|
Will NOYB's kids be drafted?
They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft age. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft age. Should read "There'll be..." |
HarryKrause wrote: Another bad week for Iraq benchmarks By Martin Sieff UPI Senior News Analyst Published July 22, 2005 WASHINGTON -- There should be no question about what was the week's most important "benchmark" on progress, or lack of it, in defeating the insurgency and building state institutions in Iraq: It was the publication by the New York Times Thursday of a newly declassified Pentagon report to Congress acknowledging that only a "small number" of Iraqi security forces were yet capable of fighting the insurgents on their own, without any U.S. military formations to back them up. This admission was made in what the New York Times described as "a short written response" by Gen. Peter Pace, the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent last week to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gen. Pace's assessment was made in response to calls from Republican and Democratics at his Senate confirmation hearings on June 29 to supply a frank and accurate assessment of the state of training and preparedness of Iraqi forces. Gen. Pace certainly gave that: According to the New York Times report, he told the senators that half of Iraq's new police battalions were still in the process of being constituted and were not in any condition to conduct independent operations, while the other half of the police/security forces and no less than two-thirds of the new Iraqi army were not yet capable of "planning executing and sustaining" counter-insurgency operations, even with U.S. and allied support. This assessment should have come as no surprise to readers of this column, or, indeed, to anyone who has followed the numbingly monotonous reports of continued suicide bomb massacres and other insurgent onslaughts in Iraq. And it certainly confirms what U.S. military intelligence sources have been telling UPI and anyone else who would listen for many months now. But it is immensely significant that the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should have said as much in such clear and uncompromising terms to the main political watchdog body of the American Republic charged with overseeing military affairs. And it was also striking, as the New York Times reported, that Sen. John McCain of Arizona, President George W. Bush's main rival for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000 campaign and the front-runner, insofar as there is one, for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, should have been in the forefront of the concerned bipartisan senators pressing for the assessment. Gen. Pace's plain talking also suggests a very different tone in his leadership of the military from that of his predecessor, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers. Myers was a favorite of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and took care never to contradict him or embarrass him on any public occasion. And as an Air Force officer, he shared Rumsfeld's enthusiasm for high-tech wonder weapons, especially space-based ones, and Rumsfeld's disdain for the need to put large numbers of low-tech "grunts" on the ground in Iraq, or anywhere else. Pace's frankness suggests that new approaches and far more open discussions and assessments about strategy as well as tactics in Iraq may be coming down the pipeline in the future. Otherwise, the raw data coming out of Iraq over the past week continued the depressing trends of recent weeks with little change. According to the Iraq Index Project of the Brookings Institution, 10 U.S. soldiers were killed in the seven days from July 13 to July 20, an increase on the six killed in the previous week. This brought the total number of U.S. fatalities in Iraq from all causes since the start of military operations to topple Saddam Hussein to 1,768, of whom 1,363 were killed in hostile incidents. Nine of the 10 fatalities in the July 13-20 period were killed in such incidents. The number of U.S. troops wounded from the beginning of hostilities on March 19, 2003 through Wednesday, July 20, totaled 13,559, the IIP said. That was an increase of 76 over the previous seven days, making an average of just under 11 U.S. troops injured a day in the California-sized nation of 25 million people. This, at least, marked a striking improvement on the far more alarming figure of 293 U.S. soldiers injured during the previous week from July 6 to July 13, an average of more than 40 a day. And this in turn suggested that the insurgents were either being degraded significantly by U.S. and allied military operations or, at the very least, were being forced to regroup and were not capable of sustaining their previous intense spike of activity. However, the combination of Gen. Pace's frank assessment and the fact that the around 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq remain far too few in the views of most counter-insurgency specialists to provide the levels of security and manpower that are needed to snuff out the insurgency once again offered grounds for tempering this optimism. This was especially the case as another 65 Iraqi police and army troops were killed by insurgents during the week of July 13-20. This is still a little less, on average, than the 296 killed during the month of June but not by much, and it was marginally more on average than the 113 killed in the first 13 days of this month. In all, 2,644 Iraqi military and police have been killed by the insurgents in the 25 months since the beginning of June 2003, the IIP said. That averages out at somewhere over 100 a month overall, but the figure remains stubbornly high over the past couple of months, and more than double the overall average. On current trends, the number of Iraqi police and military killed this month may be the second highest of the entire insurgency, second only to June's figures. The number of multiple casualty bombings so far in July and the casualties inflicted by them also remain grimly high. As of July 20, there had been 18 such incidents killing 223 people and wounding 421 more. These figures, awful as they were, still indicated a slight improvement on the 32 bombings in May that killed 381 people and wounded 919 more, but not on the 30 bombings in June that killed 228 people and wounded 528 more. The very best interpretation that can be put on these figures, factoring in Gen. Pace's warning, is that a long slog still lies ahead for the United States and its armed forces in Iraq and that even if there will be light at the end of the tunnel, it still looks like a very long tunnel. - - - There's a lot more to this story. My fair comment is that this is the kind of journalism that Americans need to read, so that they can determine for themselves why the sons and daughters of friends in their hometown are coming home in bodybags. Democracy in Iraq? Not a chance. No. NOYB's kids won't be drafted, at least not by Bush II. An item on the news this week reveals that re-up bonuses are now as high as $150,000.00 for certain specialties. That's too tempting to pass up, especially for some kid from an underprivileged background who has never seen even $10k in one place in his whole life. We have morphed from the citizen militia, to universal drafted service (for the poor and minority classes), to an "all volunteer army", to a semi-private, mercenary force. Actually rather appropriate as we contemplate how the role and mission of the armed forces has changed in the last 50 years. Personally, I have no problem with the high re-up bonuses. The thousands of private, mercenary "security contractors" hired by Cheney's old firm are all making well in excess of 100k no-bid dollars a year in Iraq, why should the US enlisted grunt have to take the same fire for maybe $2k a month? Jerk a man or woman out of the world and away from family, stick them in hell for a string of extended, "stop loss" tours, and order them to be prepared to kill upon command while dodging bombs and bullets everyday? That's one heck of a huge thing to ask, and its obscene not to pay generously for what the soldiers are forced to give up when serving. The R's are always touting the free market. Raise the wages and re-up bonuses to the point where supply of recruits equals the need. Simple, free market colution. Besides, its much cheaper to pay our servicepeople directly than to have them quit so they can go to work for Cheney's company where they can earn $100k plus a year- and where our tax dollars and deficits are still paying the bill. |
"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 |
"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. |
"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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Are you unhappy with the current administration? I couldn't be happier with them. 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. We'll have troops in bases over there...but they won't be regularly patrolling the cities. Instead, they'll be using the bases as staging areas for attacks against terrorist cells in Syria and Iran. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Are you unhappy with the current administration? I couldn't be happier with them. Same here, though I do wish he would limit domestic spending more. 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. We'll have troops in bases over there...but they won't be regularly patrolling the cities. Instead, they'll be using the bases as staging areas for attacks against terrorist cells in Syria and Iran. We are still free of incidents in the states, let the suicide bombers flock to bagdad, far better then them coming here. Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ |
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ Doh! You mean Doug is wrong again? Who would have thunk it? |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doh! You mean Doug is wrong again? Who would have thunk it? Iraq is headed for a civil war. It seems inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better, because then Iraqis will be deciding their future. Right now, Americans think they are deciding Iraq's future, which is the height of arrogance. The sad thing is, I'm sure that when Iraq has its civil war, we'll end up backing the wrong side. Again. 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. Over and over and over. We've done it in Iran and in Iraq. There are no true democracies in the Arab Muslim world. Not a one. There's nothing even close to a democracy in the Arab Muslim world. Turkey. |
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:
I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: English is Jaafari's second language. Interesting that you have to rely on him for a definition of insurgency or terrorism. Although, I suppose it's better than relying on our President. English appears to be his second language also. " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. Clearly, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. Anyone who targets civilians, is, by definition, a terrorist. 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? "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." So, NOYB, have you read the new studies about just who these foreign fighters are? It seems they are not al Qaeda. It seems they *weren't* terrorists at all, although they are now. It seems they "are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from 'crusaders' and 'infidels.'" In other words, they are *our* creation. http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/...c;f=1;t=002361 Just imagine if the Chump hadn't invaded Iraq. The chances are al Qaeda would be in ruins, bin Laden may even have been brought to justice, and quite possibly, the world would be at peace. We are now embroiled in a problem we created. A problem that might never have existed, if it weren't for the stupid SOB in the White House. A problem that just isn't going away. |
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:35:28 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
There is NO democracy among the Arab Muslim states. Lebanon. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports? Do you wonder? |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Are you unhappy with the current administration? I couldn't be happier with them. Same here, though I do wish he would limit domestic spending more. 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. We'll have troops in bases over there...but they won't be regularly patrolling the cities. Instead, they'll be using the bases as staging areas for attacks against terrorist cells in Syria and Iran. We are still free of incidents in the states, let the suicide bombers flock to bagdad, far better then them coming here. Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in congress have been calling for a draft. Did I miss a question that was directed at me? Send it over, and make sure it's reheated. Meanwhile: You ignored one I directed at you, and NOYB tried to answer it for you. Here it is again, prefaced by your comment which made me ask the question: ============================== 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. ============================== |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports? Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports? Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not. Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon. |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon. Kind of depends on your definition of terms. While *all* reports I have read, state that foreign militants are less than 10% of the insurgents, it seems there are reports that those same militants make up 90% of the suicide bombers. One caveat, while that 90% number is all over the internet, it can be generally traced to one article written by Patrick Quinn and Katherine Shrader and attributed to "one defense official". http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...109609,00.html |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports? Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not. Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not, when did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners? I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc. |
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports? Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not. Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not, when did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners? I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc. your last paragraph. If they're blown to pieces, how does YOUR trusted source determine their nationality? Smell? |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon. Kind of depends on your definition of terms. While *all* reports I have read, state that foreign militants are less than 10% of the insurgents, it seems there are reports that those same militants make up 90% of the suicide bombers. One caveat, while that 90% number is all over the internet, it can be generally traced to one article written by Patrick Quinn and Katherine Shrader and attributed to "one defense official". http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...109609,00.html Good link. Thanks. ``The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation,'' said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq. Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has confirmed that thinking. Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that good enough for you, Doug? |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon. Kind of depends on your definition of terms. While *all* reports I have read, state that foreign militants are less than 10% of the insurgents, it seems there are reports that those same militants make up 90% of the suicide bombers. One caveat, while that 90% number is all over the internet, it can be generally traced to one article written by Patrick Quinn and Katherine Shrader and attributed to "one defense official". http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...109609,00.html I wonder how these "nationality" decisions are being made. The Middle East has long been an area where use of false documents is common practice. And how many of the killed insurgents are carrying papers? Whose papers are they carrying? Who is making the determination? And with what training and on what basis? Which is precisely why it's more likely that foreigners make up the majority of "unidentifiable" corpses. It shouldn't be difficult for Iraqis to identify fellow Iraqis (friends, family members, neighbors, etc). |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "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. Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad guys are Iraqis. Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq??? I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago: " I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror. And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when they are interrogated. "Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/ And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports? Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not. Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not, when did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners? I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc. your last paragraph. If they're blown to pieces, how does YOUR trusted source determine their nationality? Smell? I'm sure the Iraqis have the equivalent of the US's missing person reports. If 10 bad guys are found blown up cowering outside a mosque with RPGs at their side, and 10 women report that they haven't heard from their hubbies or sons in awhile, it's probably pretty likely they were Iraqis. Of course, the Iraqi PM would be the person with the best knowledge of what's happening...so I'm going to continue to rely on his interpretation and analysis which concludes that almost all of the terrorists are foreign-born. |
"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. |
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: |
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? |
"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. |
"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 |
"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. |
"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. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do you think this goal might be achieved? |
"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? Handcuffs for parents who try to arrange exceptions, same thing that sometimes happens if you hand a traffic cop a $20. |
"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. |
"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. Handcuffs for parents who try to arrange exceptions, same thing that sometimes happens if you hand a traffic cop a $20. The cops down here require a couple hundred. |
"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. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.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. Handcuffs for parents who try to arrange exceptions, same thing that sometimes happens if you hand a traffic cop a $20. The cops down here require a couple hundred. And of course, you are talking about a 4 year old bill with one co-sponsor, introduced during the 9-11 hysteria, that has gone absolutely nowhere. |
"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. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.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 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. |
Doug Kanter wrote: 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? Doug, it's House Bill HR3598, here's the first few lines: Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001 (Introduced in House) HR 3598 IH 107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3598 To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES December 20, 2001 Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself and Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.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. Baloney. My parents weren't poor nor rich. But I paid for my own "grad school" through loans. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com