The Dems won't withdraw because they have nothing to gain politically from it, people will always blame Bush and congress gets a free ride. If you doubt that then simply look at how many Dems voted for Iraq and talked about WMD and they took ZERO accountability for that, why on earth would you trust them now? Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it, the Dems lie and pretend that they were never for Iraq or thought there was WMD. You're not a naive guy klaatu, so why would you trust the same Dems now?


Well ...if you mean setting themselves up for 2008 .. you may be right. But then again .. if they have a majority in both houses .. attempts at forcing a withdraw would also gain them points for 2008.

Look.. I believe that Iraq was a big mistake .. I tend to agree that our presence there has fueled the fire. Iraq is not part of the War on terror .. Iraq is a power struggle for regional dominance... and we really are on the wrong path with that type of thinking. The path we should be on is Energy Independence so we could lesson our reliance on the middle east.

If the Dems are calling for a quick withdraw and they have a realistic plan ... They will have my ear.

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 08:57 AM
Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it
//

When, where ? I think I must have missed that somehow.

Bush wanted Iraq because of WMD, many Dem senators wanted Iraq because of WMD. Which of those 2 tries to pretend that they were never for Iraq and that is was all the other guy's opinion about their being WMD in Iraq?

Bush doesn't come out and say he is responsible, but he doesn't deny it either and that is at least a cut above Dems.

maineman
08-24-2006, 08:59 AM
And precisley why I made the question optional! But now that I have read your statements here are you saying that Israel was at fault during that conflict? is this about sides again? are you suggesting that terrorist groups are a solution to israel, or at least a path of no choice?

I am quite PRO-Israeli... I DO think, however, that Israel was less than precise or proportional in its latest lebanon offensive. I know that as long as Israel controls the old city of Jerusalem and as long as there are muslims in this world, there will not be peace.

So we are back to questioning ones courage who have not yet served? So in essence you are saying that those who are in support of this war are the ones who help bring it about? well if that is the case I would think it would serve you well to go back to lebanon and join the uprise against israel then, you have pretty much used your time served as an argument here against israel, so would it be the proper assumption to make?

Again...you have misunderstood my position - especially about Israel. I am a strong Israel backer.... That does not mean that I do not reserve the right to be critical of Israel if it acts irresponsibly. Bombing Christian neighborhoods in east Beirut, bombing Lebanese Army barracks in Tripoli - are irresponsible acts and only serve to UNITE the arab world against them. Israel miscalculated the temperment of Lebanon. They felt if they could inflict harm on the country and make the point that it was Hezbollah's fault for starting it, that the sunnis, christians and druze in Lebanon would disenfranchise the shiites in hezbollah. They were wrong.

And yes.... I firmly believe that without the support of a majority of America - Bush would not have been able to wage war against Iraq. Those Americans who supported the war AND CONTINUE TO DO SO and are of fighting age need to go fight in it. The Marine Corps just called up INACTIVE fucking reservists yesterday, for crissakes! Asking reservists who had done their active and reserve bits to leave their jobs and families to go fight in this war while there are supporters of fighting age who hide behind someone's petticoats is despicable

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 09:03 AM
Well ...if you mean setting themselves up for 2008 .. you may be right. But then again .. if they have a majority in both houses .. attempts at forcing a withdraw would also gain them points for 2008.
With who? People that already support them? See my message above to LadyT.



Look.. I believe that Iraq was a big mistake .. I tend to agree that our presence there has fueled the fire. Iraq is not part of the War on terror .. Iraq is a power struggle for regional dominance... and we really are on the wrong path with that type of thinking. The path we should be on is Energy Independence so we could lesson our reliance on the middle east.
You're right that Iraq was a mistake, but trying to morph a mistake into an agenda is disingenuous. We are not interested in regional dominance as we pulled out troops from Saudi Arabia after Iraq (which has far more oil).
We don't need to become energy independent anymore than we need to be clothing independent. That's what trade is for.



If the Dems are calling for a quick withdraw and they have a realistic plan ... They will have my ear.
The Murtha resolution included no calendar dates, purposely.

klaatu
08-24-2006, 09:03 AM
That "really" is the BOTTOM LINE Klaatu!!!

But we do have much bigger problems than we think, and all brought ON by the moves this administration has taken.


So knowing all of this, what should we do now, with Iraq? Redeploy but most certainly stay in the region and then pursue peaceful means to stop Iran?

Not worry about it?

we are in a pickle in my opinion!

care


I say withdraw asap(that doesnt mean tomorrow) ...use a withdraw of Iraq to bargain with Iran ... hold fort in area's that will peacfully accept us ..
Moving out of the region as much as possible will or should signal attempts to resolve with peacful means ..
Now.. this will prove out a couple of things ... we will be able guage the reaction of Iran ... Iran will be tested on the world stage ....

maineman
08-24-2006, 09:07 AM
Murtha's resolution may not have included calendar dates, per se, but it was QUITE comprehensive. If only the republicans in congress would have allowed it to come up for a vote.

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 09:08 AM
Ummm yeah......as exampled by their minority positions in the house, senate, and WH.

Not at all. I think the dems have had their a$$es handed to them in the realm of PR. There is no rational explanation as to why Bush won in 04. Given his track record at the time, fiscal conservatives especially should have been furious, yet moderates like Klaat and Immy still casted their vote for Monkey boy. The republicans had done a wonderful job swift-boating Kerry, villifying his wife, and painting him as a weak candidate. When hte truth is, he was infinitely better than Bush.

There is no clear explanation as to why bush won in 04? sure there is, more voted for him! Unless you wanna debate a conspiracy that is what we have to believe. I choose not to buy into conspiracy theories so I will stick to the fact that Kerry was a lousy candidate, yet you have already declared him better! how so, has his campign demostrated that?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 09:12 AM
I say immediately begin withdrawal of equal US troops each time new Iraqi troops pass from training to active duty. Talking up their troops as being able to "stand on their own" and make a HUGE deal of each returning soldier as well as our actual removal of troops. Only remove them to other bases in the area to watch over them... Sinop, Turkey would be a great place, Kuwait, etc... Prepare for Iran.

That is what I would put forward. That and to never again allow our Senate/Congress to go to "war" without a DECLARATION... I'm sick of the "I voted to allow him a lever to get cooperation, not to allow war." Declaration would end all those weak piddling, "I didn't think it was a vote for war..." backdoor simpering idiocies. Everybody else knew it was a vote for war.... I expect intelligent Senators to give me better reasons than that!

klaatu
08-24-2006, 09:13 AM
Dano .. read this article .. one of the best I have read in a long time ...

http://globalpolitician.com/articled...81&cid=2&sid=4

Care4all
08-24-2006, 09:13 AM
The Murtha resolution included no calendar dates, purposely.


its nice that you all admit to this now, but i believe it was one of YOUR STATE representatives Dano, that called murtha a CUT AND RUN TRAITOR, on the floor of the house of representatives...and YOU never spoke out about what she did and SAID!
so, is he a ''cut and runner'' or someone with no calendar dates of withdrawl?
:D

Cypress
08-24-2006, 09:15 AM
I say withdraw asap(that doesnt mean tomorrow) ...use a withdraw of Iraq to bargain with Iran ... hold fort in area's that will peacfully accept us ..
Moving out of the region as much as possible will or should signal attempts to resolve with peacful means ..
Now.. this will prove out a couple of things ... we will be able guage the reaction of Iran ... Iran will be tested on the world stage ....

Right. Get out of the middle of a civil war and redeploy to areas, where it is tenable to base US troops.

The kurds sort of like us. Redeploy to Iraqi kurdistan, Kuwait, and Qatar. We'll still be able to project power in the region, but we wont' be in the middle of a civil war.

Damocles
08-24-2006, 09:18 AM
I think there is a realistic way to claim victory as each new soldier is brought up in Iraq, one of ours leaves with great fanfare... "We are passing the torch on to our new allies whose strength is now... blah, blah, blah..."

TheDanold
08-24-2006, 09:19 AM
Murtha's resolution may not have included calendar dates, per se, but it was QUITE comprehensive. If only the republicans in congress would have allowed it to come up for a vote.
Nonsense, that would be the same as voting for a program without any budget numbers. You need numbers, so you can actually SEE what you are really voting for.
Good government doesn't pass vague bills of rhetoric.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 09:21 AM
those of you that support us staying the course in iraq, if you were the leader of Iran, and you knew you were the number 2 guy on a list of three axis of evils, and knowing number 1 had already been attacked, what would be your BEST TACTIC?




MY answer is that you would flood IRAQ with people causing havock...civil war tactics....

why, you ask?

because it will tie up the usa for some years and give me time to build up and pursue my aresenol....

and with shiites being the same tribe in both iran and iraq, it is RELATIVELY easy for iran to do such....imho!

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 09:22 AM
And yes.... I firmly believe that without the support of a majority of America - Bush would not have been able to wage war against Iraq. Those Americans who supported the war AND CONTINUE TO DO SO and are of fighting age need to go fight in it. The Marine Corps just called up INACTIVE fucking reservists yesterday, for crissakes! Asking reservists who had done their active and reserve bits to leave their jobs and families to go fight in this war while there are supporters of fighting age who hide behind someone's petticoats is despicable[/b]

Well then I guess it should be the majority of America joining the war then, right?

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 09:30 AM
Nonsense, that would be the same as voting for a program without any budget numbers. You need numbers, so you can actually SEE what you are really voting for.
Good government doesn't pass vague bills of rhetoric.

LOL, they sure did for bush on his war :)

Sorry you did say good government didn't you.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 09:32 AM
This war has prooved that the majority of the american people are sheeple easy to be misled.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 09:33 AM
Nonsense, that would be the same as voting for a program without any budget numbers. You need numbers, so you can actually SEE what you are really voting for.
Good government doesn't pass vague bills of rhetoric.


really? well that is PRECISELY what the republicans have DONE the last 6 years! like the iraqi war costs are never in the budget...while they claim how well they are doing on cutting or keeping the budget in line...

plus all of their omnibus bills, delivered the night before having to vote on it with all kinds of pork hidden in it........


sure dano...what you are saying is nothing less than hollow on this because you still ''hold up'' these idiots and make excuses for them! imo

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 09:46 AM
Although morons like yourself would call me a neocon which I am not, I would certainly take pride in being drafted. I have no fear of being drafted, don't think I would fit the bill but I would'nt have to be asked twice.

Why not jump the gun and enlist?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 09:48 AM
Although morons like yourself would call me a neocon which I am not, I would certainly take pride in being drafted. I have no fear of being drafted, don't think I would fit the bill but I would'nt have to be asked twice.

Why not jump the gun and enlist?
Been there done that.. AOI. He has already answered this one.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-24-2006, 09:49 AM
I don't expect a draft unless the US goes to outright war with Iran ... but that's a real possibility.

US forces are stretched. Keep in mind that it's not so much a matter of overall military size any more in Iraq. It's a matter of a few specific KINDS of troops: Mostly infantry with a smaller component of artillery, armor and rotary-wing air support and probably a downright tiny fixed-wing component. The cooks, B-52 pilots, etc. in the military might as well not be counted at THIS stage of THIS conflict.

If I had to guess, I'd say the bottlenecks are a) RECRUITMENT of infantry (it's just harder to get someone to sign up to carry a rifle or mortar right now) and b) TRAINING of field medical personnel and helicopter pilots (they don't just sign the contract and get handed their first aid kit or their Apache).

The US has the overall force size/strength to fight Iran, but it doesn't have the ground combat element size/strength to do so, especially with large pieces of that ground combat element already tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has three times the population of either of those other two countries, and a more modern military to boot ... and that population is much younger as well. They'll have no shortage of manpower. An air war will not break them. They lost a million dead in their war with Iraq and didn't say uncle.

On the "good news indications" front, I've seen no evidence that the Selective Service Administration is gearing up for an imminent draft. I serve on one of its local boards and they don't seem to be in any hurry to get us up to speed to be able to start processing deferment applications and such. The standards call for draftees to begin being inducted about 90 days from the time Congress says "go," but there would presumably be a ramp-up if Selective Service expected Congress to do so.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-24-2006, 09:56 AM
This war has prooved that the majority of the american people are sheeple easy to be misled.

Man, isn't that the truth! All the propaganda about oil pipelines in Iraq, revenge for daddy, PNAC, lying to the American people about WMD's, misleading us into a quagmire... I would have never imagined the American people to be so gulliable as to buy all the conspiracy theories and propaganda spun by sour-grapes Democrats looking to regain power, but they certainly have! You are absolutely right! Brilliant observation!

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:03 AM
Never come out of your own little world do ya Dix ?

Gaffer
08-24-2006, 10:10 AM
There will not be any kind of draft until the US is outright attacked on a much larger scale than 911 and more than one country is involved. It would have to involve a real long conflict that would take more than a few divisions to conquor the areas involved. we have much more high tech equipment now and the troops are a lot more highly trained. Small numbers of quality troops can do a lot more than a bunch of cannon fodder. A draft would not be pratical.

There is a definate conflict coming with iran. Would be nice if we could take them down the way it was done in afgan with a small number of troops, airpower and the locals uprising against the government.

As for the Marines being called back to duty. They are inactive reserve with special training that is needed or going to be needed soon. They have critical MOS's that take a long time to train people in and many are being called up not for duty overseas but to train new people in the jobs and get them ready. If they were all going overseas then get ready for a big invasion cause thats the only reason to bring these guys back in and put them directly into line.

Whether Bush made the right choices about iraq will not be known for at least another ten years. I do feel he underestimated the shea and iran. I think even he is being to recognize we are at war with islam. And iran is the head of it. When iran falls you will find OBL.

Whereever the troops are and whatever they are doing, I'm cheering them on. And I see the need of going after the enemy before he has the chance to strick. Pre-emptive action is an absolute must to prevent innocent people from getting killed. And I would rather our enemies innocent people get killed rather than ours.

I was drafted myself. I was a combat veteran before I was old enough to drink or vote. I know exactly what the troops over there are dealing with and how they feel. They volunteered and continual deployment is the main morale problem. But the ones there are the ones experienced in desert combat and conditions. That's an important factor in combat conditions.

I was very much for saddam being taken down. I also knew it would be a long occupation process before we could get out of there. I didn't expect there would be as much secular action as there has been. But then I did more reading about islam and now I can see where the problems with democranizing the middle east are going to be. It can't be done as long as islam is in control there. We are going to have to confront that at some point and it will be bloody. But whatever happens i'll be here with my pompoms cheering for the troops. My age and a quadruple bypass prevent me from serving again or you can bet I would be trying.

I salute SE for his loyalty to the country and had he been younger with less responsibilities I'm sure he would be over there now. The question here is, if called up to go serve how many would give up what they have to go? How many would hightail it for canada to avoid serving? So many on here love to critize and flame but I bet there are not many that would atually sacrifice their time and put their careers on hold for their country?

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 10:28 AM
Been there done that.. AOI. He has already answered this one.

Yes but the masses here wanna find a way or another to make me out the bad guy as I have supported the issue, if they can't twist the story to suit the argument this will make for a solid argument.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-24-2006, 10:29 AM
Never come out of your own little world do ya Dix ?


That is the beauty of living in reality!

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:30 AM
Pre-emptive action is an absolute must to prevent innocent people from getting killed. And I would rather our enemies innocent people get killed rather than ours.
//

What an ass.

Gaffer
08-24-2006, 10:35 AM
I don't expect a draft unless the US goes to outright war with Iran ... but that's a real possibility.

US forces are stretched. Keep in mind that it's not so much a matter of overall military size any more in Iraq. It's a matter of a few specific KINDS of troops: Mostly infantry with a smaller component of artillery, armor and rotary-wing air support and probably a downright tiny fixed-wing component. The cooks, B-52 pilots, etc. in the military might as well not be counted at THIS stage of THIS conflict.

If I had to guess, I'd say the bottlenecks are a) RECRUITMENT of infantry (it's just harder to get someone to sign up to carry a rifle or mortar right now) and b) TRAINING of field medical personnel and helicopter pilots (they don't just sign the contract and get handed their first aid kit or their Apache).

The US has the overall force size/strength to fight Iran, but it doesn't have the ground combat element size/strength to do so, especially with large pieces of that ground combat element already tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has three times the population of either of those other two countries, and a more modern military to boot ... and that population is much younger as well. They'll have no shortage of manpower. An air war will not break them. They lost a million dead in their war with Iraq and didn't say uncle.

On the "good news indications" front, I've seen no evidence that the Selective Service Administration is gearing up for an imminent draft. I serve on one of its local boards and they don't seem to be in any hurry to get us up to speed to be able to start processing deferment applications and such. The standards call for draftees to begin being inducted about 90 days from the time Congress says "go," but there would presumably be a ramp-up if Selective Service expected Congress to do so.

Regards,
Tom Knapp


Good assessment of things. I don't think there would be need of a draft for iran though. It would mean a lot more redeployment of troops tho. there's plenty in europe to draw on yet. And you didn't figure in the Navy carrier groups which pack a serious punch in any theater.

It would be even better if iran attacked us and we could draw NATO into it as well. I doubt there would be boots on the ground until the iran air defense and shore installations are nullified. Hopefully a good pounding of the islamic guard units would inspire an uprising and the people take back their own country.

There has been no shortage of infantry enlistments, there are a lot of young idealistic guys signing up for just that. One old retired sergeant I know always says "only infantrymen are real soldiers". The idealists either stay in as hardcore NCO's or they transfer to other jobs to get behind the lines.

Gaffer
08-24-2006, 10:43 AM
Pre-emptive action is an absolute must to prevent innocent people from getting killed. And I would rather our enemies innocent people get killed rather than ours.
//

What an ass.

That's pragmatic ass to you. Now crawl back under your rock.

Cypress
08-24-2006, 10:45 AM
There will not be any kind of draft until the US is outright attacked on a much larger scale than 911 and more than one country is involved. It would have to involve a real long conflict that would take more than a few divisions to conquor the areas involved. we have much more high tech equipment now and the troops are a lot more highly trained. Small numbers of quality troops can do a lot more than a bunch of cannon fodder. A draft would not be pratical.

There is a definate conflict coming with iran. Would be nice if we could take them down the way it was done in afgan with a small number of troops, airpower and the locals uprising against the government.

As for the Marines being called back to duty. They are inactive reserve with special training that is needed or going to be needed soon. They have critical MOS's that take a long time to train people in and many are being called up not for duty overseas but to train new people in the jobs and get them ready. If they were all going overseas then get ready for a big invasion cause thats the only reason to bring these guys back in and put them directly into line.

Whether Bush made the right choices about iraq will not be known for at least another ten years. I do feel he underestimated the shea and iran. I think even he is being to recognize we are at war with islam. And iran is the head of it. When iran falls you will find OBL.

Whereever the troops are and whatever they are doing, I'm cheering them on. And I see the need of going after the enemy before he has the chance to strick. Pre-emptive action is an absolute must to prevent innocent people from getting killed. And I would rather our enemies innocent people get killed rather than ours.

I was drafted myself. I was a combat veteran before I was old enough to drink or vote. I know exactly what the troops over there are dealing with and how they feel. They volunteered and continual deployment is the main morale problem. But the ones there are the ones experienced in desert combat and conditions. That's an important factor in combat conditions.

I was very much for saddam being taken down. I also knew it would be a long occupation process before we could get out of there. I didn't expect there would be as much secular action as there has been. But then I did more reading about islam and now I can see where the problems with democranizing the middle east are going to be. It can't be done as long as islam is in control there. We are going to have to confront that at some point and it will be bloody. But whatever happens i'll be here with my pompoms cheering for the troops. My age and a quadruple bypass prevent me from serving again or you can bet I would be trying.

I salute SE for his loyalty to the country and had he been younger with less responsibilities I'm sure he would be over there now. The question here is, if called up to go serve how many would give up what they have to go? How many would hightail it for canada to avoid serving? So many on here love to critize and flame but I bet there are not many that would atually sacrifice their time and put their careers on hold for their country?

I think even he is being to recognize we are at war with islam. And iran is the head of it. When iran falls you will find OBL.

I pray you become better informed, and don't mislead us into the wrong war, against the wrong enemy....again.

FYI: Bin Ladin is an extremist sunni. There are deep divisions between the shia and the sunni. Bin Ladin himself has recently called for sunni to kill shia (through his agents in Iraq, like Zarqawi), and has called the shia "traitors" and "agents of the americans". There is deep hatred for the shia, in the extremist sunni sects.

Iran is a shia state, who remains an enemy of the sunni arab states. The taliban, were in fact, the Iranians biggest enemies, after Saddam Hussein.

A smart, clever president, with a nuanced view of global geopolitics, would be able to exploit the divisions between shia theocrats and sunni extremists.




http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/01/binladen.message/index.html

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:47 AM
That's pragmatic ass to you. Now crawl back under your rock.
NO, cause you are already under there with dixie in a love clench :)

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 10:56 AM
NO, cause you are already under there with dixie in a love clench :)

LOL, whoever has an opposing view is related to dixie! this poor guy had to come to the damn interent to find long lost relations.:cof1:

maineman
08-24-2006, 10:57 AM
Nonsense, that would be the same as voting for a program without any budget numbers. You need numbers, so you can actually SEE what you are really voting for.
Good government doesn't pass vague bills of rhetoric.

students of good government know the difference between a bill and a resolution...

their ranks, obviously, does not include YOU.

Care4all
08-24-2006, 02:05 PM
Well, there is a back door draft going on now...is what they are saying?

By SCOTT CANON and RICK MONTGOMERY

The Kansas City Star


This was the plan in 1973: Dump the draft. Count on volunteers. When something big comes up, rely on the reserves and National Guard.

A special commission had told Richard Nixon the country could suffice with a smaller all-volunteer, active-duty military unless something really big came up.

Only in the case of a long-term, large-scale foreign deployment — define that as more than six months and 100,000 troops — would there be any need to bother with a draft again.

Now three-plus years since tanks rumbled into Baghdad, with more than 150,000 U.S. troops deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, the Pentagon is making do with thinly stretched volunteers.

Most recently, the Marine Corps announced the involuntary call-up of 2,500 troops in the individual ready reserves — people clearly obligated to fight if called but also expecting that their days in uniform were behind them.

“Up until now the Marines were able to recruit plenty of people and get them to come back just by asking. They’re the most gung ho of all the services,” said Lawrence Korb, who specialized in manpower issues as an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. “The fact that they’re forcing some Marines back into service is indicative of how military and former military people feel about this war.”

In a word, tired.

Already, the Marines had called some 5,000 troops voluntarily back into service. The Army has called back 5,000 soldiers from the ready reserves, most of them involuntarily, since Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition, so-called “stop loss” policies that protect the Army from losing people in high-demand specialties are freezing more than 10,000 soldiers in the service involuntarily and indefinitely. At times during the Iraq war, that number has risen to nearly 14,000.

Korb and others refer to it as a “back-door draft” — a means of putting enough boots on the ground without having to impose conscription on the general military-age population.

Nor are recruitment targets being increased to account for the 500 or so troops lost to battlefield deaths and injuries every month, he said.

“We can’t put in that factor because it would be too hot politically,” he said of the casualties. “It’s like the draft.”

While a few lonely voices call for a draft to spread the burden of military service and to force a national referendum on the occupation of Iraq, conventional wisdom in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill holds that such ideas will go nowhere.

Some in Congress have pushed to significantly increase the number of active duty troops, which the Bush administration has consistently resisted.

continued at: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15345565.htm

Cancel7
08-24-2006, 05:32 PM
why didn't you serve your country when you were of fighting age?


Oh please Mainman! You don't believe him do you? Never have I see such a long line of repukes who are all just dying to get into the military but have all been turned down! I had people like this on my old board. Remember that wing nut guy Cypress? Oh, they're all packing their little bags in the morning, all gung ho, well honey, I'm off to fight the A-rabs for apple pie, virginity and Lockheed Martin! Wish me luck, I'll write! And they finally get to the recruitment office after walking 12 miles through three feet of snow, and what do you think happens? At a time when they are so desperate for people that they're enlisting retards, these guys get turned down! And so, our heros, crestfallen, turn back around, spurned, but still heroic, and go back home to rejoin the 101st fighting keyboardists, with the battle cry "Well at least I tried to join!"

They are so full of shit I would not want to be walking behind them, I can tell you that.

Cancel7
08-24-2006, 05:50 PM
Back to the topic at hand, "Will there be a draft?"

I was thinking on this. They recalled Inactive Reservists in the Marine Corps, which has had no problems recruiting even during these times... I think that is a bad sign. They fill their recruitment requirements, yet they still recall them...

I read an article today, I don't remember where, but a bunch of vets were interviewed in it, it was a veteran's group I think, and they said that this is the last resort before a draft. It didn't look good to them.

Sir Evil
08-24-2006, 05:56 PM
I'm off to fight the A-rabs for apple pie, virginity and Lockheed Martin!

Well, never much cared for apple pie, we know you ain't no virgin, but would fight for the martini! :ILUM:

TRGLDTE
08-24-2006, 06:10 PM
Talk to David Letterman about that one. People are known to have daughters above the age of 40... It's not unusual.

Cancel7
08-24-2006, 06:12 PM
It's not unusual.

Hi! You came, yeeeaah.

I'm glad. It's fun here. A lot of serious debates, some of which are even smart, and a lot of off topic really fun stuff.

evince
08-24-2006, 06:16 PM
I read an article today, I don't remember where, but a bunch of vets were interviewed in it, it was a veteran's group I think, and they said that this is the last resort before a draft. It didn't look good to them.


I read that one too

Gaffer
08-25-2006, 08:17 AM
The Marines are calling up special MOS.s. They are not just pulling in guys to run a combat patrol. These are highly trained individuals in communications and things like that. They will be used in training the new troops. A lot of these position might be going unfilled because they are REMF jobs and the Marines in now prefer being in the action.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-25-2006, 02:48 PM
Care4All,

You write: "Well, there is a back door draft going on now...is what they are saying?"

There's no "backdoor draft." When you enlist in the armed forces, the contract clearly states the conditions under which you can be called up from the Individual Ready Reserve.

Until the first Gulf War, of course, none of us ever believed that would really happen (I went IRR in September of 1990, but managed to get back into my unit instead of waiting to be called up from IRR to a "casualty replacement company" as many of my friends were), but it's not like it's a secret. Do a search for the standard enlistment contract. There are two IRR callup provisions in it (one for when the president declares a state of emergency, the other requiring congressional authorization). The enlistee has to initial next to each one to signify that he or she understands and accepts it.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Blackflag
08-25-2006, 03:28 PM
Moral of the story is:

Learn 2 Read


I knew full well that this provision was in my enlistment contract when I joined. These people have no reason to complain.

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 03:38 PM
Moral of the story is:

Learn 2 Read


I knew full well that this provision was in my enlistment contract when I joined. These people have no reason to complain.

Oh man, telling it like it is! I love this post.......:clink:

Damocles
08-25-2006, 05:04 PM
Moral of the story is:

Learn 2 Read


I knew full well that this provision was in my enlistment contract when I joined. These people have no reason to complain.
It was made clear to us all that it was an 8 year contract with 4 active, and 4 Inactive Reserves... I fully understood that I could be called back after I was released.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 05:18 PM
Care4All,

You write: "Well, there is a back door draft going on now...is what they are saying?"

There's no "backdoor draft." When you enlist in the armed forces, the contract clearly states the conditions under which you can be called up from the Individual Ready Reserve.

Until the first Gulf War, of course, none of us ever believed that would really happen (I went IRR in September of 1990, but managed to get back into my unit instead of waiting to be called up from IRR to a "casualty replacement company" as many of my friends were), but it's not like it's a secret. Do a search for the standard enlistment contract. There are two IRR callup provisions in it (one for when the president declares a state of emergency, the other requiring congressional authorization). The enlistee has to initial next to each one to signify that he or she understands and accepts it.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

What is the congressional authorization one? When Congress legally and constitutionally declares a war or they write law to call you back up??? please explain...

So is it the PRESIDENT calling a state of emergency that is calling back up these guys? or is it congress that is calling back up these guys?

thank you in advance...

care

Care4all
08-25-2006, 05:22 PM
The Marines are calling up special MOS.s. They are not just pulling in guys to run a combat patrol. These are highly trained individuals in communications and things like that. They will be used in training the new troops. A lot of these position might be going unfilled because they are REMF jobs and the Marines in now prefer being in the action. Yes they are highly trained guys and we need more of them and less of the "muscle" of the army imho....they need to restructure their forces for today's world....but not through the back door... :D

care

NOVA
08-25-2006, 07:29 PM
You guys think this is all something new....My regualr enlistment was extended way back in 65,66....normal operating procedure....then and now...

And do you think the government just pays the reservists because it has extra money lying around? If you joined the Reserves, you should have realized what they were paying you for.....again ....NOP..

Annie
08-25-2006, 10:52 PM
Oh man, telling it like it is! I love this post.......:clink:

Me too, as well as Damos that follows. Honest guys, that put it all on the line. Thank you both!

Care4all
08-26-2006, 04:59 AM
Moral of the story is:

Learn 2 Read


I knew full well that this provision was in my enlistment contract when I joined. These people have no reason to complain.

Because YOU KNEW IT, it doesn''t matter at all that others did not read the fine print!

Hooray for blackflag, he knows how to read and interpret a contract, to hell with the other 18 year olds.... ;)

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:27 AM
Because YOU KNEW IT, it doesn''t matter at all that others did not read the fine print!

Hooray for blackflag, he knows how to read and interpret a contract, to hell with the other 18 year olds.... ;)

Care - it doe's make sense you must admit! Also, anytime you join any branch of the service you have to leave open the possibility that you may be called to serve otherwise they are fooling themselves. Why did these people sign up? was it just because they had no other future ambitions, and chose to sign to gain a career? could be, but ya still have to know that the option of being called to duty exists.

Care4all
08-26-2006, 07:38 AM
Care - it doe's make sense you must admit! Also, anytime you join any branch of the service you have to leave open the possibility that you may be called to serve otherwise they are fooling themselves. Why did these people sign up? was it just because they had no other future ambitions, and chose to sign to gain a career? could be, but ya still have to know that the option of being called to duty exists.


this was not always the case s/e, from when the draft ended through the 80's but before the gulf war, you could eliminate these call up exceptions from your contract, and they still took you in for your active service years...

i admit, that it does make sense....especially if they are making these 18 year olds aware of it and singled out from the rest of their contract by requiring them to initial it, after reading it....as someone mentioned above.

care

Care4all
08-26-2006, 07:41 AM
for a paid for, chance at a college degree...so they could better themselves?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:48 AM
for a paid for, chance at a college degree...so they could better themselves?

And I think that the services is a great way to go for those who take it for this purpose, however there are other options that exists to further your education, and to better yourself. I am just suggesting that you should not sign into any form of service if you do not recognize the possibility that you could be called upon.

Don't see it for what it's not Care, I hate the idea of youngsters going to war!
I have a relaitve of 19 that has recently went back to iraq for a second tour, he was a bit troubled to begin with so I don't know where it will all leave him when it's over...

Care4all
08-26-2006, 08:05 AM
And I think that the services is a great way to go for those who take it for this purpose, however there are other options that exists to further your education, and to better yourself. I am just suggesting that you should not sign into any form of service if you do not recognize the possibility that you could be called upon.

Don't see it for what it's not Care, I hate the idea of youngsters going to war!
I have a relaitve of 19 that has recently went back to iraq for a second tour, he was a bit troubled to begin with so I don't know where it will all leave him when it's over...

NOT in this day and age, that's for certain! they should expect to stay active for 8 years instead of 4 active/4 inactive.... imo!

Care4all
08-26-2006, 08:19 AM
Don't see it for what it's not Care, I hate the idea of youngsters going to war!
I have a relaitve of 19 that has recently went back to iraq for a second tour, he was a bit troubled to begin with so I don't know where it will all leave him when it's over...
sadly, probably pretty messed up! :(

there are consequences that are ugly, when we send our soldiers to war....we forget about them too easily i am sorry to say!

not viewing our dead soldier's caskets return home is a means used to desensitize us to the casualties of war.

not viewing daily those that were injured in their rehab centers learning to walk on one leg....desensitizes us to the casualties of war.

not getting the accurate counts of the dead on the other side for the first two and a half years of this war desensitizes us to the casualties of war.

telling us made up stories about tillman desensitizes us to the casualties of war...

i see these things as a reverse propaganda, utilized by our government through censorship as the main cause for these desensitization of the masses to war!

this kind of action will only lead to more and more wars....if we don't view the harms that are caused from them.

and we are letting our gvt do this to us by just some of the actions i mentioned above....

in addition to this, it is unconstitutional and breaking the bill of rights.

care

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:45 AM
What is the congressional authorization one? When Congress legally and constitutionally declares a war or they write law to call you back up??? please explain...

So is it the PRESIDENT calling a state of emergency that is calling back up these guys? or is it congress that is calling back up these guys?

thank you in advance...

care
The contract stipulates nothing of the source, simply of need. They may need your experience and training. Honestly it is something that doesn't happen unless they are in conflict, at least not often, but it is designed so that outgoes cannot cripple the military.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 08:59 AM
and we are letting our gvt do this to us by just some of the actions i mentioned above....

in addition to this, it is unconstitutional and breaking the bill of rights.

care

Care - I most definitely understand your points! However there are many people that are labeled here like myself as a war cheerleader, many people including myself are well aware of the consoquences of war, anyone who does'nt is just plain naive!



not viewing our dead soldier's caskets return home is a means used to desensitize us to the casualties of war.

Viewing it for the purpose of an ad campaign is also dead wrong!
You can say not acknowledging the dead is desensitizing, I can see in this context it's polarizing. Casualties of war is something nobody likes period but so long as their is war, their will be casualties. War is something that is always going to be there in this big world, to think otherwise is just a pipe dream.

Thomas L. Knapp
08-26-2006, 11:58 AM
Care4All,

You write:
"What is the congressional authorization one? When Congress legally and constitutionally declares a war or they write law to call you back up??? please explain...

So is it the PRESIDENT calling a state of emergency that is calling back up these guys? or is it congress that is calling back up these guys?"

So far as I know, it's only presidential right now. The president can call up troops from IRR for up to two years based on his declaration of an emergency. Congress can call them up "for the duration" of either a congressionally declared emergency or an actually declared war.

Regards,
Tom Knapp