|
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f Poor Kevin.....shoot and misses once again. Which is why he never responded to Doug when Doug asked him to summarize it. |
NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". I take it that you didn't comprehend THIS part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice the "as a member of the armed forces" part? As a "member of the armed forces", you do what you are told. You'd have no more right to refuse to go war than the "members of the armed forces" do right now. |
NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that good enough for you, Doug? No, it's not. By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some time. First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there since you already told me you were throwing it out). Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996 Fatwa) was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi Arabia, and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with his plan arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted 170,000 troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just so happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden and his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze. Great! But, I thought we were supposed to give the Iraqi people a safer, more civilized country. We got them started, but it's up to them to build that themselves. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do you think this goal might be achieved? When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. Good, you're finally admitting that Bush lied when He said "Mission Accomplished". Now you are saying what he MEANT was *some time, in several years, it will be mission accomplished??? |
P. Fritz wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f Poor Kevin.....shoot and misses once again. Uh, sorry, idiot. Perhaps you didn't comprehend this part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice "as a member of the armed forces".. Do you see that part, dumbass? Do members of the armed forces get to say that they don't want to go to war???? |
NOYB wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f Poor Kevin.....shoot and misses once again. Which is why he never responded to Doug when Doug asked him to summarize it. See below, idiot. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". I take it that you didn't comprehend THIS part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice the "as a member of the armed forces" part? As a "member of the armed forces", you do what you are told. You'd have no more right to refuse to go war than the "members of the armed forces" do right now. It calls for "training and education" and possible participation in a "national service program". There is no provision for conscription into active duty. Regardless, you posted this as a red herring to attempt to show that the Republicans are trying to create a draft. Besides the very simple fact that this isn't a draft, the bill never passed. Since Republicans control the House, if they supported the bill, it would have passed. Ergo, they don't support the mandatory military training bill...nor do they support a draft. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that good enough for you, Doug? No, it's not. By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some time. First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there since you already told me you were throwing it out). Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996 Fatwa) was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi Arabia, and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with his plan arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted 170,000 troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just so happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden and his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze. Great! But, I thought we were supposed to give the Iraqi people a safer, more civilized country. We got them started, but it's up to them to build that themselves. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do you think this goal might be achieved? When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... As far as physical handicaps, the military contains just about every type of job that exists for civilians. If you can work outside the military, you can work within it. I guess that depends on the severity of the handicap, doesn't it? There are all sorts of people who don't work in the civilian world due to physical and/or mental handicaps. Gee whiz - I guess it does, but we're not talking about extremes here, like someone who spends their days strapped in a wheelchair with severe CP. We're talking about things that someone can point to and say "It hurts if I lift too much sometimes". |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that good enough for you, Doug? No, it's not. By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some time. First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there since you already told me you were throwing it out). Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996 Fatwa) was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi Arabia, and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with his plan arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted 170,000 troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just so happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden and his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze. Great! But, I thought we were supposed to give the Iraqi people a safer, more civilized country. We got them started, but it's up to them to build that themselves. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do you think this goal might be achieved? When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ....and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that good enough for you, Doug? No, it's not. By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some time. First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there since you already told me you were throwing it out). Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996 Fatwa) was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi Arabia, and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with his plan arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted 170,000 troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just so happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden and his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze. Great! But, I thought we were supposed to give the Iraqi people a safer, more civilized country. We got them started, but it's up to them to build that themselves. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do you think this goal might be achieved? When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. Good, you're finally admitting that Bush lied when He said "Mission Accomplished". Now you are saying what he MEANT was *some time, in several years, it will be mission accomplished??? No. The mission was to remove Saddam so we could station our troops in his country. And we have done just that. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". I take it that you didn't comprehend THIS part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice the "as a member of the armed forces" part? As a "member of the armed forces", you do what you are told. You'd have no more right to refuse to go war than the "members of the armed forces" do right now. It calls for "training and education" and possible participation in a "national service program". There is no provision for conscription into active duty. There's no provision for lots of surprises in the military, but things happen anyway. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Is that good enough for you, Doug? No, it's not. By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some time. First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there since you already told me you were throwing it out). Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996 Fatwa) was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi Arabia, and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with his plan arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted 170,000 troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just so happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden and his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze. Great! But, I thought we were supposed to give the Iraqi people a safer, more civilized country. We got them started, but it's up to them to build that themselves. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do you think this goal might be achieved? When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. Good, you're finally admitting that Bush lied when He said "Mission Accomplished". Now you are saying what he MEANT was *some time, in several years, it will be mission accomplished??? No. The mission was to remove Saddam so we could station our troops in his country. And we have done just that. I see Kevin is back for his weekly bitch slapping |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. Good, you're finally admitting that Bush lied when He said "Mission Accomplished". Now you are saying what he MEANT was *some time, in several years, it will be mission accomplished??? No. The mission was to remove Saddam so we could station our troops in his country. And we have done just that. That's not what your president said, now is it? |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... As far as physical handicaps, the military contains just about every type of job that exists for civilians. If you can work outside the military, you can work within it. I guess that depends on the severity of the handicap, doesn't it? There are all sorts of people who don't work in the civilian world due to physical and/or mental handicaps. Gee whiz - I guess it does, but we're not talking about extremes here, like someone who spends their days strapped in a wheelchair with severe CP. We're talking about things that someone can point to and say "It hurts if I lift too much sometimes". Then train that mutha' with the mandatory military training and education program! |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? He didn't lie to me. He lied to you. I already knew the truth...and was OK with it. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... When US oil imports from Iraq equal or exceed imports from Saudi Arabia. Good, you're finally admitting that Bush lied when He said "Mission Accomplished". Now you are saying what he MEANT was *some time, in several years, it will be mission accomplished??? No. The mission was to remove Saddam so we could station our troops in his country. And we have done just that. That's not what your president said, now is it? Sure he did. He said we were there to remove Saddam. He said we'd keep troops there as long as they're necessary. "Mission Accomplished"! |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? He didn't lie to me. He lied to you. I already knew the truth...and was OK with it. Nice dodge. Impeachment time. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? He didn't lie to me. He lied to you. I already knew the truth...and was OK with it. Nice dodge. Impeachment time. Sure, Doug. Ya think ya got the votes? |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? He didn't lie to me. He lied to you. I already knew the truth...and was OK with it. Nice dodge. Impeachment time. Sure, Doug. Ya think ya got the votes? Of course not. This country believes what the TV says. Do you remember "Max Headroom"? |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? He didn't lie to me. He lied to you. I already knew the truth...and was OK with it. Nice dodge. Impeachment time. Sure, Doug. Ya think ya got the votes? Here are the President's own words about the "mission: "Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives a The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. " It doesn't sound much like the argument for war has changed since these words were spoken. Of course, those weren't Bush's words, but those of his predecessor. The folks in Congress who signed on to the war also signed on to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act...and that was before the whole WMD argument took flight. They knew what they were voting for and why they were voting for it. You want to impeach Bush, then "let him who is without sin cast the first stone. " |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... This is wonderful. You've finally admitted that everything on your president's list of reasons was nonsense. I didn't "finally" admit it. I said that it was about oil three years ago. There's a difference between YOU saying it was the oil, and your president NOT saying it. He insulted everyone in this country, including you, by providing a bull**** list of reasons. Worse, you'd vote for him again. ...and again after that. I guess I'll just have to settle on voting for his brother. So, you're OK with voting for a president who lied to you, and is continuing to do so? He didn't lie to me. He lied to you. I already knew the truth...and was OK with it. Nice dodge. Impeachment time. Sure, Doug. Ya think ya got the votes? Of course not. This country believes what the TV says. That's not why I know they'll never be an impeachment proceeding against Bush. The real reason is explained in my other response below. |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:27:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. The IDF has mandatory duty requirements...as does Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cypress, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela. This bill isn't calling for draftees to enter active duty. Instead, it's calling for mandatory military training and education, so that we're ready on a moments notice if a draft becomes necessary. I don't necessarily support it, because I don't think it's needed at the moment. However, as we continue to head further down this collision course we're on with China, it might become prudent and necessary. Would you support the idea of no exclusions for *any* reason, including physical handicaps, college, etc? No. All of the aforementioned countries have exceptions...as should we. No. It's too easy for rich parents to stick their kid in grad school, while a poor kid might not get that opportunity. As far as physical handicaps, the military contains just about every type of job that exists for civilians. If you can work outside the military, you can work within it. Doug, although there are multitudinous specialties within the Army, every soldier has a basic mission, to engage the enemy. If a person can't run, carry and shoot a rifle, dig a defensive position, etc., then that person shouldn't be in the Army. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:41:18 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
wrote in message roups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". I take it that you didn't comprehend THIS part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice the "as a member of the armed forces" part? As a "member of the armed forces", you do what you are told. You'd have no more right to refuse to go war than the "members of the armed forces" do right now. It calls for "training and education" and possible participation in a "national service program". There is no provision for conscription into active duty. Regardless, you posted this as a red herring to attempt to show that the Republicans are trying to create a draft. Besides the very simple fact that this isn't a draft, the bill never passed. Since Republicans control the House, if they supported the bill, it would have passed. Ergo, they don't support the mandatory military training bill...nor do they support a draft. Your patience is absolutely incredible! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:41:18 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". I take it that you didn't comprehend THIS part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice the "as a member of the armed forces" part? As a "member of the armed forces", you do what you are told. You'd have no more right to refuse to go war than the "members of the armed forces" do right now. It calls for "training and education" and possible participation in a "national service program". There is no provision for conscription into active duty. Regardless, you posted this as a red herring to attempt to show that the Republicans are trying to create a draft. Besides the very simple fact that this isn't a draft, the bill never passed. Since Republicans control the House, if they supported the bill, it would have passed. Ergo, they don't support the mandatory military training bill...nor do they support a draft. Your patience is absolutely incredible! My mom taught special ed for 10 years. Her patience and skills must have rubbed off on me. |
"John H." wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:27:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. The IDF has mandatory duty requirements...as does Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cypress, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela. This bill isn't calling for draftees to enter active duty. Instead, it's calling for mandatory military training and education, so that we're ready on a moments notice if a draft becomes necessary. I don't necessarily support it, because I don't think it's needed at the moment. However, as we continue to head further down this collision course we're on with China, it might become prudent and necessary. Would you support the idea of no exclusions for *any* reason, including physical handicaps, college, etc? No. All of the aforementioned countries have exceptions...as should we. No. It's too easy for rich parents to stick their kid in grad school, while a poor kid might not get that opportunity. As far as physical handicaps, the military contains just about every type of job that exists for civilians. If you can work outside the military, you can work within it. Doug, although there are multitudinous specialties within the Army, every soldier has a basic mission, to engage the enemy. If a person can't run, carry and shoot a rifle, dig a defensive position, etc., then that person shouldn't be in the Army. Rigid theories have no place outside of one's own home. |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:53:17 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message .. . On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:41:18 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". I take it that you didn't comprehend THIS part: SEC. 3. BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND EDUCATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG MEN- It is the obligation of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless the citizen or person is exempted under the provisions of this Act Notice the "as a member of the armed forces" part? As a "member of the armed forces", you do what you are told. You'd have no more right to refuse to go war than the "members of the armed forces" do right now. It calls for "training and education" and possible participation in a "national service program". There is no provision for conscription into active duty. Regardless, you posted this as a red herring to attempt to show that the Republicans are trying to create a draft. Besides the very simple fact that this isn't a draft, the bill never passed. Since Republicans control the House, if they supported the bill, it would have passed. Ergo, they don't support the mandatory military training bill...nor do they support a draft. Your patience is absolutely incredible! My mom taught special ed for 10 years. Her patience and skills must have rubbed off on me. Obviously so. You need to give your mom a big pat on the back. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:59:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:27:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wrote: Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Another idiotic, fact free statement from Fritz!!! Here's the truth, Fritz, taking for account that you can comprehend anything: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3598: That comes up blank for me, at least in Netscape. Wanna summarize it? It's a bill that calls for mandatory military *training* and *education* for all males aged 18-22. There is no provision in the bill to transfer a trainee to active duty and ship him over seas...although there is a provision to complete the training in a "national service program". It's hardly a "draft". http://tinyurl.com/c4x3f It should be defeated on its face. Mandatory "military" training indeed, and only for males? B.S. The IDF has mandatory duty requirements...as does Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cypress, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela. This bill isn't calling for draftees to enter active duty. Instead, it's calling for mandatory military training and education, so that we're ready on a moments notice if a draft becomes necessary. I don't necessarily support it, because I don't think it's needed at the moment. However, as we continue to head further down this collision course we're on with China, it might become prudent and necessary. Would you support the idea of no exclusions for *any* reason, including physical handicaps, college, etc? No. All of the aforementioned countries have exceptions...as should we. No. It's too easy for rich parents to stick their kid in grad school, while a poor kid might not get that opportunity. As far as physical handicaps, the military contains just about every type of job that exists for civilians. If you can work outside the military, you can work within it. Doug, although there are multitudinous specialties within the Army, every soldier has a basic mission, to engage the enemy. If a person can't run, carry and shoot a rifle, dig a defensive position, etc., then that person shouldn't be in the Army. Rigid theories have no place outside of one's own home. Of course, some flexibility is allowed in that theory, correct? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"John H." wrote in message
... Doug, although there are multitudinous specialties within the Army, every soldier has a basic mission, to engage the enemy. If a person can't run, carry and shoot a rifle, dig a defensive position, etc., then that person shouldn't be in the Army. Rigid theories have no place outside of one's own home. Of course, some flexibility is allowed in that theory, correct? That's what the Marines say. |
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote: And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on now, show us a source. Where are the numbers? There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. He flatly stated that 95% of the insurgency are disenfranchised Sunni Iraqis and maybe 5% tops are foreign. -rick- -- ignoring reality won't make it go away... |
HarryKrause wrote: We almost always back the right-wing dictators, or the dictator wannabes. We did it in Vietnam, we've done it in Central and South America. hmmm, I suppose we should have backed Ho Chi Minh (like jane fonda did) Pol Pot, Mau Tsi Tong and the likes.... Harry, you should know there is no "right" or "left" wing dictators. just "Least Butcherous" and "More Butcherous" Like Italian politics was described to me in the 70's "The guy that rules the country is the guy with the biggest gun" |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft age. and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more deadly. Are you unhappy with the current administration? Separate question: What if the situation is far worse 6 months from now? What will be your reaction to that? Assume for the moment that the definition of "worse" is one created by YOU. ////////////////// Going the way we are there will never be a solution, as far as I see it most insurgents terrorists come in from neighboring countries mostly Syria and Iran, so threaten these countries with air strikes on their economic sites, make it plain do the job or take the consequences. |
"-rick-" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote: And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on now, show us a source. Where are the numbers? There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:45:43 -0700, Tim wrote:
hmmm, I suppose we should have backed Ho Chi Minh (like jane fonda did) Pol Pot, Mau Tsi Tong and the likes.... Uh, we did back Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung. Ho and Mao during WWII. Pol Pot against the Vietnamese, after the "Killing Fields". Oh, and we also supported Saddam in his war with Iran, but then, we also supported Iran against Iraq. Rather duplicitous, don't you think? |
"-rick-" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote: And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on now, show us a source. Where are the numbers? There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. He flatly stated that 95% of the insurgency are disenfranchised Sunni Iraqis and maybe 5% tops are foreign. What the reporters are reporting vs. what the statistics actually show has created a completely skewed and erroneous picture of what is actually taking place. If you read the following article, you'll see a slant by the journalist to suggest that the terrorists are actually domestic insurgents. However, I've clipped two important passages with statistics that completely refute his claim. First passage: " increasingly violent suicide and roadside bombings are expected to continue at a rate of 65 daily -- about 500 a week" Second passage: "Only two or three of the hundreds of suicide bombings that have occurred since the war began appear to have been committed by Iraqis, apparently radical Kurds from the north, according to the military intelligence assessment. The foreigners detained by U.S. forces in Iraq have come mostly from Egypt and, second, Saudi Arabia, with others from Libya, Sudan and Tunisia, U.S. military officials said. Some recently discovered roadside bombs bear the earmarks of Hezbollah, suggesting that insurgents have been schooled outside of Iraq." So if the bombings are occurring at a rate of 500 week, and only 200-300 have been committed by Iraqis since March of 2003 (roughly 120 weeks), it's logical to conclude that an *extreme* minority (less than 1%) of the attacks are by Iraqis rather than by foreigners. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... What the reporters are reporting vs. what the statistics actually show has created a completely skewed and erroneous picture of what is actually taking place. remaining puke removed None of this really matters, now does it? We created an environment which did not exist before, where it's basically a free-for-all for whoever can get their hands on explosives. I'm sure there are people in our government who occasionally review plans which were much better, but rejected by your president, who preferred a video game to a chess game. He needed something that more closely resembled Armageddon, for no other reason than a sick need to see the world as a bible story. Meanwhile: Islamic loonies also considered Saddam to be an infidel. Why do you suppose they didn't bring their carnage to Iraq when he was in power? |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:45:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:
"-rick-" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote: And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on now, show us a source. Where are the numbers? There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Put up or shut up? Damn, if I wasn't asking for your sources up-thread. Is this a little bait and switch? Here is one source that says foreign militants are "perhaps as little as 5%": http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n5terror.html "As little as 10%": http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/ Now, perhaps you will share a source or two in support of your belief that we are fighting mainly "foreign militants". |
thunder wrote:
Put up or shut up? Damn, if I wasn't asking for your sources up-thread. Is this a little bait and switch? Here is one source that says foreign militants are "perhaps as little as 5%": http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n5terror.html "As little as 10%": http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/ Now, perhaps you will share a source or two in support of your belief that we are fighting mainly "foreign militants". Why, that's what President Bush and Vice President Cheney are saying all the time. They also say that Iraq was involved in the Sept 11th mass murders. You don't think they'd *lie* do you??!? DSK |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:10:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:
So if the bombings are occurring at a rate of 500 week, and only 200-300 have been committed by Iraqis since March of 2003 (roughly 120 weeks), it's logical to conclude that an *extreme* minority (less than 1%) of the attacks are by Iraqis rather than by foreigners. Geez, NOYB, I sure it was a simple oversight on your part and you really weren't trying to mislead us. "Only two or three of the hundreds of *suicide* bombings since the war began in March 2003 appear to have been committed by Iraqis." As opposed to " Increasingly violent suicide *and* roadside bombings are expected to continue at a rate of 65 daily - nearly 500 a week." The article goes on to say "There is no significant number of Iraqis who are willing to blow themselves up." I'm also sure this wasn't an intentional omission. "The increased visibility of foreign fighters, whose numbers have sometimes been estimated as low as *5% of the insurgency*, has helped cement a loose bond between the fledgling Iraqi government and security forces and their American counterparts, one senior defense official in Baghdad said. Or, "Although the insurgency could sustain itself in the short term, with an estimated 100 to 200 foreign fighters entering the country from Syria each month." While estimates of the total size of the insurgency are generally @20,000. So, from your article, I read, that the foreign militants are looking for their 70 virgins, while the Iraqis *still* make up the majority of the insurgency. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true |
NOYB wrote:
"-rick-" wrote in message There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning addressing that very question. Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building? If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up. Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved. The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency. A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript (LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my struggle/fun ratio threshold. -rick- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com