"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...