18 to 23 Get ready for the Draft in 2nd Term

[PalmHarborTchr]

If Bush is elected in November, get ready to see Iraq whether you want to or not.
Head of Selective Service interviewed says they are getting the draft
all ready to go, so if you want Bush for another four long years,
get ready for the draft board.....they especially will want people with
technical skills. Not registered to vote yet? Go do it now. Oh, by the
way the Army does not permit iPods worn on duty. :confused:

[G4scott]

I just turned 18 years old, and I am going to vote for Bush in 2004. I would rather serve my country than vote for a president that will render us defenseless against foreign attacks, and allow innocent Americans to be killed.

The world is a nasty place, and gets worse by the second. If somebody doesn't go in soon to clean things up, then we're going to have a mess on our hands with countries like N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and others doing what they want, regardless of international treaties.

I will show pride for my country, and vote for Bush, whether or not it means I'll have to enlist or not. I won't dodge the draft by voting for somebody who will promise that I won't get drafted.

I really think the 2004 election will show the true colors of Americans, and I certainly hope that they're red white and blue, and not yellow...

Edit: oh yeah, and with the nature of the original post in this thread, I would think it belongs in political discussion...

[Phatpat]

I'm just as anti-bush as the next guy, but I think you're going a little overboard here.

I assume this is the article you are referring to...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html

They are very clear that the possibility of a draft is a remote

Of course, I see your fear, because this draft would be a "special services draft" targeting linguists and computer experts. I didn't realize we could get drafted for non-physical skills...kinda scary.

[Frohickey]

A draft would have to be voted for by both Houses of Congress, and signed by the President before it can even start. Not that easy to do especially with the favorite tactic of the opposing party to tack on poison pill amendments.

Also, its much better to fight a battle in your enemy's backyard, than in your own backyard. That way, you don't have to clean up after yourself, though with the United States' penchant for paying for the rebuilding process, this might be a moot point. :o

[Blackheart]

I'm of age and I'll also be voting for Bush in 2004. I am not affraid to serve my country. We have many freedoms that a lot of people take for granted. If your reason for voting against Bush is because you don't want to be drafted (and would rather dodge) then I think you need to reevaluate your reasons for living in the US. Both of my parents were Marines and I would be proud to serve my country in a time of need.

[TEG]

That is what they always say about the Draft. In reality, it will take a lot of legislation, plus, we won't need any more soldiers in Iraq after July 1. With that, Iraq will begin to replace out Troops with Iraqi troops. In the end there will be a small contingent of soldiers left for security in sensitive areas for a few years, then the US will have a nice Alli have two or three bases, maybe, and then most of the troops will be home.

As I was saying This time Last year... -Free Iraq-

The job is done, now it is time to help to rebuild, and create a free and democratic Iraq. By 2006 they will elect their first "New" President, and all will be well in the world.

Vote Bush 2004

Lose Cheney

TEG

[vwcruisn]

I just turned 18 years old, and I am going to vote for Bush in 2004. I would rather serve my country than vote for a president that will render us defenseless against foreign attacks, and allow innocent Americans to be killed.

I'm of age and I'll also be voting for Bush in 2004. I am not affraid to serve my country. We have many freedoms that a lot of people take for granted


Not to be rude or anything, but if you are so gung ho about the war and fighting for your country for a reason you feel is justified, then why are you still here? Get the f*&% to Iraq NOW so that the people who don't believe in it will not be FORCED to fight and die for an unjust cause.

[vwcruisn]

As I was saying This time Last year... -Free Iraq-

The job is done, now it is time to help to rebuild, and create a free and democratic Iraq. By 2006 they will elect their first "New" President, and all will be well in the world.


Yes, the "freeing" or Iraq will make the world perfect. Keep dreaming my friend.

[parrothead]

Also, its much better to fight a battle in your enemy's backyard, than in your own backyard. That way, you don't have to clean up after yourself, though with the United States' penchant for paying for the rebuilding process, this might be a moot point. :o


Well, the old saying does go something like, it is far better to lose a war to the US than to anyone else.

[Blackheart]

Not to be rude or anything, but if you are so gung ho about the war and fighting for your country for a reason you feel is justified, then why are you still here? Get the f*&% to Iraq NOW so that the people who don't believe in it will not be FORCED to fight and die for an unjust cause.

I'm going to college right now because I'm going to be working in the civilian work force of the US. Other people choose to go out and serve and don't want to work in the civilan work force(either at this current time or ever). You can't have everyone go and serve otherwise you'd have no one here! I'll be working in the civilian world but if it comes to the point that my country needs me, then i'll have to make that transition and I won't mind because I know that there are many people who have served for my freedom already.

[vwcruisn]

I'm going to college right now because I'm going to be working in the civilian work force of the US. Other people choose to go out and serve and don't want to work in the civilan work force(either at this current time or ever). You can't have everyone go and serve otherwise you'd have no one here! I'll be working in the civilian world but if it comes to the point that my country needs me, then i'll have to make that transition and I won't mind because I know that there are many people who have served for my freedom already.

well if they are thinking about imposing the draft, then your country needs you. are you saying you will only serve when forced to?

[zimv20]

I really think the 2004 election will show the true colors of Americans, and I certainly hope that they're red white and blue, and not yellow...


please point me to the kerry platform item that says he's weak on terror

btw, i'm enjoying your 18-year-old sloganeering

[vwcruisn]

please point me to the kerry platform item that says he's weak on terror

btw, i'm enjoying your 18-year-old sloganeering


Maybe it was his combat duty in vietnam that makes him yellow? Wait no, that can't be it. Hmm, I would paint dubya as yellow as he decided not to fight in the war.

The real cowards are those who are for the Iraq war, and possibility of a draft, and are not there fighting (much like dubya during vietnam).

[PalmHarborTchr]

I'm of age and I'll also be voting for Bush in 2004. I am not affraid to serve my country. We have many freedoms that a lot of people take for granted. If your reason for voting against Bush is because you don't want to be drafted (and would rather dodge) then I think you need to reevaluate your reasons for living in the US. Both of my parents were Marines and I would be proud to serve my country in a time of need.

You are ideal....the kind of teen who has seen every war movie and
cannot wait to die for his country (actually Exxon). Bush left us defenseless
pal....we gave him the FBI, Secret Service, NSA, CIA, et al and he
was warned on the 8th of August that this attack would occur and instead
of putting the military on alert.......he went on Vacation for a month
in Texas.......when he was told the two planes hit the WTC, he replied,"is
it the terrorists?" He sat here in Florida in a third grade class for another
twenty minutes before he left. I guarantee you that if the garbage truck
had hit the teachers car out in the parking lot of that school she would have
been out there in 2 minutes. If this had happened on Clinton's watch
I guarantee you the military meat heads in Camp Pendleton would have been blaming him. Oh, by the way when the first hit on the WTC occured,
the terrorists were captured and are now serving very very long sentences
in Prison..........Ben Laden is stll at large. I hope the climate agrees with
you.

[crookedcharlie]

I just turned 18 years old, and I am going to vote for Bush in 2004. I would rather serve my country than vote for a president that will render us defenseless against foreign attacks, and allow innocent Americans to be killed.

I still think this line of thinking is hysterical. Here's a quick quiz: Of the two candidates, one of them has ALREADY allowed the US to be attacked and let innocent Americans be killed.

Hint: It's not Kerry.

[pseudobrit]

I just turned 18 years old, and I am going to vote for Bush in 2004. I would rather serve my country than vote for a president that will render us defenseless against foreign attacks, and allow innocent Americans to be killed.

I see. You think that because Bush invaded Iraq, we're winning the war on terror. Or that our aggression is a preventative measure.

Kinda like, if after Pearl Harbor, FDR attacked Trinidad & Tabago instead of declaring war on Japan.

And you seem to think that in order to defend our population we'll need to stretch our military so thin that a draft would be acceptable.

The world is a nasty place, and gets worse by the second. If somebody doesn't go in soon to clean things up, then we're going to have a mess on our hands with countries like N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and others doing what they want, regardless of international treaties.

Kind of like the US waging a war of aggression in defiance of international standards? Yeah, someone's going to have to clean us up alright.

I will show pride for my country, and vote for Bush, whether or not it means I'll have to enlist or not. I won't dodge the draft by voting for somebody who will promise that I won't get drafted.

Voting against this awful administration is not the act of a draft dodger, it's the act of a conscientious citizen who knows bad policy when he sees it.

I love your implication that one must vote for Bush to show pride in his country, BTW.

I really think the 2004 election will show the true colors of Americans, and I certainly hope that they're red white and blue, and not yellow...

John Kerry's yellow?

While Bush was busy avoiding overseas service, John Kerry was getting shot at.
And shot. Three times.

Yup, sounds like there's a real chicken**** somewhere in the pair.

[Thanatoast]

"you can get anything you want...
at Alice's restaurant..."


I just turned 18 years old, and I am going to vote for Bush in 2004. I would rather serve my country than vote for a president that will render us defenseless against foreign attacks, and allow innocent Americans to be killed.

I haven't heard any candidates that are pro-terrorism, pro-American deaths, or anti-defense. This is silly.

I guess if the draft returns I'll just have to learn how to speak Canadian. :cool:

[bousozoku]

Anyone named Bush, of course, will be at the back of the line...until they're removed.

[Frohickey]

Well, the old saying does go something like, it is far better to lose a war to the US than to anyone else.

Ever read the book "The Mouse That Roared"?

[Frohickey]

Vote Bush 2004

Lose Cheney


Bush/Rice 2004... just to p!$$ off some female senator from New York that has presidential aspirations. :p

[jefhatfield]

i would not like to see a draft since it would put unwilling people out there on the battlefield and vietnam showed us how that could split a nation

the draft would, however, not only increase the numbers of available soldiers, but extend the depth of skills and intellect of the army as a whole

our top high school and college grads choose better and higher paying options than the military so a draft would undoubtedly get some of those who are in the top percentiles in their respective fields

a better skilled army with those top intellects would decrease mistakes and perhaps save lives and in this respect, i think a draft would be better...but one could argue that those who are drafted and unwilling could be prone to more mistakes and thus higher casualties...i think the former is more likely

[Frohickey]

i would not like to see a draft since it would put unwilling people out there on the battlefield and vietnam showed us how that could split a nation

the draft would, however, not only increase the numbers of available soldiers, but extend the depth of skills and intellect of the army as a whole

The problem with the draft during vietnam was that tours of duty were for a set time frame. I think tours were for a year, and after a year, you get to rotate back stateside, or get discharged from the service. Unfortunately, this comes at a bad time when the veteran has just become experienced, and future draftees would be better served by fighting alongside the seasoned veterans so that they do not have to learn the same mistakes, mistakes that have cost the fellow soldiers of the seasoned veteran their lives.

In WW2, tours of duty were not for a set time frame. Quickest way home was through Berlin. (Quickest way home is by winning the war, and ending it.)

[Frohickey]

Okay... one quick thought...

Should females be eligible for the draft, same as males?
I think yes.

[evil]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

check this link out. to me this is even worse than the draft.
they proposed a bil to force every person into government sevice for 2 years.

[PalmHarborTchr]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

check this link out. to me this is even worse than the draft.
they proposed a bil to force every person into government sevice for 2 years.

I can tell you he has all kinds of things planned but nothing good unless
you have the following addresses: Palm Beach, Pebble Beach, Carmel,
La Jolla, Del Mar, Beverly Hills et al.

He is appearing in Orlando, Florida onthe 20th of March, 15000 tickets
will be given.........IF YOU ARE A REGISTERED MEMEMBER OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY......this is no joke...you must be a registered
republican.....oh, and don't forget your jackboots and brownshirt.

[jennyjennydz]

I am voting for Nader. And I live in a battleground state. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Iraq - I sincerely hope whomever is elected has better luck building democracy in Iraq than nearly every previous U.S. attempt to install a governement in a country since the Truman years:

Haiti
Cuba
South Vietnam
El Salvador
Panama
Guatemala
Honduras
Argentina
Chile
Bolivia
Liberia
Phillipines
and the list keeps growing.....

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[Frohickey]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

check this link out. to me this is even worse than the draft.
they proposed a bil to force every person into government sevice for 2 years.

Last I checked, Mr. Hollings, is a democrat.

Actually, I would support this bill if government service were limited to within 100 miles of the citizen's place of residence. This would preclude foreign wars, eh? ;)

Also, as compensation for this government service, I would make it a 5% reduction in your income tax rate, or $1000. Citizen picks which one.

[jennyjennydz]

Last I checked, Mr. Hollings, is a democrat.

Actually, I would support this bill if government service were limited to within 100 miles of the citizen's place of residence. This would preclude foreign wars, eh? ;)

Also, as compensation for this government service, I would make it a 5% reduction in your income tax rate, or $1000. Citizen picks which one.

I agree emphatically, so long as non-military service options exist and noone gets to opt out, no matter how wealthy.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[zimv20]

Also, as compensation for this government service, I would make it a 5% reduction in your income tax rate, or $1000. Citizen picks which one.
was compensation addressed in the bill? i skimmed it and may have missed it.

i see the types of service all have to do w/ defense. too bad there isn't a provision for promoting peace.

frohickey -- did you see the section that would require women to register for selective service?

[Frohickey]

I agree emphatically, so long as non-military service options exist and noone gets to opt out, no matter how wealthy.


I dunno. Military service within the country or 100 miles of your residence is perfectly fine. You could be assigned to Army Corps of Engineers to operate a backhoe for floodwater diversion. You could be assigned to a medical corp giving out smallpox vaccination shots to deadly shrieking kindergarden kids. You could be assigned to a border patrol agent to handle booking and security work.

As to opting out, wealthy can opt out. An additional 25% income tax rate would cover finding a replacement for them. Better yet, suspension of their voting rights would work out as well. :p

[Frohickey]

was compensation addressed in the bill? i skimmed it and may have missed it.

i see the types of service all have to do w/ defense. too bad there isn't a provision for promoting peace.

frohickey -- did you see the section that would require women to register for selective service?

No, compensation was not addressed in the bill. I was just posting what I would put in the bill if it was me writing it. Thats why I also said in the preceeding paragraph, service within 100 miles of the place of residence. That, in itself, should assuage the fears of conscientious objectors.

I think that conscientious objectors can be used in the military service as well. They can be cooks, medics, quartermasters, chaplains, minesweepers, etc.

[zimv20]

I think that conscientious objectors can be used in the military service as well. They can be cooks, medics, quartermasters, chaplains, minesweepers, etc.
as i'd mentioned, i'd rather there be an option for some kind of peace-based option, like the Peace Corps.

[Thanatoast]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

check this link out. to me this is even worse than the draft.
they proposed a bil to force every person into government sevice for 2 years.
Two years of gov't service is an interesting proposal, but I certainly don't like the way this guy's implemented it. For instance, there is a different plan floating around that would provide a full ride scholarship to any state university in return for two years of service (i don't think military).

[takao]

if my country wanted to draft me for 'action' i would be the first across the border ...
i'm not going to die for some politicians...ever..

i really like my country .. some many people died for this country or made other people die for theirs in the past ... it should be enough
minimum 150 years (i guess i missed alot of wars in the 15th/16 th century) of war from 1550 to 1945
i think austria is the first time over 50 years in peace since 996 (when austria was first mentioned as 'ostarichi')

this just reminds me of this:
Emperor Friedrich III. (1415 - 1493) with his personal credo "AEIOU" which meant 2 things:
"Austria Est Imperare Orbi Universo" -"Austria is destined to rule the world"
"Austria Erit In Orbe Ultima" - "Austria will be in existence until the end of the world"
conclusion: every country has the chance of falling into meaningless ..no matter how big or small it is...or if it is blessed by god/worshipps some red flags/likes wine and baguettes etc.
don't mind if your country exists in 100 years it might be history untill then
borders are just lines on maps.period.
religion belongs into churches.period.

PS: for the one which is worried about america beeing unable to defend itself: austria isn't able to defend itself alone since 1918 and if got no problem with that (austria would have lost a war against the soviet red army or NATO in about 4 hours)...america has the biggest,best equiped,most expensive, military forces of the world and the enemy for this giant army gave up 1989 ... a few percent less troops wouldn't be a great deal

[Frohickey]

as i'd mentioned, i'd rather there be an option for some kind of peace-based option, like the Peace Corps.

Nah. Better off keeping citizens doing service inside of the country. If you want to vacation in another country, you can do it on your own dime.

Besides, sounds like a recipe for foreign interventionism. What if some militant foreign group doesn't like Americans being in their country, even if its in the Peace Corp, and you start having Peace Corp people getting whacked? Send in the Marines?

[Frohickey]

Two years of gov't service is an interesting proposal, but I certainly don't like the way this guy's implemented it. For instance, there is a different plan floating around that would provide a full ride scholarship to any state university in return for two years of service (i don't think military).

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." -- *John F. Kennedy

[pseudobrit]

Interesting that you quote Kennedy in supporting forced conscription.

When it comes to paying taxes, the government is enslaving us because we're being forced to pay for others, but when it comes to defence, we should be conscripted and forced to DIE for others?

You are quite inconsistent.

[pseudobrit]

Nah. Better off keeping citizens doing service inside of the country. If you want to vacation in another country, you can do it on your own dime.

He said "like the Peace Corps." There are organisations like Americorp that do domestic work.

[pseudobrit]

I guess if the draft returns I'll just have to learn how to speak Canadian. :cool:

I might go even if there's not a draft. I don't want to be around for a second Bush four-year disater.

Anyway, I can't be drafted because of my asthma.

[PalmHarborTchr]

Interesting that you quote Kennedy in supporting forced conscription.

When it comes to paying taxes, the government is enslaving us because we're being forced to pay for others, but when it comes to defence, we should be conscripted and forced to DIE for others?

You are quite inconsistent.

95% of Americans are NOT eligible to pay "death taxes" aka estate
taxes as they do not kick in on estates under $800,000! Few ditto
heads know that. Herr Bush is willing to give your all for his cause
for the perpetual war on terrorism. I would ask the people of Spain
if they feel more secure that Amerika has captured Sadam Hussain.
Ask those who lost family in the hotel bombing today also. :eek:

[Frohickey]

Interesting that you quote Kennedy in supporting forced conscription.

When it comes to paying taxes, the government is enslaving us because we're being forced to pay for others, but when it comes to defence, we should be conscripted and forced to DIE for others?

You are quite inconsistent.

When it comes to paying excessive taxes, the government is enslaving us because we are being forced to pay FOR OTHERS.
When it comes to defending the country, the government uses conscription because we have to protect OURSELVES.

If you think that fighting for your country is being forced to die for others, then you are a mercenary, and you should emigrate to another country/society which you would be comfortable in defending to your dying breath. Or you could stay and try to change the society to one where you would be comfortable in defending to your dying breath. But if you stay, that means that you think that there is good cause for the society to continue on, and that means that you would be comfortable in defending this society to your dying breath.

[numediaman]

When it comes to paying excessive taxes, the government is enslaving us because we are being forced to pay FOR OTHERS.

Gee, that must mean you plan on voting Democratic this year. After all, the legislature is Republican . . . the White House is Republican . . . all those ENSLAVING Republicans trying to force you to pay FOR OTHERS!!!

Guys, we need a couch and a good psychiatrist around here. Yikes.

[jefhatfield]

if my country wanted to draft me for 'action' i would be the first across the border ...
i'm not going to die for some politicians...ever..

i really like my country .. some many people died for this country or made other people die for theirs in the past ... it should be enough
minimum 150 years (i guess i missed alot of wars in the 15th/16 th century) of war from 1550 to 1945
i think austria is the first time over 50 years in peace since 996 (when austria was first mentioned as 'ostarichi')

this just reminds me of this:
Emperor Friedrich III. (1415 - 1493) with his personal credo "AEIOU" which meant 2 things:
"Austria Est Imperare Orbi Universo" -"Austria is destined to rule the world"
"Austria Erit In Orbe Ultima" - "Austria will be in existence until the end of the world"
conclusion: every country has the chance of falling into meaningless ..no matter how big or small it is...or if it is blessed by god/worshipps some red flags/likes wine and baguettes etc.
don't mind if your country exists in 100 years it might be history untill then
borders are just lines on maps.period.
religion belongs into churches.period.

PS: for the one which is worried about america beeing unable to defend itself: austria isn't able to defend itself alone since 1918 and if got no problem with that (austria would have lost a war against the soviet red army or NATO in about 4 hours)...america has the biggest,best equiped,most expensive, military forces of the world and the enemy for this giant army gave up 1989 ... a few percent less troops wouldn't be a great deal

i can't see dying for an unclear purpose not related to fighting for the army/military/department of defense on a non defense issue like vietnam...they were never a threat

but how about world war II with three modern, rich nations like japan, italy, and germany who have well trained troops ready to take over the world, by force?

i don't think the draft issue is black and white and each war has its special circumstances...america was gung ho at going after the enemy after pearl harbor but was split in half with vietnam...those were two totally different wars

[PalmHarborTchr]

Gee, that must mean you plan on voting Democratic this year. After all, the legislature is Republican . . . the White House is Republican . . . all those ENSLAVING Republicans trying to force you to pay FOR OTHERS!!!


Gee,I guess you did not know that everyone in the House of Representatives must stand for election in Nov. 2004 and 1/3 of the
US Senate too. You must have been sick the day they covered that
at school, huh? The Republican legislature has been a Bush rubber
stamp for 3 years but that will all be different.........Hey, How do
you like Chaney's Energy Policy???? Yeah, $2.50 gas.....oh how nice
it is to live under the GOP....$2.50 a gallon gas to go to the market
to pay $3.00 a pound for chicken......yeah, let the Bush good times
roll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guys, we need a couch and a good psychiatrist around here. Yikes.

[pseudobrit]

When it comes to paying excessive taxes, the government is enslaving us because we are being forced to pay FOR OTHERS.
When it comes to defending the country, the government uses conscription because we have to protect OURSELVES.

************.

What's the difference between paying taxes for the commonwealth and fighting a war for the commonwealth?

Why is one "OTHERS" and the other "OURSELVES"?

At what point in your thinking does your conscience allow you to separate "them" from "we"?
Is it just at your wallet?

Are there other things you feel citizens should be forced to do for "we"?

[Frohickey]

Gee, that must mean you plan on voting Democratic this year. After all, the legislature is Republican . . . the White House is Republican . . . all those ENSLAVING Republicans trying to force you to pay FOR OTHERS!!!

Guys, we need a couch and a good psychiatrist around here. Yikes.

Dunno how I'm going to vote yet. But the GOP is using the same playbook as the Democrats. Prescription drug benefit. :mad:
Someone said that Democrats were socialists... Republicans are socialist-lites.

[Frohickey]

************.

What's the difference between paying taxes for the commonwealth and fighting a war for the commonwealth?

Are there other things you feel citizens should be forced to do for "we"?

Things citizens should be forced to do for "we"...
Here is the list, as it relates to either taxation, or manpower.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


"With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James Madison


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage." --Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

Maybe its time to revert the clock back to either spirtual faith/great courage/liberty. I vote that we revert the clock back to liberty. That would get us another 100-150 years or so, and abundance is not a bad thing to look forward to. Where I see things at, we are in the apathy/dependency stage right now.

[Sayhey]

I am voting for Nader. And I live in a battleground state. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


If you are serious, and as someone who has always had a tremendous admiration of Nader, I hope you reconsider before November. If too many vote for Ralph we will be adding to your list in short order.

As for the draft, all I can say is my 15 year old son is not going to fight in any of Bush's wars. They can put me in jail, but it is never going to happen.

[pseudobrit]

Things citizens should be forced to do for "we"...
Here is the list, as it relates to either taxation, or manpower.

************ again.

You're not willing to allow any interpretation of the general welfare clause but you're willing to overlook Congressional lack of power to impose mandatory conscription when neither "insurrection" nor "invasions" are occuring.

You need to reconcile your inconsistencies. I think conscription is just a pet of yours. Some people (usually those who have voluntarily served) think it's a good idea for their own idealistic reasons. I think you're one of those people.

[Frohickey]

************ again.

You're not willing to allow any interpretation of the general welfare clause but you're willing to overlook Congressional lack of power to impose mandatory conscription when neither "insurrection" nor "invasions" are occuring.

You need to reconcile your inconsistencies. I think conscription is just a pet of yours. Some people (usually those who have voluntarily served) think it's a good idea for their own idealistic reasons. I think you're one of those people.

Milita are called up.
Armies are raised.
Both can be by conscription.
Do you see insurrection or invasion in the clause for raising armies?

Actually, I think a country that would need a draft in order to fight a war is a country that needs to communicate the need for it better, or one that does not deserve to exist. I have said so in another thread.

Also, when there is talk of mandatory service or draft, I always say that I would be for it, if service were limited to within the country. In country service, what else would that be used for besides against insurrections or invasions?

[Dale Sorel]

As for the draft, all I can say is my 15 year old son is not going to fight in any of Bush's wars. They can put me in jail, but it is never going to happen.

I'm sorry, but can you share with us what makes your son so freakin' special :rolleyes:

[jefhatfield]

I'm sorry, but can you share with us what makes your son so freakin' special :rolleyes:

think for a second what W has done and his reasons

[pseudobrit]

I'm sorry, but can you share with us what makes your son so freakin' special :rolleyes:

You can volunteer to die in his place. After all, what makes you so freakin' special? :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

I'm sorry, but can you share with us what makes your son so freakin' special :rolleyes:

Only what makes every son so special to their parents. I won't let Bush sacrifice his life to build his dreams of a Pax Americana. I will work my butt off to make sure he can't draft other people's sons at the same time.

[pseudobrit]

Milita are called up.
Armies are raised.
Both can be by conscription.
Do you see insurrection or invasion in the clause for raising armies?

The raising of armies is included in a clause that has a limit of two years use. It's obviously meant for limited use, as there is a naval maintenance provision but NOT an army maintenance provision.

There is a provision for maintenance of a militia, but that militia is only to be used in cases of insurrection or invasion. Try again.

[jennyjennydz]

If you are serious, and as someone who has always had a tremendous admiration of Nader, I hope you reconsider before November. If too many vote for Ralph we will be adding to your list in short order.

As for the draft, all I can say is my 15 year old son is not going to fight in any of Bush's wars. They can put me in jail, but it is never going to happen.

Yes, I am in a battleground state, and unlike the Texas Republicans and California Dems I keep hearing from... my vote is a big deal.

Unless and until John Kerry stops being ashamed of liberalism and starts supporting things like Health Care as a Right, corporate accountability, personal liberty, and an end to political hypocrisy he will not get my vote. I will vote my conscience and vote for Ralph Nader.

Unfortunately I see Kerry as representative of just a different set of corporate interests, Bush-light as it were. I am 100% convinced that the average American would see no difference between a Bush administration and a Kerry one.

Sorry if that pisses off the Kerry folks.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[Sayhey]

Yes, I am in a battleground state, and unlike the Texas Republicans and California Dems I keep hearing from... my vote is a big deal.

Unless and until John Kerry stops being ashamed of liberalism and starts supporting things like Health Care as a Right, corporate accountability, personal liberty, and an end to political hypocrisy he will not get my vote. I will vote my conscience and vote for Ralph Nader.

Unfortunately I see Kerry as representative of just a different set of corporate interests, Bush-light as it were. I am 100% convinced that the average American would see no difference between a Bush administration and a Kerry one.

Sorry if that pisses off the Kerry folks.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

I am not one of the "Kerry folks." The political questions you enumerate, and many more, are things I've fought for all my adult life, starting with things like trying to end the war in Vietnam and going through such struggles as the antiapartheid movement and Trade Union struggles too numerous to mention. I've worked for independent candidates before, both inside the Democratic party (Jesse Jackson) and outside (Green candidates for statewide and local offices.) I don't think the questions you raise are in anyway trivial, but in this case there is a very real and important reality to the old phrase "lesser of two evils." There will be no nirvana if Kerry wins. There will be terrible consequences if Bush gets a second term. You quote in your post the slogans of newspeak while every day a Bush administration moves us closer to the reality of that nightmare world. I would suggest that the strategy to lessen that possibility in this election is to work to get Bush out in the November election. That means a vote for Kerry in any state that the outcome is in doubt.

[jennyjennydz]

I am not one of the "Kerry folks." The political questions you enumerate, and many more, are things I've fought for all my adult life, starting with things like trying to end the war in Vietnam and going through such struggles as the antiapartheid movement and Trade Union struggles too numerous to mention. I've worked for independent candidates before, both inside the Democratic party (Jesse Jackson) and outside (Green candidates for statewide and local offices.) I don't think the questions you raise are in anyway trivial, but in this case there is a very real and important reality to the old phrase "lesser of two evils." There will be no nirvana if Kerry wins. There will be terrible consequences if Bush gets a second term. You quote in your post the slogans of newspeak while every day a Bush administration moves us closer to the reality of that nightmare world. I would suggest that the strategy to lessen that possibility in this election is to work to get Bush out in the November election. That means a vote for Kerry in any state that the outcome is in doubt.

I admire your convictions, honestly.

I do believe that the Bush administration is the worst in my lifetime (passing Nixon/Johnson). But, my problem is.... I have seen nothing to indicate that Kerry will do anything different. Maybe at some point someone can provide me with some hints/clues, but right now I don't see it.

A few examples:
Liberty/Patriot Act: Will never be repealed without Congressional/Senate approval. Kerry won't have this.

Health Care: Kerry does not believe that access to health care is a right.

Labor: Kerry has said nothing to indicate his opposition to Right to Work laws, nothing to indicate he will REQUIRE environmental and labor provisions in EVERY new trade deal.

Jobs: Bread, work, or lead as the Paris Commune put it. (No lead for me/by me though).

Iraq: Kerry speaks of failings, agreed. But what is the solution? We must get out of Iraq and turn peacekeeping and nation building over to others.

Israel/Palestine: No U.S. administration or candidate since Bush I has had any credibility here. I see a new apartheid coming.

Civil Rights: I don't see any indications of any urban agendas by anyone but Sharpton and Nader.

Greed: Well, I'll never live to see my dreams here.

Child poverty: 1/5 children went to sleep hungry tonight. Without a massive fix to Greed this will never change. See my Greed thoughts. Kerry could end child poverty in 90 days. But it won't happen.

Environment: Probably the only issue Kerry will act on. But no dramatically enough to get me to vote on this one issue.

Third world: Just stop. El Salvador. Argentina. Next Haita. Just stop.

1984: Orwell was off by 20 years.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[Dale Sorel]

You can volunteer to die in his place. After all, what makes you so freakin' special? :rolleyes:

Sorry mate, I registered as soon as I turned 18. That was back when President Reagan was in office, and the Soviet Union was a very real threat. So to answer your stupid question, I'm not special at all. But I am willing to do whatever my country asks of me.

[Dale Sorel]

Only what makes every son so special to their parents.

So I guess all the boys and girls over there right now don't have loving parents :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Sorry mate, I registered as soon as I turned 18. That was back when President Reagan was in office, and the Soviet Union was a very real threat. So to answer your stupid question, I'm not special at all. But I am willing to do whatever my country asks of me.
you may want to back down a little.

sounds like we're about the same age. i also registered. i'm sure sayhey's son will register, too.

if this country were truly threatened and it needed me, i'd take up arms, too, even though i'm well past draft age. if it were truly threatened. i wouldn't take up arms in a designer war to benefit bechtel, halliburton, carlyle group, etc.

that's what sayhey's talking about.

if you wanna go get yerself killed so my stocks go up, then i urge you to go for it.

[Sayhey]

So I guess all the boys and girls over there right now don't have loving parents :rolleyes:

Kindly point out where I or anyone else said such nonsense. I've been working to get all those folks home as well since day one of the war. If you want to have a discussion on these issues the rolling eyes don't help.

[pseudobrit]

So to answer your stupid question

It was your stupid question. I just turned it on you.

I see you haven't lost the rolled-eyes-for-every-response thing yet. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

I see you haven't lost the rolled-eyes-for-every-response thing yet. :rolleyes:
yes, i do believe the Dale Sorel Challenge is still in effect

[pseudobrit]

I found myself checking apartment prices in Montréal the other day. I won't be able to refrain from picking up a newspaper or two for the classifieds section when I'm there next week, either.

Brushing up on my French and moving 500 miles north is more palatable than dealing with another four years of Bush and Stupid America.

[Sayhey]

I do believe that the Bush administration is the worst in my lifetime (passing Nixon/Johnson). But, my problem is.... I have seen nothing to indicate that Kerry will do anything different. Maybe at some point someone can provide me with some hints/clues, but right now I don't see it.


I don't want to respond to every part of your post right now - it would take pages, but I will say something about two issues. First, I believe the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare is a throwback to the days of empire building. This is a fundamental change in the thinking of this country since the days of FDR. Even Nixon and Reagan had to pay lip service to international law. This is a rejection of all of that. Kerry does not represent the same ideology or drive for unilateral projection of the US military as a "good" in its own right. In the case of Iraq this means whether the United Nations will be asked to take over the administration of the country until elections can be held and just how long US troops will stay there. It may well mean a difference between a US supported coup in Venezuela and invasions in either Syria or Iran. If the same architects of the Iraq war get their way there will be a military confrontation on the Korean peninsula. None of this (and there are many more examples) would support the idea that Kerry is just "Bush lite." Second, their are fundamental liberties such as the right to privacy in cases such as Roe v. Wade that hang on a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. Given the ages of the justices, handing the nomination of new Scalias to Bush will have a profound impact on the lives of everyone for a generation. I can understand folks hating to vote for someone like Kerry who is not very good to my mind on quite a few issues (gay marriage springs to mind), but I'm willing to work to get him elected because in this election the real differences between Bush and him are too stark to overlook and they may well mean the difference between life and death to many people around the world and here at home.

[takao]

but how about world war II with three modern, rich nations like japan, italy, and germany who have well trained troops ready to take over the world, by force?

america didn't mind to help england,france,poland,greece,jugoslavia,russia,china,norway,belgium,denmark,ethop,netherlands during the years 1939,1940,1941...

and BTW: why didn't america attack england,france,china,north korea,russia,india,pakistan... all those got WMD ? and germany has still thousands tons of chemical WMD like sarin,soman,tabun left from WW2 ...since 1945 they are destroying them ..it will still take up more than 10 years .... 70 years of work to destroy , weapons produced in 7 years...

[jefhatfield]

america didn't mind to help england,france,poland,greece,jugoslavia,russia,china,norway,belgium,denmark,ethop,netherlands during the years 1939,1940,1941...

and BTW: why didn't america attack england,france,china,north korea,russia,india,pakistan... all those got WMD ? and germany has still thousands tons of chemical WMD like sarin,soman,tabun left from WW2 ...since 1945 they are destroying them ..it will still take up more than 10 years .... 70 years of work to destroy , weapons produced in 7 years...


292 million americans and that many opinions, but i think bush wants to attack wmd nations that are terrorist friends...maybe...or he likes countries he knows he can attack then rebuild and then partake in their resources...as in oil in iraq

i hope W does not take his war on terrorism so far as to make it an excuse for the usa to colonize the world

...that tactic does not work long term as greece, rome, england, germany, and japan have shown...all empires who are not respecting of others' borders eventually get taken down all together or piece by piece

[Frohickey]

The raising of armies is included in a clause that has a limit of two years use. It's obviously meant for limited use, as there is a naval maintenance provision but NOT an army maintenance provision.

There is a provision for maintenance of a militia, but that militia is only to be used in cases of insurrection or invasion. Try again.

Conscription can't be used to raise armies, eh?
I guess all of those past civilizations that used conscription to raise armies didn't really do so. All the history books were wrong.

Conscription (n) - 1. Compulsory enrollment, especially for the armed forces; draft (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscription)
2. A monetary payment exacted by a government in wartime.

The limit of 2 years is for the appropriation of money. Nothing says you can't have successive bi-annual appropriation of money to keep the army going. This 2 year clause was put in because the Founding Fathers were afraid of a standing army being used to put down the citizenry. They thought that would be enough to do so. But alas, it wasn't, and the citizens demanded a Bill of Rights. And what was in that Bill of Rights to act as a check on this potential for a standing army? You get 10 guesses.

[Frohickey]

I found myself checking apartment prices in Montréal the other day. I won't be able to refrain from picking up a newspaper or two for the classifieds section when I'm there next week, either.

Brushing up on my French and moving 500 miles north is more palatable than dealing with another four years of Bush and Stupid America.

Maybe you can carpool with Alec Baldwin and Cher. :p

[Frohickey]

292 million americans and that many opinions, but i think bush wants to attack wmd nations that are terrorist friends...maybe...or he likes countries he knows he can attack then rebuild and then partake in their resources...as in oil in iraq

i hope W does not take his war on terrorism so far as to make it an excuse for the usa to colonize the world

...that tactic does not work long term as greece, rome, england, germany, and japan have shown...all empires who are not respecting of others' borders eventually get taken down all together or piece by piece

I doubt the USA can colonize the world. Heck, we can't even get Puerto Rico to join the union!

Besides, the Presidency is only 1/3rd of the federal government, and he's the one that always asking of stuff from Congress. Congress can make it all disappear pretty quickly.

[takao]

...that tactic does not work long term as greece, rome, england, germany, and japan have shown...all empires who are not respecting of others' borders eventually get taken down all together or piece by piece

complete agreement ..it never worked...
napoleon tried it, the mongolians tried it, .. when did it work ? never
in the end the agressor will always have to pay for it. you reap what you sow.

btw: back on topic the romans used voluntary service but with a servicetime of at least 10 years ;-)
in the beginning of the roman empire they used of course drafts

[mactastic]

When it comes to paying excessive taxes, the government is enslaving us because we are being forced to pay FOR OTHERS.
When it comes to defending the country, the government uses conscription because we have to protect OURSELVES.

If you think that fighting for your country is being forced to die for others, then you are a mercenary, and you should emigrate to another country/society which you would be comfortable in defending to your dying breath. Or you could stay and try to change the society to one where you would be comfortable in defending to your dying breath. But if you stay, that means that you think that there is good cause for the society to continue on, and that means that you would be comfortable in defending this society to your dying breath.

Why be so wordy? You are just using the tired 'love it or leave it' argument.

But since you raise the point... If you don't like taxes so much, why don't you leave the US, which you seem to hate, and move to the Cayman Islands? Then you won't have to pay these dreaded US taxes till your dying day. You can commute with Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow. Maybe even Martha Stewart if you're lucky. :D

[Dale Sorel]

you may want to back down a little.

I don't know, it's kinda fun listening to these kids crying, "Oh why me..."



i'm sure sayhey's son will register, too.

It doesn't sound like it.


I see you haven't lost the rolled-eyes-for-every-response thing yet. :rolleyes:

Ha ha ha...


I found myself checking apartment prices in Montréal the other day.

Waaaaaaaa...if the going gets too tuff, I'm outa here. Freakin' cry baby :mad:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."


yes, i do believe the Dale Sorel Challenge is still in effect

Gosh, I can see I don't stand a chance against all the intellectual giants here. So I guess you'll just have to carry on your little whining session without me.

Oh, I almost forgot...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Freakin' cry baby :mad:


Hey, can we keep the personal insults out of here?

[Frohickey]

Why be so wordy? You are just using the tired 'love it or leave it' argument.

But since you raise the point... If you don't like taxes so much, why don't you leave the US, which you seem to hate, and move to the Cayman Islands? Then you won't have to pay these dreaded US taxes till your dying day. You can commute with Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow. Maybe even Martha Stewart if you're lucky. :D

Because, at this point in time, there are still advantages to remaining within the United States, and there still seems to be hope that the tide of 'entitlement' can be averted. When the time comes that the advantages of remaining in the US are gone, a lot of people will be gone, or going away.

White flight from South Africa and Zimbabwe, when lawlessness against whites, and land seizures by the government, come to mind.

[mactastic]

Because, at this point in time, there are still advantages to remaining within the United States, and there still seems to be hope that the tide of 'entitlement' can be averted. When the time comes that the advantages of remaining in the US are gone, a lot of people will be gone, or going away.

White flight from South Africa and Zimbabwe, when lawlessness against whites, and land seizures by the government, come to mind.

So why would you dare to suggest that someone else, who also is hoping to effect change in our government, leave while you get to stay? That's elitist BS and you know it. You think you deserve to be here more than someone who opposes the war in Iraq?

[jelloshotsrule]

1- I have seen nothing to indicate that Kerry will do anything different. Maybe at some point someone can provide me with some hints/clues, but right now I don't see it.

2 -Liberty/Patriot Act: Will never be repealed without Congressional/Senate approval. Kerry won't have this.

3-Health Care: Kerry does not believe that access to health care is a right.

4-Labor: Kerry has said nothing to indicate his opposition to Right to Work laws, nothing to indicate he will REQUIRE environmental and labor provisions in EVERY new trade deal.

5-Iraq: Kerry speaks of failings, agreed. But what is the solution? We must get out of Iraq and turn peacekeeping and nation building over to others.

6-Greed: Well, I'll never live to see my dreams here.

7-Child poverty:... Kerry could end child poverty in 90 days. But it won't happen.


1- you actually think that kerry will do everything the same way that bush will? what about taxes? what about (as you admit) the environment? what about at least moreso standing up to companies? kerry has taken lots of interest money, but his record shows pretty well that he doesn't do anything for them once he gets their money... which i find pretty cool. get them to pay for their own downfall in a way..

2- you think nader would get such support??

3- but he certainly is closer to that than bush is... i don't agree that there is simply a right and wrong way to do things... kerry's views on this and lots of other things are "closer" to right...

4- i don't know if he's said what you claim or not. but i've heard him talk A LOT about getting environmental/human rights aspects into trade laws... so perhaps he never said "require"... and they should be required, but bush ignores/pulls out of environmental treaties! far worse than at least being open and hopefully pursuing such regulations in future (and maybe past?) agreements

5- i disagree. i think it's simplistic and wrong to say we need to just pull out of there. yes, we need to get support from the international community for sure, and at least reduce our presence. but i don't think it's realistic in the least to expect it overnight. and i trust kerry's military views far more than bush's...

6- i hear you on that... it's depressing at times. (see nike thread for some examples...)

7- that's bold. how can he end it in 90 days?


ok, i think that's all. :) by the way, as i've said, i very well may vote for nader. but unlike in 2000 when i thought gore and bush were very much the same (and you said you didn't), i see a huge gap between bush and kerry...

that said, damn i wish i would see the day when president nader runs the show... talk about bringing respectability back to the office... or, bringing it there for the first time. ;)

[uvex]

If Bush is elected in November, get ready to see Iraq whether you want to or not.
Head of Selective Service interviewed says they are getting the draft
all ready to go, so if you want Bush for another four long years,
get ready for the draft board.....they especially will want people with
technical skills. Not registered to vote yet? Go do it now. Oh, by the
way the Army does not permit iPods worn on duty. :confused:


Ok Chicken Little. Do you actually think before you post? You remind me of the liberals in the bay area, who can recite party rhetoric until their blue in the face, but can never cite where they got their mysterious information......ie they made it up or heard it from some other liberal wacko.

[jelloshotsrule]

Ok Chicken Little. Do you actually think before you post? You remind me of the liberals in the bay area, who can recite party rhetoric until their blue in the face, but can never cite where they got their mysterious information......ie they made it up or heard it from some other liberal wacko.

do your friends call you "label gun"?

[uvex]

do your friends call you "label gun"?

No actually they call me level headed and well informed. They for sure don't call me a panicmonger.

[Frohickey]

So why would you dare to suggest that someone else, who also is hoping to effect change in our government, leave while you get to stay? That's elitist BS and you know it. You think you deserve to be here more than someone who opposes the war in Iraq?

Wasn't I that suggested someone leave the country.
Wasn't I that started looking for housing prices in Canada.
It was I that suggested that it might be a good idea to carpool in order to say money for gasoline. :p

[Frohickey]

Fastow did really seem to be unethical, from the testimony of the Enron whistleblower VP.
But I think Ken Lay was just inept, or came across to be so, again from the testimony of the whistleblower.

Martha Stewart, I think that she should have kept her mouth shut. The ImClone CEO, Wacksal, is already guilty, and at Club Fed serving his sentence.

[zimv20]

No actually they call me level headed and well informed.
if you change your username to that it'll be easier to remember you

[mactastic]

Wasn't I that suggested someone leave the country.

If you think that fighting for your country is being forced to die for others, then you are a mercenary, and you should emigrate to another country/society which you would be comfortable in defending to your dying breath.

Yes, you did.

[pseudobrit]

Conscription can't be used to raise armies, eh?
I guess all of those past civilizations that used conscription to raise armies didn't really do so. All the history books were wrong.

I never said that. What the hell are you talking about? You're making up an argument I never made, painting me with it and then doing that stupid *dictionary thing* you do to belittle me. Is this what you must resort to?

The limit of 2 years is for the appropriation of money. Nothing says you can't have successive bi-annual appropriation of money to keep the army going. This 2 year clause was put in because the Founding Fathers were afraid of a standing army being used to put down the citizenry. They thought that would be enough to do so. But alas, it wasn't, and the citizens demanded a Bill of Rights. And what was in that Bill of Rights to act as a check on this potential for a standing army? You get 10 guesses.

So the Bill of ights allows us to ignore the two year limit even though none of the amendments expressly amends that article? For a "strict constructionist," your argument is falling apart here. Again, you need to reconcile the conflict in your logic.

There is a provision for maintenance of the navy. There is no such provision for the army. This is not accidental.

[pseudobrit]

Waaaaaaaa...if the going gets too tuff, I'm outa here. Freakin' cry baby :mad:

Waaaaaa. You can't argue like a man.

Gosh, I can see I don't stand a chance against all the intellectual giants here. So I guess you'll just have to carry on your little whining session without me.

Oh, I almost forgot...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thanks for raising the bar. Don't come back.

[Frohickey]

Wasn't I that suggested someone leave the country.

If you think that fighting for your country is being forced to die for others, then you are a mercenary, and you should emigrate to another country/society which you would be comfortable in defending to your dying breath.

Yes, you did.

Do you think its the duty of a member of a society to fight and possibly die for others within that society in order to preserve that society?

My answer would be "Yes". What is your answer?

[skunk]

What is your answer?

Depends what "society" is fighting for...."I was only following orders" won't do anymore.

[Frohickey]

I never said that. What the hell are you talking about? You're making up an argument I never made, painting me with it and then doing that stupid *dictionary thing* you do to belittle me. Is this what you must resort to?

So the Bill of ights allows us to ignore the two year limit even though none of the amendments expressly amends that article? For a "strict constructionist," your argument is falling apart here. Again, you need to reconcile the conflict in your logic.

There is a provision for maintenance of the navy. There is no such provision for the army. This is not accidental.

The dictionary definition is used to drive home the fact that conscription is a valid way with which to raise an army. That a draft is a valid way with which to raise an army.

An army is also a valid way to repel invasions, or prosecute wars, and until the time of Posse Commitatus, a valid way to quell insurrections.

The Bill of Rights do not say anything about the two year limit of military appropriations. The Bill of Rights are rights of people. I mention the Bill of Rights only in relation to the Founding Father's fear of a standing army. The two year limit was put there because of the fear of a standing army. A part of the Bill of Rights was there because of the fear of a standing army.

So, a chronology of events...
Draft of constitution some wanted to have the power to raise armies.
Others feared what a standing army could do.
Two year limit on appropriation of money for the army, to limit the power of raising armies, to limit the size of a standing army.
Constitution is ratified.
People are not convinced, they want more guarantees against the standing army.
Bill of Rights drafted with provisions that would limit the power of a standing army.


Rereading your posts, as well as my posts...
You seem to indicate that conscription can only be done for uses to quell insurrections and fight invasions. My contention is that conscription can be done to raise armies as well. Militia are called up. Everyone is already in the militia, if you are male & between 17 and 44, or a female in the National Guard, you are automatically in the militia.

You then mention the two year limit, but you assign that to the two year limit of raising of armies. My contention is that the two year limit is for the appropriation of monies, and not the existence of the army, or raising of the army. You also mention the provision for maintenance of the militia, and its only use is for insurrections and invasions.

[Thanatoast]

When the nation was formed, standing armies were too expensive to maintain in a time of peace. Some would argue this is still the case. (These people would probably be shouted down as trying to "destroy" the defenses of the nation) When the nation was formed, the tax structure was entirely different. No income tax, no other taxes (I really don't know specifically what was around), but I do know that most government business was paid for by tariffs and duties. The nation could not afford a standing army, so there was none. In fact, the standing army didn't really take off as a concept until after WWII in response to fears of a Soviet invasion. It was thought that a large army was required in order to deter the threat of invasion. This position is at least defensable. Before WWII armies were raised to support the conflict, then mustered out. The US might have maintained a very small core force of soldiers, but not the quarter million we support today. My question is. after the end of the cold war, what exactly do we need all these troops for. The US maintains an enormous army spread across the entire globe, with bases in 38 countries and troops in 152. !!!??? Who exactly are we defending against? The armed services are of little use in the "war" on terror. Cooperation between the intelligence services, police, and court systems of the nations of the world will do us more good, and cost less. The return of the draft is a patently ludicrous idea, not because it might happen, but because there is absolutely no justification for maintaining even the amount of military presence we carry now. Imagine freeing up even half of the cash we spend on the military in a year? That $200,000,000,000 conservatively. Almost enough to pay for Bush's rich-people tax cuts. Bush calls the "war" on terror and new kind of war. This is because it isn't a war at all, and it can't be. War can only be made between nations. You, as an individual can't declare "war" on your neighbor. The US cannot declare "war" on Osama bin Laden. It can try to kill him. It can try to capture him and try him. It cannot declare "war" on him. This new kind of war is being fought with all the old weapons, and it's poisoning our relations with our neighbors, destroying our liberties at home, and spending us straight into the ground.

[Frohickey]

When the nation was formed, standing armies were too expensive to maintain in a time of peace.
...

The US cannot declare "war" on Osama bin Laden. It can try to kill him. It can try to capture him and try him. It cannot declare "war" on him. This new kind of war is being fought with all the old weapons, and it's poisoning our relations with our neighbors, destroying our liberties at home, and spending us straight into the ground.

Tell me about it.
All of these defense commitments that we have found ourselves is is because of the various treaties that we have made. Japan treaty. Taiwan treaty. NATO treaty. Etc.
As to the use of "war", it started with LBJ's War on Poverty. Then there is the War on Drugs. Each time, this meant that more national treasure is used. :mad:

Should have just offered a $10million letter of marque and reprisal on the capture or death of Osama.

[mactastic]

Do you think its the duty of a member of a society to fight and possibly die for others within that society in order to preserve that society?

My answer would be "Yes". What is your answer?

Yes. When our society is at risk I would glady fight and die for it.

[mactastic]

As to the use of "war", it started with LBJ's War on Poverty. Then there is the War on Drugs. Each time, this meant that more national treasure is used.

You don't really think the use of "war" started with LBJ do you? I didn't think so.

Should have just offered a $10million letter of marque and reprisal on the capture or death of Osama.

Ummmmmm.... there's a $25,000,000 (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm) reward on his head right now. What are you complaining about? Of course as a US citizen, you would be expected to pay taxes on it should you collect.... :p

[pseudobrit]

Do you think its the duty of a member of a society to fight and possibly die for others within that society in order to preserve that society?

My answer would be "Yes". What is your answer?

But you wouldn't pay taxes to preserve that society? Man are your priorities screwed.

[Frohickey]

You don't really think the use of "war" started with LBJ do you? I didn't think so.

Ummmmmm.... there's a $25,000,000 (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm) reward on his head right now. What are you complaining about? Of course as a US citizen, you would be expected to pay taxes on it should you collect.... :p

LBJ was the one that used it first for things that are not really war.

Yeah, forgot about the $25million. Hmm, would you? What are the pertinent tax laws in place if a person does collect? I bet that with $25 million, you can make a few purchases that can cut your tax bill to zero. :D

[Frohickey]

But you wouldn't pay taxes to preserve that society? Man are your priorities screwed.

Taxes are already paid to preserve that society... taxes for military appropriation, spelled out in the US Constitution.

You seem to think that I'm against ALL taxes. I'm not.
The desire for lower taxes might make it seem that I'm against taxes, but its against taxes used for wealth redistribution purposes. The assumption here is that purposes such as defense upkeep, justice system, post roads, and other US Constitution mandated purposes are the LAST to go when tax revenue becomes tight. That the first to go are the non-US Constitution mandated purposes.

But, since the accounting practices of the US Government is worse than the Enron accounting practices, we wouldn't know.

[PalmHarborTchr]

Yes. When our society is at risk I would glady fight and die for it.[SIZE=7]When it was time for Limbaugh, Hannity, Chaney, and other Chicken Hawks to serve....they were hiding but now they want the 18 to 25 year olds to serve Exxon in the Middle East so the wealthy can drive their Mercedes SUV's to the golf course in Pebble Beach and Torrey Pines with plenty of gas. Based on the concept that the poor have too much and the wealthy don't have enough.

[jennyjennydz]

1- you actually think that kerry will do everything the same way that bush will? what about taxes? what about (as you admit) the environment? what about at least moreso standing up to companies? kerry has taken lots of interest money, but his record shows pretty well that he doesn't do anything for them once he gets their money... which i find pretty cool. get them to pay for their own downfall in a way..

2- you think nader would get such support??

3- but he certainly is closer to that than bush is... i don't agree that there is simply a right and wrong way to do things... kerry's views on this and lots of other things are "closer" to right...

4- i don't know if he's said what you claim or not. but i've heard him talk A LOT about getting environmental/human rights aspects into trade laws... so perhaps he never said "require"... and they should be required, but bush ignores/pulls out of environmental treaties! far worse than at least being open and hopefully pursuing such regulations in future (and maybe past?) agreements

5- i disagree. i think it's simplistic and wrong to say we need to just pull out of there. yes, we need to get support from the international community for sure, and at least reduce our presence. but i don't think it's realistic in the least to expect it overnight. and i trust kerry's military views far more than bush's...

6- i hear you on that... it's depressing at times. (see nike thread for some examples...)

7- that's bold. how can he end it in 90 days?


ok, i think that's all. :) by the way, as i've said, i very well may vote for nader. but unlike in 2000 when i thought gore and bush were very much the same (and you said you didn't), i see a huge gap between bush and kerry...

that said, damn i wish i would see the day when president nader runs the show... talk about bringing respectability back to the office... or, bringing it there for the first time. ;)

making new thread to stop my hijack of this one.

[zimv20]

I bet that with $25 million, you can make a few purchases that can cut your tax bill to zero. :D
how?

[jelloshotsrule]

making new thread to stop my hijack of this one.

is the sally struthers thread the new one?

if so, where are the answers to the rest of my questions?!?!?!? ahahhah

[jennyjennydz]

1- you actually think that kerry will do everything the same way that bush will? what about taxes? what about (as you admit) the environment? what about at least moreso standing up to companies? kerry has taken lots of interest money, but his record shows pretty well that he doesn't do anything for them once he gets their money... which i find pretty cool. get them to pay for their own downfall in a way..

2- you think nader would get such support??

3- but he certainly is closer to that than bush is... i don't agree that there is simply a right and wrong way to do things... kerry's views on this and lots of other things are "closer" to right...

4- i don't know if he's said what you claim or not. but i've heard him talk A LOT about getting environmental/human rights aspects into trade laws... so perhaps he never said "require"... and they should be required, but bush ignores/pulls out of environmental treaties! far worse than at least being open and hopefully pursuing such regulations in future (and maybe past?) agreements

5- i disagree. i think it's simplistic and wrong to say we need to just pull out of there. yes, we need to get support from the international community for sure, and at least reduce our presence. but i don't think it's realistic in the least to expect it overnight. and i trust kerry's military views far more than bush's...

6- i hear you on that... it's depressing at times. (see nike thread for some examples...)

7- that's bold. how can he end it in 90 days?


The rest of my answers:

1) Was supposed to be an intro statement not #1. I are smart. But seriously, I don't think they'll be exactly the same. The issues I listed 2-end are the ones I vote on.

2) No. Nader would not. So in my mind that makes this issue a wash.

3) On most issues I would agree 100%. Closer is better than nothing. But not on a question of right. Health care is either a right or it isn't. I believe it is and I want a candidate who isn't afraid to agree with that. But I give Kerry some credit on this certainly.

4) This is one issue that is almost enough to move me. Mercury levels. ARGHHHHHH. Latest in a string of "dirty" moves by Bush. Global warming doesn't exist. OMFG. Science lessons from this moron paid for by the oil companies? I don't think so. I'll stick with the concensus opinions of every editor of every major independent scientific publication.

5) I'll allow for a transition period. But we must pull out. Let NATO or the UN come in in our place. Bring the troops home. The US has not succeeded one time at building a nation since WW II. Not once. NATO is has succeeded in Macedonia and is succeeding in Bosnia & Hercegovinia. The UN has succeeded in assisting multiple African, Asian, and Latin American countries on the path to democracy. Sodom is gone. The WMDs aren't to be found. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors or the US. Bring the troops home. I'm not sure Kerry will. See LBJ (that bastard has quite a bit of American blood on his grave, including too many friends of mine).

6) I hear you. Boycott Nike.

7) Go Sally Struthers!!!!!!

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[frankzeg]

Whether we like it or not the art of getting what you want in DC is about coalition building and the give and take of realpolitik. Base, morally offensive and sometimes nearly criminal. However the dispersement of power bounds what can be normally accomplished. Unfortunately Ralph Nader apparently has very few skills with respect to this every-day challenge. He is certainly entertaining but scarcely realistic.

Bottom line; corporations act in their own good and are composed of people just like you and me. They represent a kind of power that comes from a reasonably organized team. But they are hardly omnipotent- far from it. And as history shows even the most steadfast and well managed can be brought to the point of non-existence in a few months. His ranting here creates a completely useless battle that would squander his resources and those he seeks to undo.

Millions of people work for these horrid corporations (including me) and most of them are not evil- surprisingly- given his rhetoric. Instead we work our tails off to try and survive in an incredibly hostile economic environment. I suppose that this competition can be perceived as destructive and there are certainly downsides to it. But it also provided tremendous benefits.

I agree with much of what Nader has to say but he is not an honest broker of ideas- he is far too consumed with his own self- and it shows. His insensitivity to the present political reality (highly polarized and nearly evenly divided) is just the most glaring example. He has disingenuously distanced himself from the present situation in much the same manner as the Corporate Masters that he criticizes- despite the truth of the obvious.

I cannot see how you can hold him to be your optimal candidate- even IF Kerry does not meet your ideal. But we are all entitled to a certain number of luxuries in this day and age- perhaps your well intended vote will not have unintended consequences.

[Thanatoast]

Sodom is gone.Not yet, but Bush is supporting that amendment.

Hehe. Couldn't resist. :D

[jefhatfield]

I agree with much of what Nader has to say but he is not an honest broker of ideas- he is far too consumed with his own self- and it shows. His insensitivity to the present political reality (highly polarized and nearly evenly divided) is just the most glaring example. He has disingenuously distanced himself from the present situation in much the same manner as the Corporate Masters that he criticizes- despite the truth of the obvious.

I cannot see how you can hold him to be your optimal candidate- even IF Kerry does not meet your ideal. But we are all entitled to a certain number of luxuries in this day and age- perhaps your well intended vote will not have unintended consequences.

i wonder how nader feels being that the last 3+ years of bush has been due largely to him?

nader is either a true believer who wants a better america or an egomaniac out of control

i still don't really know for sure if he is one of those two or something in between...either way, he's way better than george bush ;) ...as much as i don't like bush and i didn't vote for him in 2000 and won't come november, america has had worse presidents, namely ronald reagan

and even though he was the worst us president in recent times, it was america in 1980 who put him there and again in 1984 and with that, it may not be that reagan (with record defecit doubling jimmy carter after having got in by criticizing carter's defecit as main platform) was the problem, but the american voters in those two elections who got what they deserved...i would take ten terms of bush jr over one term of reagan

i love america but i am not surprised why many around the world hate the usa...we are not exactly making a great statement with W at the helm, and like i mentioned reagan sucked, and clinton could not keep it in his pants, carter and geoge sr were ineffective, and nixon was a crook...ford might have been good but he pardoned nixon

he he...maybe we should be "under" the queen after all...ooo bad thought, i will take britney spears ;)

[numediaman]

i wonder how nader feels being that the last 3+ years of bush has been due largely to him?

I don't blame Nader for the past three years -- I blame Bush and his administration first, Bush supporters second -- with Nader down on the list.

But I do agree with those that accuse Nader of grandstanding. He has every right to run if he wants. But he does no one any good, including his supporters, to run this way -- as an isolated candidate, separate from any party or movement.

But back to the topic at hand . . . the flat tax . . . oh, no wait, gay marriage . . . please, tell me, what thread is this anyway?

[PalmHarborTchr]

We know here in Florida that Bush stole the election// over 4,000
Blacks were pulled from the voters rolls "by mistake" as they
were classified as felons and they were not. If Bush steals the
election again.....the American people will be as mad and take
to the streets then you will see the true face of Fascism used
to surpress the demonstration. Remember Ohio, Kent State University
in 1971 when the national guard shot 5 students who were demonstrating
against Nixon's invastion of Cambodia??? Now that invasion worked out
well for the US...huh?





i wonder how nader feels being that the last 3+ years of bush has been due largely to him?

I don't blame Nader for the past three years -- I blame Bush and his administration first, Bush supporters second -- with Nader down on the list.

But I do agree with those that accuse Nader of grandstanding. He has every right to run if he wants. But he does no one any good, including his supporters, to run this way -- as an isolated candidate, separate from any party or movement.

But back to the topic at hand . . . the flat tax . . . oh, no wait, gay marriage . . . please, tell me, what thread is this anyway?

[Sarge64]

I guess that it is time to raise the voting age to 21 (at least).
The issue of george's Iraqi war is constantly on the minds of my fellow veterans and the reviews are not good. We are all concerned about our military and support each and every one of them with the exception of the FOOL (texans... go figure... should have learned our lessons with Lying Lyndon) that Invaded a sovereign country with out just cause. Such action is the most heinous of War Crimes and should be punished as such.
So to solve the problem let us bring the draft back and immediately send the parents, children and siblings of the supporters of this Illegal action to Iraq.
At this moment our government has been seized by un-elected individuals with criminal records that would prevent them from holding a clerks job at a 7-11 (Bush, Poindexter etc.)
If this is your idea of democracy then our republic is in the createst of danger.... the danger of ignorance. Thankfully, most states provide a better education than that of texass and that is where the hope of the world resides, with our children.

I am just on old grunt but should have followed george in dodging my responsibility to my fellow citizens… I could have gone a life time with out seeing what I have seen or doing what I had to do. To close I must repeat, if you support it… get your butt to the frontlines and let the innocent return.

This is not a war it is an invasion (remember Poland)

[blackfox]

As for the original topic of this thread, I agree with the others who have mentioned that the likelyhood of a draft soon is very remote...as for the (larger) issues raised:
I am not an American by birth, but have lived here for the past 15 years (dual-citizen), and although I am too old to be drafted, I have no problem fighting for either of the countries I maintain citizenship with...however, I do not equate Patriotism or love of ones' country with a specific ideology advanced by the current administration (bush or whomever)...I personally think that the seeming substance/choices of Bushs' foreign policy are not in the best interest of America, and therefore feel that I can be a Patriot by resisting these initiatives...the 'complaining' or liberals or other dissenters does not necessarily mean that they love their country any less...
I amm not particularily impressed by Kerry, but will vote for him because a new administration will have to replace Rumsfeld, Ashcroft etc, as well as the effect on judicial nominations...
Does anyone remember that Liberty requires responsibility? something sorely lacking in this day and age...also technically liberty as a concept is at odds with the concept of freedom...
In closing, I am sick of the culture of fear stoked up in this country right now...we are still one of the safest countries in the world, not that watching the local news would let you know...yes, we suffered a horrible terrorist attack, but most countries around the world had to deal w/ this unpleasant reality already, by virtue of our relative isolation we were spared till the 21st century...but these countries have managed w/o flying off the handle...The US is full of intelligent people, but fear has made as a nation of Hysterics...and I don't appreciate this not only being furthered but exploited by the powers that be...Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect of "People who are willing to trade their Liberty for security, deserve neither." I take this two ways in relation to this thread...1) Do not allow the Government(or whoever) to take the former for the latter, and 2) Be willing to take responsibility as a citizen, including service to your country, as some things are worth fighting and dying for...at least contribute more than complaints...I think the Iraq debacle is a tragedy, but it can be seen in part a result of peoples' fear overriding their better judgement and abdicating their rightful responsibility as members and contributers to their nations future...I admire both the soldiers in Iraq who work against such odds, and those stateside who take the effort to mount a vocal opposition to American policy decisions that they judge erroneous...sorry for the long post, but as much as I enjoy the exchange of ideas, please be willing to act on them...at least vote.

[skunk]

Good post, Blackfox.

[kuyu]

Why do the same people that keeping saying that Bush should have pre-empted 911 turn around and say that he shouldn't have pre-empted XXX from Iraq.

Most of the "anti-war" crowd didn't like Bush from the start (probably because he seemed dumb and had a southern accent), and will not agree with him on any issue, just out of principle. Bush could be getting his every move from Clinton and the "anti-war" crowd would still try to crucify the guy.

Blind hatred (spit all the hear-say and conspiracy theories you want) is not a political stance, it's a primitive reaction. I wouldn't have ever expected the compassionate party to be united in hatred.
***this is not intended for the informed Democrats out there, just the"'I'm against the war because Incubus and MTV said i should be" crowd.***

[Thanatoast]

Why do the same people that keeping saying that Bush should have pre-empted 911 turn around and say that he shouldn't have pre-empted XXX from Iraq.

Most of the "anti-war" crowd didn't like Bush from the start (probably because he seemed dumb and had a southern accent), and will not agree with him on any issue, just out of principle. Bush could be getting his every move from Clinton and the "anti-war" crowd would still try to crucify the guy.

Blind hatred (spit all the hear-say and conspiracy theories you want) is not a political stance, it's a primitive reaction. I wouldn't have ever expected the compassionate party to be united in hatred.
***this is not intended for the informed Democrats out there, just the"'I'm against the war because Incubus and MTV said i should be" crowd.***The reason we shouldn't have pre-empted Iraq is because there was nothing to pre-empt. Weapons inspectors said so before the war, Bush's own people have said so after the war.

If Bush were getting his every move from Clinton, nobody would be complaining at all. Clinton was very centrist, as Bush promised to be in 2000. The Republicans took a centrist Democrat, labled him uber-liberal and divisive, then promised a "true" centrist administration. What we got was the most divisive and right-wing administration in living history.

I consider myself informed and I hate Bush. I think he's set this country back by decades. But blind hatred of Bush by liberals is no worse than blind hatred of Clinton by conservatives. I think it's about time the Democrats got pissed off, actually.

[Frohickey]

I consider myself informed and I hate Bush. I think he's set this country back by decades. But blind hatred of Bush by liberals is no worse than blind hatred of Clinton by conservatives. I think it's about time the Democrats got pissed off, actually.

Democrats have been pissed off since Reagan. Nothing different, then and now.

[Backtothemac]

Maybe I am getting old, but can't we look at things without labels? Personally I think anyone in the white house is going to be forced to look at the draft, whether that is Kerry, Bush, or anyone. We cannot abandon the policy that is at hand because we would look weak. Now, as far as pointing fingers at administrations. I don't think that is effective either. I think it is a policy failure in the US for the last 30 or so years, and too much politics that allowed 9/11 to happen. I think it is stupid to blame Clinton or Bush. Fact is we as a society were not kicking and screaming at Clinton to do something about Al Qaeda because it wasn't here, and it wasn't a threat that was in our face. Now that it is, we support going to Afghanistan. So, I don't blame Clinton. I blame the politics of Washington. As far as Iraq is concerned. Bush has developed a doctrine that says, we won't wait for the threat to develop. Many have a problem with that, and while I may not agree, I will defend to my death their RIGHT to have their opinion. Furthermore, I have served my country, and if I could have gone back in after 9/11 I would have. But I cannot. I can however say that whether we like the policy or not, it is policy for this administration and the next. So, while we may not like the thought of why we are there we are there. And we are in other places. Some did not approve of Clinton going into Bosnia. But we did it, and personally, I think we needed to go, and I supported Clinton 100% on the decisions that he made with foriegn affairs. I don't like it when people are blind to foriegn affairs. Yea, some people are pissed at us, but they always have been, and always will be. Hell France did not even let us use their airspace in 1986 when we bombed Kadaffi.

Point is this. We don't agree. But lets be calm, intelligent, and logical about it. Lets not insult each other, or the men that are running for office. Lets have true discussion about how we got where we are and instead of pointing fingers at men that did not have the ability to do anything about 9/11, lets ask ourselves why we did not require our government to do something before 9/11. It is our fault, not the fault of the administration that is in Washington, nor the Clinton administration, but a fundamental flaw in the structure of our government and the intelligence services.

[blackfox]

Maybe I am getting old, but can't we look at things without labels? Personally I think anyone in the white house is going to be forced to look at the draft, whether that is Kerry, Bush, or anyone. We cannot abandon the policy that is at hand because we would look weak. Now, as far as pointing fingers at administrations. I don't think that is effective either. I think it is a policy failure in the US for the last 30 or so years, and too much politics that allowed 9/11 to happen. I think it is stupid to blame Clinton or Bush. Fact is we as a society were not kicking and screaming at Clinton to do something about Al Qaeda because it wasn't here, and it wasn't a threat that was in our face. Now that it is, we support going to Afghanistan. So, I don't blame Clinton. I blame the politics of Washington. As far as Iraq is concerned. Bush has developed a doctrine that says, we won't wait for the threat to develop. Many have a problem with that, and while I may not agree, I will defend to my death their RIGHT to have their opinion. Furthermore, I have served my country, and if I could have gone back in after 9/11 I would have. But I cannot. I can however say that whether we like the policy or not, it is policy for this administration and the next. So, while we may not like the thought of why we are there we are there. And we are in other places. Some did not approve of Clinton going into Bosnia. But we did it, and personally, I think we needed to go, and I supported Clinton 100% on the decisions that he made with foriegn affairs. I don't like it when people are blind to foriegn affairs. Yea, some people are pissed at us, but they always have been, and always will be. Hell France did not even let us use their airspace in 1986 when we bombed Kadaffi.

Point is this. We don't agree. But lets be calm, intelligent, and logical about it. Lets not insult each other, or the men that are running for office. Lets have true discussion about how we got where we are and instead of pointing fingers at men that did not have the ability to do anything about 9/11, lets ask ourselves why we did not require our government to do something before 9/11. It is our fault, not the fault of the administration that is in Washington, nor the Clinton administration, but a fundamental flaw in the structure of our government and the intelligence services.
Exactly. Best post in this thread. Thanks.

[Thanatoast]

Point is this. We don't agree. But lets be calm, intelligent, and logical about it. Lets not insult each other, or the men that are running for office. Lets have true discussion about how we got where we are and instead of pointing fingers at men that did not have the ability to do anything about 9/11, lets ask ourselves why we did not require our government to do something before 9/11. It is our fault, not the fault of the administration that is in Washington, nor the Clinton administration, but a fundamental flaw in the structure of our government and the intelligence services.
You know, I'm tired of playing the nice guy. Al Gore was a nice guy, look where it got him.

You want a true discussion on how we got where we are? How's this: Not only am I going to, but I am also justified in insulting the current administration. Their single minded focus on Iraq and pursuit of cold war ideology has led to the US becoming the world's pariah. And what's worse is we deserve it. We might not have been able to stop 9-11, but we could at least have been looking in that direction, rather than focusing our efforts on NMD, a revived star wars program designed against a threat that is no longer credible. After 9-11 we could've tried hunting for Osama instead of invading Iraq.

Discuss.

Our word means ****-all on the international scene these days. Now even our allies distrust us. ****, if Bush said the sky was blue, I'd ask for a second opinion. Why? Because he's proven himself incapable of using truth and responsibility to run the country. Finger-pointing and lies are all we get out of him.

Discuss.

So I will not back down, even in the interests of civility, to stop pointing fingers at our current president. Someone in another thread said he should be turned over to the Hauge for war crimes, and I wholly agree. Let Bush reap what he has sown. I for one am tired of dealing with the consequences of his actions.

Discuss.

I'm pissed, and why should I give up my moral indignation? The Republicans milked moral indignation over Clinton's blow-job for years. Here we have a president who dropped the ball on terrorism, lied to invade another country, has turned the US closer to a police state than it's ever been, destroyed our reputation on the world scene, and has revived cold-war policy and tactics a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union - thereby alienating our allies, treating new friends as old threats, diverting money to boondoggle military programs, and leading to a deterioration of dialogue and policy on the world stage. If ever a president deserves blame for ****ing up, it's this one.

Discuss.

Enough nice guy. Bush has proven he has no patience nor countenance for debate, nor does he show any disinclination to squelch the truth if it is inconvenient or point fingers when things blow up in his face. Well, I'm pointing the finger at him.

Discuss.

[zimv20]

You know, I'm tired of playing the nice guy.
that felt good to read. did it feel good to write?

[Backtothemac]

And that anger will keep logical discussion from forming.

[zimv20]

And that anger will keep logical discussion from forming.
mmmm, i don't think that's necessarily true. toast brought up some very valid points, and i share a lot of that anger.

i don't think it's fair to dismiss that anger as coming from someone who simply dislikes bush -- i dislike his policies and what he's done to my country. hell, that _better_ make me angry, otherwise i obviously don't care much for my country.

i believe i can carry that anger and maintain a healthy, logical discussion.

[Thanatoast]

that felt good to read. did it feel good to write?Not at all. The fact that I had to write it at all is incredibly frustrating. I see 9-11 as a major turning point. We had the entire world at our back. We could've pursued any goals and gotten support from everyone. Even the goals we chose got some support. Unfortunately, the goals we chose to pursue were the same short-sighted ones we always have. We had the opportunity to finally ask what the causes of terrorism were and treat *them*, rather than the symptoms. We could've changed the world and made it a better place. But instead our leaders chose a path of revenge and hostility. Rather than ask why, they asked how. Rather than appeal to humanity's desire to rise above the squalor, they inflamed their base instincts. We squandered the good-will that could have been used to fundamentally change the nature of our relationship with the people of the middle east. My only hope is that this turn towards the worst possible direction will wake up enough people to swing the pendulum the other way that much further when it finally does. The only question is, how much further towards small-mindedness and short-sightedness do we have to go?

And that anger will keep logical discussion from forming.
It wasn't by coincidence that certain portions of my post were bolded. Even as I was ranting about placing blame squarely on the shoulders of the current administration, I wanted to make sure that there were political talking points to discuss, should people choose to discuss them. Here they are again:

single minded focus on Iraq and pursuit of cold war ideology - do you deny the focus or the method? why?

after 9-11 we could've tried hunting for Osama instead of invading Iraq - fairly obvious talking point. dunno if you can rebut it, but you're welcome to try.

our word means ****-all on the international scene these days, now even our allies distrust us - do you deny this? why? why did Bush pursue a policy that would lead to this? what justification did he have?

he should be turned over to the Hauge for war crimes - my personal favorite. if a leader should be held to the same standards that he proclaims for everyone else. the reason we haven't approved the ICC is because we're afraid we might be held to our own standards.

why should I give up my moral indignation? - halfway answered in your post, but you've so far chosen not to argue the obvious arguments i raised.

dropped the ball on terrorism, lied to invade another country, has turned the US closer to a police state than it's ever been, destroyed our reputation on the world scene, and has revived cold-war policy and tactics a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union - thereby alienating our allies, treating new friends as old threats, diverting money to boondoggle military programs, and leading to a deterioration of dialogue and policy on the world stage - anyone? anyone? bueller? bueller?

[pseudobrit]

And that anger will keep logical discussion from forming.

But it directly rises and counters the anger that has been vomited on us for years from the direction of right-wing hate radio and seething pundits.

For too long the left and centre have been trying to have logical discussion, only to be shouted down and spit upon by vicious hate mongers. I've been trying to bend to this venom for far too long.

**** it. I tried to like Bush. I tried to support him after 9/11. I remember telling friends how well I thought he was doing in the aftermath.

I supported the Afghan invasion. I really wanted to see us strike back at the people that hit us that day in the worst way. I wanted to see steel on the ground in September.

But he's slowly unraveled everything. Every step he takes is another wrong one. I feel like... world opinion.

[skunk]

I tried to like Bush.
Must....try...harder.

[Backtothemac]

We know here in Florida that Bush stole the election// over 4,000
Blacks were pulled from the voters rolls "by mistake" as they
were classified as felons and they were not. If Bush steals the
election again.....the American people will be as mad and take
to the streets then you will see the true face of Fascism used
to surpress the demonstration. Remember Ohio, Kent State University
in 1971 when the national guard shot 5 students who were demonstrating
against Nixon's invastion of Cambodia??? Now that invasion worked out
well for the US...huh?


Ok, this is the crap that I think is BS. He did not STEAL the election, there were not 4,000 blacks that were pulled from voting booths. That is urban legand, and total 100% bs.

[Backtothemac]

But it directly rises and counters the anger that has been vomited on us for years from the direction of right-wing hate radio and seething pundits.

For too long the left and centre have been trying to have logical discussion, only to be shouted down and spit upon by vicious hate mongers. I've been trying to bend to this venom for far too long.

**** it. I tried to like Bush. I tried to support him after 9/11. I remember telling friends how well I thought he was doing in the aftermath.

I supported the Afghan invasion. I really wanted to see us strike back at the people that hit us that day in the worst way. I wanted to see steel on the ground in September.

But he's slowly unraveled everything. Every step he takes is another wrong one. I feel like... world opinion.


I understand what you are saying, 100%. However, I don't think that we can lay blame on just this current administration.

[Backtothemac]

single minded focus on Iraq and pursuit of cold war ideology - do you deny the focus or the method? why?
I don't think it was a single minded focus. Personally, I think the administration took a look at all terror states. Being, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and decided after Afghanistan (where we could not use the brunt of our military power) to go into Iraq in a show of force to the rest of the terror states that we were going to be serious about this. I think it was a calculated move that has already paid off with Libya giving up everything.


after 9-11 we could've tried hunting for Osama instead of invading Iraq - fairly obvious talking point. dunno if you can rebut it, but you're welcome to try.
We did hunt for Osama. It is a different kind of hunt. You don't hunt for Osama with 200,000 troops in that terain. We have a very small contengient of forces that are designed to work in that environment. That is why there are so few there, and be patient. They will get him.


our word means ****-all on the international scene these days, now even our allies distrust us - do you deny this? why? why did Bush pursue a policy that would lead to this? what justification did he have?
Yes, I do deny this. I deny this because the allies that matter to this country are still allies. Are relations strained with Russia and Germany? Yes. Personally, and I am not saying this about French people, or the counrty of Franch, but about their government. I could care less if that government supports us. The justification is that we make our own decisions that are vital to our interests.


he should be turned over to the Hauge for war crimes - my personal favorite. if a leader should be held to the same standards that he proclaims for everyone else. the reason we haven't approved the ICC is because we're afraid we might be held to our own standards.
I personally think that is the most illogical statement I have heard. So, Clinton should have gone before the Hauge for Bosnia? Afterall that did not have UN support.


why should I give up my moral indignation? - halfway answered in your post, but you've so far chosen not to argue the obvious arguments i raised.
Now I am ;)


dropped the ball on terrorism, lied to invade another country, has turned the US closer to a police state than it's ever been, destroyed our reputation on the world scene, and has revived cold-war policy and tactics a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union - thereby alienating our allies, treating new friends as old threats, diverting money to boondoggle military programs, and leading to a deterioration of dialogue and policy on the world stage - anyone? anyone? bueller? bueller?
LOL. Sorry. How many terror attacks have we had since 9/11 in the US? Until their is one, then you can't say that just this administration dropped the ball! It was a policy failure of the largest magnitude. Not either administration. How are we a police state exactly? I drove to work this morning and did not have to show "papers" to anyone. What cold war policy? What tactics? What allies did we alienate that are actually allies? What new friends are we treating as a thread? Yea, don't fund the military during war, that is a real smart move, and what proof do you have that they are doing that. What dialogue on the world stage? why do you care so much about the what the world thinks? About what the UN thinks? If they are that important in the decision making process why were they left out of Bosnia? What makes the UN so precious to you? The diversion of power from our government to a world body.

Frankly, and I will say this in bold the reason that we had 9/11 is because for almost a decade this country tried to kiss every other country in the worlds ass, play by the rules of the UN, and not protect the interests of the United States and now you want to continue that policy of insanity. I don't understand that. Personally, my complaint is that we have not rattled the sabre louder than we already have. Call me a war monger, that is fine, but some people will only respond to force. The terrorists, and the states that support them are one in the same. There is not diferenciating them.

[PalmHarborTchr]

I live in Florida. The reality is that 4000 people who moved to Florida

from Texas who had been convicted of a misdimeaner had been classified

as felons and were EXCLUDED from voting in 2000. Bush's people are

smart theives and his brother is the head of that ring. Bush will attempt

to steal the election in 2004 too. I hope all the supporters of Bush"s

"Perpetual War" get drafted if he gets elected in November.

[jefhatfield]

who here now thinks that bush has no exit plan for the middle east...and that we are closer to a draft?

will w become some sort of "colonist" or "crusader" in the middle east if he wins a second term?

personally, i don't think he will stay in iraq much longer or go after any other major world leaders via military force...iraq was in his sights for years and i think even if he loses this november, he will be happy he caught saddam

some thought that he had a personal vendetta against the dictator, and recent actions have backed up that once preposterous sounding claim

[PalmHarborTchr]

who here now thinks that bush has no exit plan for the middle east...and that we are closer to a draft?

will w become some sort of "colonist" or "crusader" in the middle east if he wins a second term?

personally, i don't think he will stay in iraq much longer or go after any other major world leaders via military force...iraq was in his sights for years and i think even if he loses this november, he will be happy he caught saddam

some thought that he had a personal vendetta against the dictator, and recent actions have backed up that once preposterous sounding claim

HEY PAL, BUSH IS PLANNING ON "PERPETUAL WAR" AGAINST ALL ENEMIES
IN THE WHOLE WORLD.... Oh, Hitler is turning in his grave in envy
of this new, anti-communist, anti-socialism- anti-terrorism leader.
Lets go...........right arm straight ahead...stiffly say: Sieg Heil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jefhatfield]

HEY PAL, BUSH IS PLANNING ON "PERPETUAL WAR" AGAINST ALL ENEMIES
IN THE WHOLE WORLD.... Oh, Hitler is turning in his grave in envy
of this new, anti-communist, anti-socialism- anti-terrorism leader.
Lets go...........right arm straight ahead...stiffly say: Sieg Heil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i don't see bush as anything close to a nazi or dictator

saddam was a dictator and he slaughtered his own people and all competitors

bush, while a bad president, does not resort to dictator tactics and answers to the senate, the congress, and to the voters...and no matter what, he can stay in office no later than january 2009

saddam would have stayed in office until he died or was taken out by force

[PalmHarborTchr]

If the polls say Bush is going to lose I can see him "postponing" the election for the "safety of the american people" Hannity has already hinted at it.
I suggest you turn off Rush Limbaugh and FoxHole News and get the facts.
Read the "patriot act"...note that 3 weeks ago, Bush had a rally in Orlando
Florida for 10000 people. Note that to get a ticket you had to be a registered party member (republican)...thats a fact. Note why the
911 hearing is going on 2 years after the fact because Bush did not want the truth to get out so now its going on and his people are lying under oath.
Fascism is a melding of government and private industry interests plus
a loss of civil interests. Note that Mr. Hitler did NOT take over private
business...Mercedes, Braun, Krups, Volkswagen et al worked closely
with the government...laborers supplied by French,Belgian men that came from the occupied nations. While you are at it why not read about Marshal Henri Philippe Petain he was a frenchman who ran the Vichy Government
in occupied France. You see, Germany invaded France to liberate them from the Communists and installed a friendly govenrment.....just like we are doing in Iraq. Maybe we can get Henri Philippe Petain's son to run the Iraq government!

[Backtothemac]

If the polls say Bush is going to lose I can see him "postponing" the election for the "safety of the american people" Hannity has already hinted at it.
I suggest you turn off Rush Limbaugh and FoxHole News and get the facts.
Read the "patriot act"...note that 3 weeks ago, Bush had a rally in Orlando
Florida for 10000 people. Note that to get a ticket you had to be a registered party member (republican)...thats a fact. Note why the
911 hearing is going on 2 years after the fact because Bush did not want the truth to get out so now its going on and his people are lying under oath.
Fascism is a melding of government and private industry interests plus
a loss of civil interests. Note that Mr. Hitler did NOT take over private
business...Mercedes, Braun, Krups, Volkswagen et al worked closely
with the government...laborers supplied by French,Belgian men that came from the occupied nations. While you are at it why not read about Marshal Henri Philippe Petain he was a frenchman who ran the Vichy Government
in occupied France. You see, Germany invaded France to liberate them from the Communists and installed a friendly govenrment.....just like we are doing in Iraq. Maybe we can get Henri Philippe Petain's son to run the Iraq government!


Ok, just stop the BS will ya. Oh,, and thanks for the totally offensive picture of the lady puking. Nice. You sound like a radical that is trying to get your agenda through. You are the one that sounds like Hitler, not Bush.

What a joke. Can you give proof of the 4,000 perople from Texas from a viable news organization? No. He had a rally, and you had to be registered republican to attend, how heinous can one get? Did not want 9/11 panel that showed the government was to blame because of stupid actions of government officials. K. What are trying to say? That Bush KNEW the details of 9/11? That he wanted it to happen? What is it? Even those on the left who are proud democrats like Jef don't agree with the banter that you are spilling out of your mouth.

If Bush tried to defer the election, it would never work. Even I, a hard nosed republican would not stand by and watch that happen.

[zimv20]

If Bush tried to defer the election, it would never work. Even I, a hard nosed republican would not stand by and watch that happen.
i had put this forth as a possibility over a year ago. w/ the outbreak of SARS, a change was made to US law that makes it easier to forcibly detain those exposed (not just to SARS, but any communicable disease). i hypothesized some kind of outbreak in late summer of '04, should bush be behind in the polls. forced detention would make the election "undemocratic," and postponed.

i've no idea if this or any kind of plan would be enacted, but i can guarantee you it's been gamed.

[jefhatfield]

Ok, just stop the BS will ya.

what's wrong with bs?

i thought you had two such degrees? ;)

[Backtothemac]

what's wrong with bs?

i thought you had two such degrees? ;)

Na, Mine are B.A believe it or not. I find it Ironic that my wife's degree was in interior design and deals with art, but her's is a B.S. degree, and mine, Political Science is considered an Art.

Don't you love degree classifications ;)

[jefhatfield]

Na, Mine are B.A believe it or not. I find it Ironic that my wife's degree was in interior design and deals with art, but her's is a B.S. degree, and mine, Political Science is considered an Art.

Don't you love degree classifications ;)

the weidest are the ones around lawyers

until 30 years ago, most lawyers got a bachelo'r in law, llb, followed by a master's in law, llm

now the llb is called a jd *juris "doctorate", but the immediate degree following the jd is still the llm master's degree...go figure

most people with college degrees have a bachelor's from a university, most people with an associate's, the true "first college degree", have it from an institution with "college" in their name/title and many of those graduates don't consider themselves full "college" graduates

at least that is in america since other countries only have the bachelor's as the entry level degree but they may have received their ba/bs from a standard college, or more elite (or larger) university

my friend teaches at naval postgraduate school, in california, but the study is graduate level and then mostly within the master's degree realm, not post graduate/post doctoral level research...many of the students are not in the us navy, or in any "navy" for that matter...i don't know why they didn't call their institution military graduate school or military graduate university

a few years ago, they almost closed that school, thanks to new gingrich, and also almost closed the defense language institute...many brick and mortar combat military types did not like the cutbacks on thier tanks and ships and would have rather seen the cutbacks in non combat intel operations

but thank god those two bases were kept alive...some say since the area is heavily democratic with current and former powerful democratic leaders in congress presiding over those districts, newt went after them with a vengeance

usually it's the dems who cut the military, but these were not regular combat military ops

but our army fort, fort ord, special first strike, small scale army troopers, got cut from newt and the gop

but all these cuts, to be fair, were in the days before 9/11 when america thought of war in large scale, gulf war terms, and not in special/intel ops...but i still am mad at newt...but now i have really drifted off topic ;)

[Thanatoast]

I don't think it was a single minded focus. Personally, I think the administration took a look at all terror states. Being, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and decided after Afghanistan (where we could not use the brunt of our military power) to go into Iraq in a show of force to the rest of the terror states that we were going to be serious about this. I think it was a calculated move that has already paid off with Libya giving up everything.
Before 9-11, Bush's focus was on tax cuts and NMD. After 9-11 his focus was on Iraq. He pummled Afghanistan then left it to its own devices. A third of the country is back under Taliban control and the government controls only the capital city, Kabul, and only during daylight hours. His focus turned entirely to invading Iraq and removing Saddam, who had less to do with terrorism than any of the other states you named, and who would've been more effective to deal with, though not by Bush's preferred means.

We did hunt for Osama. It is a different kind of hunt. You don't hunt for Osama with 200,000 troops in that terain. We have a very small contengient of forces that are designed to work in that environment. That is why there are so few there, and be patient. They will get him.
Yeah, you don't hunt for Osama with 200,000 troops in Iraq either. It just goes to prove his insane focus on the white whale.

Yes, I do deny this. I deny this because the allies that matter to this country are still allies. Are relations strained with Russia and Germany? Yes. Personally, and I am not saying this about French people, or the counrty of Franch, but about their government. I could care less if that government supports us. The justification is that we make our own decisions that are vital to our interests.
Do you think it will be easier or harder to fight terror with allies that distrust us? Do you think we are more or less secure now that we've gone and done exactly what Osama said we would, ie) invade and occupy an oil-rich middle eastern country? Do you think our vital national interests are served by recruiting more terrorists for the bad guys by killing innocent civilians in no-win combat in places like Fallujah? How do our actions make us look to the world at large? How are our interests served by turning the world against us?

I personally think that is the most illogical statement I have heard. So, Clinton should have gone before the Hauge for Bosnia? Afterall that did not have UN support.
Dunno. Was Clinton accused of war crimes? Did he lie in order to invade?

Now I am ;)
Fair enough. :)

LOL. Sorry. How many terror attacks have we had since 9/11 in the US? Until their is one, then you can't say that just this administration dropped the ball! It was a policy failure of the largest magnitude. Not either administration. How are we a police state exactly? I drove to work this morning and did not have to show "papers" to anyone. What cold war policy? What tactics? What allies did we alienate that are actually allies? What new friends are we treating as a thread? Yea, don't fund the military during war, that is a real smart move, and what proof do you have that they are doing that. What dialogue on the world stage? why do you care so much about the what the world thinks? About what the UN thinks? If they are that important in the decision making process why were they left out of Bosnia? What makes the UN so precious to you? The diversion of power from our government to a world body.
How many terror attacks have happened on Bush's watch? Wasn't he supposed to be minding the store? Do you suffter any illusions that Repulicans would've screamed blood murder had 9-11 happened under a Gore presidency? The policy failure happened on Bush's watch because his policy was to ignore terrorism and think of ways to attack Saddam. We are turning towards a police state by our adoption of the patriot act, which among other things, expands the surveillance powers of the government against citizens, allows people to be held without charge or trial, and lets government officials seize library and purchase records without a warrant. I personally think that's damn scary. I heard one girl say "we're only giving up some of our minor civil liberties while we deal with the terror problem..." and I said, "what!? which civil liberties, exactly, do you qualify as minor?" Our cold-war policy of NMD and American dominance. Sovling the terror problem by means of mass invasion. Treating Russia with suspicion and ditching ABM. I'll say it again, NMD is a boondoggle. It doesn't work. It doesn't protect against terrorism, it doesn't even protect against missles. It's a giant multi-billion dollar defense contractor give-away based on a theory that was a bad idea to begin with. And as for not funding the military during a war, mayhaps we should actually declare war before invading other countries, hm? The "war on terror" is a joke, and it will not solve anything unless the goal is to kill everyone who does not look like us, and that isn't a political or strategic reality. I care about what the UN thinks because we claim to have democratic traditions in this country, and if we can't convince a majority of the world that our wars are a good idea, I think we should take a second look at what it is we're doing. Are we really trying to bring peace?

the reason that we had 9/11 is because for almost a decade this country tried to kiss every other country in the worlds ass, play by the rules of the UN, and not protect the interests of the United States
************. If we were trying to kiss ass, we would've done what the other countries of the world wanted to do, not what *we* wanted to. The reason we had 9-11 is that we continued to do what was in our own short term interests, just like we always have, and ingored the growing agitation and dissillusionment generated by our hypocrisy and general cluelessness.

Personally, my complaint is that we have not rattled the sabre louder than we already have. Call me a war monger, that is fine, but some people will only respond to force. The terrorists, and the states that support them are one in the same. There is not diferenciating them.
Apparently, the only way we respond is by force as well. Osama certainly got our attention on 9-11. Too bad we chose to continue our military means to an end, rather than seek alternatives that would've led to less anxiety, death and destruction. Better watch out claiming terrorists and states are the same. We oursleves have supported terrorists. Sounds like Osama is using the same excuse we are.

All in all, war is not the way to solve a problem. It *is* the way to kill the other guy so that the problem disappears. To make a bad analogy, just because you tear up the test and throw it in the trash doesn't mean you're getting an "A". The only way war solves a problem is by killing massive amounts of the enemy and destroying his means to survive. Since this isn't politically viable, even for our "war" president, it isn't even an attempt at a solution. It's time to try something else.

[Frohickey]

Walk softly, and carry a big stick. We haven't done that for a long time now. We have been coddling and appeasing.

[zimv20]

Walk softly, and carry a big stick. We haven't done that for a long time now. We have been coddling and appeasing.
i thought you were going to conclude by saying we've been using the stick

[blackfox]

We may have a big stick, but we certainly aren't walking softly...the biggest complaint I have with Bush is that domestic concerns have been ignored/compromised for our little foreign policy adventures...while I am sure people in Afghanistan and Iraq could've used some help, so could US citizens. On a larger issue, read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Many interesting parallels can be made to our own 'Empire'. Not good...

[jefhatfield]

Walk softly, and carry a big stick. We haven't done that for a long time now. We have been coddling and appeasing.

don't you think part of the "walking softly" is being diplomatic, which can be seen as coddling and appeasing?

gone are the days when a major superpower can wield its arms to get its will done...might does not mean right anymore in these modern times and the power of international courts, legislators, markets, and banks will see to it that bullies will not prevail...the us included

w has been a little too happy swinging his big stick...i totally understand his movements in afganistan and against al qaeda, but to go attack a modern country with the 4th largest military in the world, iraq, is truly stupid and a great way to get us into a quagmire...i think iraq layed down its arms and went into civilian mode, in hiding, and are now carrying out the attacks on us troops...saddam's elite republican guard are loyal to the end and can inflict never ending damge on the us presence there just like civilian attackers in vietnam terrorized us troops until we had to pull out...in covert wars, the more covert side, in civilian garb, has the upper hand of anonymity

so we will turn over power to the iraqis on june 30th...so what? then what do we do?...we will still have troops there, and some say many troops, for another two full years after the handover to keep the peace

how many more us troops and their allies will get shot, blown up, and taken hostage? and for what?

i venture to say right now, the us is thought of by the world at large as "carrying too big of a stick"...nobody has a problem with the usa having lots of weapons and troops...but few can agree with our over deployment of troops

what do you want america to do then, take over the entire muslim world country by country? because we probably can do this does not make it right

[jefhatfield]

We may have a big stick, but we certainly aren't walking softly...the biggest complaint I have with Bush is that domestic concerns have been ignored/compromised for our little foreign policy adventures...while I am sure people in Afghanistan and Iraq could've used some help, so could US citizens. On a larger issue, read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Many interesting parallels can be made to our own 'Empire'. Not good...

all empires end, but the way w is going about things, we are much closer to that end...the usa carefully put together a powerful economy and military (thanks to the past several presidents)...at the same time...and now with 100+ billion spent in iraq and counting, he is threatening both

enlistment is way down, moral is at its lowest among troops since the vietnam war, and the usa's economic woes are not getting any better...if w wins another term, we may end up off the short list of rich, influential, and well-liked nations

when i was a kid, the world looked up to the usa as a leader...what has happened?

every stupid move w makes will grow more terrorists against the usa in the future and whoever inherits the white house after w, whether in january 05 or 09, will have one hell of a mess to clean up which they ultimately will end up getting blamed for

these are dark times for the usa

[Frohickey]

but to go attack a modern country with the 4th largest military in the world, iraq

what do you want america to do then, take over the entire muslim world country by country? because we probably can do this does not make it right

They had, past tense, the 4th largest. That was back prior to the first Gulf War. Then, theirs was the largest army in the region, in manpower. After the first Gulf War, the Iraq army was never the same size as before.

No. Just fix one. Iraq would be just fine. Then, when a free and prosperous Iraq comes out and starts challenging the Asian tiger economies, and comes out with an Iraqi animation feature film where the characters are shooting beams of energy from their hands and are in search of a few spherical objects that is supposed to make a giant lizard show up and grant them wishes, we can all recoil in horror. :eek: :D

I wonder when Apple will have an Iraq factory. Maybe in time for the PowerMac G9, maybe the PowerMac GX. :D :D :D

[Frohickey]

enlistment is way down, moral is at its lowest among troops since the vietnam war, and the usa's economic woes are not getting any better...if w wins another term, we may end up off the short list of rich, influential, and well-liked nations

Funny. I just read a news article that said military recruiters have already filled their quotas of enlistments. I think it was from the San Jose Mercury, but it could be from other sources as well. This is, despite the opposition of some school boards, of military recruiters going into high schools and colleges.

[blackfox]

No. Just fix one. Iraq would be just fine. Then, when a free and prosperous Iraq comes out and starts challenging the Asian tiger economies, and comes out with an Iraqi animation feature film where the characters are shooting beams of energy from their hands and are in search of a few spherical objects that is supposed to make a giant lizard show up and grant them wishes, we can all recoil in horror. :eek: :D

Not sure if you are being at all serious here...but I found it very funny...thanks for the laugh.

[kuyu]

How about this. What if Bush were to run on national security, private enterprise, and NON-OIL ENERGIES???

Suppose Bush vowed to allocate funds towards serious research regarding hydro fuels. What if he gave his entire presidential salary to the energy department for research? This would be a brilliant political move.

To appropriate the cash needed, we could dump the "no call list" (how hard is it to hang up, really?), dump the salary increases for congress, dump all the wasted paper used in gov (they all have email and computers), and provide HUGE incentives to car makers that adopt green tech's (how about NO corporate taxes on revenues from green cars, with a 5 year sunset clause. And offer a $10,000 deduction for individuals in the year in which they purchase a green car)?

This, IMHO, would make Bush seem more caring, compassionate, and long-term focused regarding our own nation. Also, my big beef with him is the environmental thing. We can afford to be cleaner. Doubt it will happen though.

Any thoughts.....

[jefhatfield]

They had, past tense, the 4th largest. That was back prior to the first Gulf War. Then, theirs was the largest army in the region, in manpower. After the first Gulf War, the Iraq army was never the same size as before.

No. Just fix one. Iraq would be just fine. Then, when a free and prosperous Iraq comes out and starts challenging the Asian tiger economies, and comes out with an Iraqi animation feature film where the characters are shooting beams of energy from their hands and are in search of a few spherical objects that is supposed to make a giant lizard show up and grant them wishes, we can all recoil in horror. :eek: :D

I wonder when Apple will have an Iraq factory. Maybe in time for the PowerMac G9, maybe the PowerMac GX. :D :D :D

past tense, really??

they had the 4th largest behind, usa, russia, and china...and still did when we went in

not a shabby force, even after having lost against the usa from the first gulf war...believe me, the terrorists in iraq, who i think are largely republican guard, can still make life miserable for the us troops in iraq

overall, it's not a perfect situation and it's better that we eventually, sooner than later, get the hell out of that country

it's not our business and we don't have a long range plan...you have to have a plan when you deploy that many troops or else suffer a fate similar to vietnam, not knowing your enemy and having low troop morale

[takao]

past tense, really??

they had the 4th largest behind, usa, russia, and china...and still did when we went in

is size important for armies ? yes when both have equal equipped & trained forces and the war takes for a long time

for example: those iraqy T-72 are/were far from being a modern battle tank...

[jefhatfield]

is size important for armies ? yes when both have equal equipped & trained forces and the war takes for a long time

for example: those iraqy T-72 are/were far from being a modern battle tank...

the usa certainly has better weapons for the conflict...overall

but in close quarters combat, especially in the desert, their ak-47s are a better and more reliable gun than anything we have...our guns sometimes jam and that's what happened to jessica lynch...it's a good thing she still survived

also note that it's their territory and the iraqis have a lot of experience in desert warfare...so our attack on them last year was not a walk in the park...it was expensive and tricky for us to go into baghdad and take on iraq on their own turf

the so called war is really not over yet and we have to be diligent that they don't get the upper hand and turn what already some think is chaos, into, well chaos

[Frohickey]

the usa certainly has better weapons for the conflict...overall

but in close quarters combat, especially in the desert, their ak-47s are a better and more reliable gun than anything we have...our guns sometimes jam and that's what happened to jessica lynch...it's a good thing she still survived

also note that it's their territory and the iraqis have a lot of experience in desert warfare...so our attack on them last year was not a walk in the park...it was expensive and tricky for us to go into baghdad and take on iraq on their own turf

the so called war is really not over yet and we have to be diligent that they don't get the upper hand and turn what already some think is chaos, into, well chaos

Reliable MBRs... the M16 is capable of being a reliable MBR as well. Sure, they jam, but so do AK47s. Poor maintenance will cause any MBR to malfunction.

If reliability is key, why do you not see a whole lot of AK47s in 3-gun matches? There, reliability is key to scoring good hits in the least amount of time.

[mactastic]

Reliable MBRs... the M16 is capable of being a reliable MBR as well. Sure, they jam, but so do AK47s. Poor maintenance will cause any MBR to malfunction.

If reliability is key, why do you not see a whole lot of AK47s in 3-gun matches? There, reliability is key to scoring good hits in the least amount of time.

Main problem with the M-16 right now seems to be it's size. Too big to wield easily in a Humvee or other vehicle environment where a lot of soldiers seem to be doing a lot of fighting from. They're on the hunt for a smaller weapon now.

[pseudobrit]

Main problem with the M-16 right now seems to be it's size. Too big to wield easily in a Humvee or other vehicle environment where a lot of soldiers seem to be doing a lot of fighting from. They're on the hunt for a smaller weapon now.

The M4 is already in use.

[zimv20]

we could dump the "no call list"
what? and remove the only good thing bush has signed into law?

OT, but i love the fact that i went from 3-10 calls/day to about 1 illegal one/month.

[Frohickey]

Main problem with the M-16 right now seems to be it's size. Too big to wield easily in a Humvee or other vehicle environment where a lot of soldiers seem to be doing a lot of fighting from. They're on the hunt for a smaller weapon now.

Some units already have M4s.

I think that if the service were to go to a different MBR for the troops, that they should go to a larger caliber. There were anecdotal reports of 'skinnies' in Mogadishu high on kaat that kept on moving after being hit multiple times with the M4's ammo, in the book Blackhawk Down.

Go up to a larger caliber, maybe in between 5.56mm and 7.62mm... like, 6.5mm.

Or, go back to the 7.62mm, and simplify the supply chain.

[pseudobrit]

Some units already have M4s.

I think that if the service were to go to a different MBR for the troops, that they should go to a larger caliber. There were anecdotal reports of 'skinnies' in Mogadishu high on kaat that kept on moving after being hit multiple times with the M4's ammo, in the book Blackhawk Down.

They were using armour-piercing rounds, IIRC from the book. That was the main problem.

[takao]

Some units already have M4s.

I think that if the service were to go to a different MBR for the troops, that they should go to a larger caliber. There were anecdotal reports of 'skinnies' in Mogadishu high on kaat that kept on moving after being hit multiple times with the M4's ammo, in the book Blackhawk Down.

Go up to a larger caliber, maybe in between 5.56mm and 7.62mm... like, 6.5mm.

Or, go back to the 7.62mm, and simplify the supply chain.

with using a bullpup (sp?) design they would had 1 rifle instead of 2 different (m4,m16)

well the firepower-difference between 5,56 and 7,62 is just too small for the additional weight you have to carry when you want the same number of bullets, and of course a _lot_ more recoil, and not to forget bigger guns too ;-)
for a squad machine gun the 7,62 is of course very good because there you can benefit from the additional range

i guess the next assault rifle ammunitions will be even smaller like 4 mm etc..

[skunk]

Ooooh! I get SUCH a frisson listening to you macho types comparing the size of your weapons!

[Frohickey]

They were using armour-piercing rounds, IIRC from the book. That was the main problem.

Nope. Standard M16 ammo is M193, which is not the armor-piercing M995 type. But, the M193 has been superceded by the M855 (SS109), for use with the newer M16A2s with the faster twist barrels.

The main problem was that the wounding effects of the M193 or the M855 is dependent on velocity. (http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html) Velocity depends on barrel length, and the barrel length of the M4 carbines did not give the bullet enough velocity.

[Frohickey]

with using a bullpup (sp?) design they would had 1 rifle instead of 2 different (m4,m16)

well the firepower-difference between 5,56 and 7,62 is just too small for the additional weight you have to carry when you want the same number of bullets, and of course a _lot_ more recoil, and not to forget bigger guns too ;-)
for a squad machine gun the 7,62 is of course very good because there you can benefit from the additional range

i guess the next assault rifle ammunitions will be even smaller like 4 mm etc..

Doubt it.

Deer and humans are about the same size. Ask a hunter what type of ammo to use on a deer, and it will almost never be 5.56NATO. Those are considered varmint rounds for use against even smaller animals such as groundhogs, squirrels and rabbits.

Hunters don't like having to chase a deer after they have shot it. They want it to drop right where they were shot, or very close to it. Fast kill means less animal suffering, shorter distance to walk to get to where the animal dropped, and quicker time to get the fresh meat to the barbeque grill. :D

There is, of course, the other end of the spectrum. You don't want to use too much gun, but you also don't want to use too little. Use enough gun to do the job. If the job is to drop the enemy right there, less chance of the enemy shooting back, etc, then the 5.56NATO is not the cartridge for the job. It's actually non-optimal.

There is no reason that a 7.62NATO cannot be fielded without a good muzzlebreak to counteract the recoil associated with it. There are muzzlebreaks that are used in 50BMG rifles that turn the recoil to that of a 12 gauge shotgun.

Yes, there is the additional weight for the same amount of rounds, but if you have to fire multiple shots to drop an enemy, how is that an advantage?

[Frohickey]

Ooooh! I get SUCH a frisson listening to you macho types comparing the size of your weapons!

Ah... be quiet. ;) You English-types are subjects, thats why you guys don't have guns. Only citizens have guns. :eek: :D

[skunk]

Only citizens have guns. :eek: :D
I've got a REALLY LONG sword-stick: does that count? ;)

[takao]

Doubt it.

Deer and humans are about the same size. Ask a hunter what type of ammo to use on a deer, and it will almost never be 5.56NATO. Those are considered varmint rounds for use against even smaller animals such as groundhogs, squirrels and rabbits.

Hunters don't like having to chase a deer after they have shot it. They want it to drop right where they were shot, or very close to it. Fast kill means less animal suffering, shorter distance to walk to get to where the animal dropped, and quicker time to get the fresh meat to the barbeque grill. :D

There is, of course, the other end of the spectrum. You don't want to use too much gun, but you also don't want to use too little. Use enough gun to do the job. If the job is to drop the enemy right there, less chance of the enemy shooting back, etc, then the 5.56NATO is not the cartridge for the job. It's actually non-optimal.

There is no reason that a 7.62NATO cannot be fielded without a good muzzlebreak to counteract the recoil associated with it. There are muzzlebreaks that are used in 50BMG rifles that turn the recoil to that of a 12 gauge shotgun.

Yes, there is the additional weight for the same amount of rounds, but if you have to fire multiple shots to drop an enemy, how is that an advantage?

good point the 7,62 has of course more man stopping power than the 5,56 but how big is the difference in the field ? there are enough ww2 stories where soldiers where hit by multiple 7,92 rounds (german MG standard) and were still running forward because of the adrenaline

and of course bigger muzzle breaks = more weight ;) and more weight is bad which i can tell you from my 8 months

..if you surprise the enemy (oh those endless drills "feuerüberfall" :rolleyes: ) you will have 6-7 assault rifles and a at least 1 MG (which i guess is even in the US army still a 7,62 one) firing at high fire rate..on normal distance (50-15m at this distance most fights are fought) everybody fires a 3-5 shot salvo and the mg perhaps 15-20 rounds within 1-2 seconds, in most (sadly not everytime) cases he will have no change

if the enemy knows that you are waiting for him there you won't get enough time to carefully lining up 1 shot per 1 enemy
you _always_ fire 2 shots per enemy even with the 7,62

and a wounded soldiers counts somtimes even more than a soldiers which you killed ...if you injure an enemy this one injured person takes up a lot of medical care troops and other logistics

quote from our drill instructor: "a squad of 8 with 2 injured is out of action"

and you can't compare hunting with firefights in hunting there is "man stoping ammunition" allowed which is forbidden for military service since 1907 Hague Convention, §22

[Backtothemac]

Wow, this has become the NRA thread

[Frohickey]

Wow, this has become the NRA thread

Um... you don't know the NRA then. NRA would talk about which way the the gun was pointed, how many seconds it takes for the next string of shots, and which position its taken in, and how much each hit is worth, and who is the overall winner.

This is guy talk. And gal talk (for the ones that know how to have fun). :eek:

[Frohickey]

and a wounded soldiers counts somtimes even more than a soldiers which you killed ...if you injure an enemy this one injured person takes up a lot of medical care troops and other logistics


There are always some exceptional people that don't know that they are supposed to be dead. I call these the MPHGBK-types. You know the ones that keep on fighting even when their arms and legs have been hacked off. ;) These people are usually few and far between, fortunately.

As to wounded soldiers taking up enemy resources, of course, that is true. But its a small consolation if YOU ended up getting wounded or killed by the enemy you have wounded. Besides, if you want to wound, you can always shoot them in the leg with the 7.62NATO. :p

[takao]

There are always some exceptional people that don't know that they are supposed to be dead. I call these the MPHGBK-types. You know the ones that keep on fighting even when their arms and legs have been hacked off. ;) These people are usually few and far between, fortunately.


hehe yeah just like everytime in those hollywood movies where somebody is fighting with his teeth :rolleyes:
but not as bad as the obvious "shooting" a MG when running...thats just waste of bullets

and no i'm no a member of the NRA,i don't have a gun either but i had to carry around the Steyr AUG 8 months too much and wasn't very pleased ;)