Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
Harry Hope
From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
By Bob Keeler
It has been 30 years since the last time an American entered the armed
forces through the not-so-tender mercies of the draft, on June 30,
1973.
The next time could be just around the corner, if President George W.
Bush is re-elected.
No, no, no, a thousand times no, say the White House, the Pentagon and
Congress.
They insist they have no plans for a draft.
In any case, take this to the bank: It will not happen before Nov. 2,
2004.
Still, the rumors refuse to die, and it was the Pentagon itself that
started the buzz.
Last month, on its anti-terrorism Web site, the Pentagon posted a plea
for volunteers to serve on the draft boards and appeals boards that
will decide whether men (current draft law does not affect women) can
get deferments or exemptions.
The law created the boards as an insurance policy, in case of an
emergency need for more troops.
The Selective Service System - the civilian agency that registers men
when they turn 18 for a possible future draft - had nothing to do with
this announcement.
But it did get a lot of applications for draft board membership as a
result.
(Hint: Opponents of war are also eligible to sit on these boards.)
When the appeal created a flurry of stories, the Pentagon quickly took
it off the Web.
At the time, an organization vitally interested in the draft, the
Center on Conscience and War, got a flood of anxious e-mails and
calls.
The center's executive director, J. E. McNeil, did not see the
incident as evidence of movement toward the draft.
But in recent weeks, she has heard of rumblings, from the Republican
side of the aisle in Congress, about a draft after the election.
In a perfect world, the Pentagon would reject a draft.
It likes its soldiers willing and malleable, not angry and cynical.
But the current situation is far from perfect.
Despite the capture of Saddam Hussein, young Americans are likely to
keep dying in Iraq.
Reserve and National Guard troops have been deployed far longer than
they expected.
This may soon start to erode enlistment and re-enlistment rates.
At the same time, Bush's reckless preventive-war strategy could commit
further troops to battles in other countries.
If Bush's policy keeps demanding more and more troops, and the supply
of volunteers dwindles, it only takes a simple act of Congress to
start the draft.
That would be a profoundly bad idea.
As one of 230,991 draftees in 1965, I have some interest in this.
When Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) proposed this year to create a
fairer, more comprehensive draft, including women, it got me thinking
about the issue again.
If there were a draft, I felt, a lot of young people and their parents
might have had second thoughts about cheering Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Then I had a second thought of my own:
Naaaah!
"There are usually two reasons for a draft," McNeil said.
"One is people who believe that having a draft will keep us out of
war. The reality is that the draft has never kept us out of war."
The second argument, which seems central to Rangel's thinking, is that
a draft would make the military more equitable.
It would pull in people from all strata of society, rather than just
those who volunteer because they need a job or could not otherwise
afford college.
Some even argue, against the evidence of history, that a draft would
conscript the children of members of Congress.
"During Vietnam, not one single member of Congress had a child who was
drafted," McNeil said.
"The reality is that the middle class and the upper middle class
always have more options than the lower class in the face of the
draft."
As the law now stands, once Congress activates the draft, it would be
somewhat tighter and fairer than in the early Vietnam era, with fewer
exemptions.
Selective Service would leap into action, using a lottery to start by
drafting 20-year-olds.
But unless they make the draft age 55, to conscript war-loving
lawmakers, "fair draft" is an oxymoron, like "smart bomb" or "friendly
fire."
As divided as this country is now, a new draft would only exacerbate
the division.
And it would give this war-without-end presidency an endless source of
warm bodies to pursue its cowboy foreign policy.
Who knows what "October surprise" invasion Bush may have in store to
boost his re-election chances in 2004?
Then the next step might be a "February surprise" draft in 2005.
___________________________________________________________
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone
else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by
personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of
experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Harry
Steven Litvintchouk
Harry Hope wrote:
> From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
> http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
>
> Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
>
> By Bob Keeler
let's start by being wary of THIS attempt:
Date: 2002-12-29 18:10:22 PST
WASHINGTON (CNN) --A Democratic lawmaker said Sunday he will introduce a
bill in the next session of Congress to make military service mandatory.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, said such legislation could make
members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.
"I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service
to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the Free World against the
threats coming to us," Rangel said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I'm talking about mandatory service."
The Korean War veteran has accused the Bush administration and some
fellow lawmakers of being too willing to go to war with Iraq.
In October, he voted against a joint resolution authorizing military
action against Iraq. It passed 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the
Senate.
"When you talk about a war, you're talking about ground troops, you're
talking about enlisted people, and they don't come from the kids and
members of Congress," he said.
"I think, if we went home and found out that there were families
concerned about their kids going off to war, there would be more
cautiousness and a more willingness to work with the international
community than to say, 'Our way or the highway.'"
Rangel did not provide specifics of his proposal.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/index.html
-- Steven L.
abracadabra
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:PwEGb.599$d4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> > From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
> >
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
> >
> > Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
> >
> > By Bob Keeler
>
> let's start by being wary of THIS attempt:
If we go to a draft it will be because lilDubya has gotten the US bogged
down in an quagmire in Iraq.
Bush has spread the military too thin on missions that have no goals or exit
strategies. He's the worst "military president" we've had in 100 years.
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
___________________________________________________________
Because preparations for the draft are already being made,
this must be an election issue during 2004.
___________________________________________________________
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
Steven Litvintchouk
This "exit strategy" thing is a red herring, historically speaking.
The week after the U.S. declared war on Japan in December 1941, the U.S.
had no exit strategy. All we knew was we were going to win--someday.
-- Steven L.
Dickmcb
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
Big difference...Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't. Also, as a matter of
interest, after we won the war with Japan not one American was killed by the
occupied people of Japan. After we won the war in Iraq we have lost an
average of one American a day to a population that hates our occupation.
That's why we need an exit strategy or would you suggest we stay there
forever and keep losing Americans? Seems we did something like that not too
long ago, remember Vietnam?
>
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
_____________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3242923.stm
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11052003.html
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
http://www.fdungan.com/draft.htm
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112894/2003/11/14.html
_____________________________________________________
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
_______________________________________________________________________________
Sources in Congress have confirmed that there will be no draft during the next 12 months.
But they have indicated that plans will be prepared for integrating conscript soldiers into
the military as an option for 2005.
The plan will probably involve about 500,000 men between ages 18 and 25.
There will be no "college deferments" like 30 years ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See item for October 28, 2003 :
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a708.htm
_______________________________________________________________________________
abracadabra
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> abracadabra wrote:
> > "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> > news:PwEGb.599$d4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Harry Hope wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
> >>>
> >
> >
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
> >
> >>>Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
> >>>
> >>>By Bob Keeler
> >>
> >>let's start by being wary of THIS attempt:
> >
> >
> > If we go to a draft it will be because lilDubya has gotten the US bogged
> > down in an quagmire in Iraq.
> > Bush has spread the military too thin on missions that have no goals or
exit
> > strategies.
>
> This "exit strategy" thing is a red herring, historically speaking.
LOL - no wonder the Republicans kept whining about everythig Clinton did,
always saying "He doesn't have an exit strategy!"
> The week after the U.S. declared war on Japan in December 1941, the U.S.
> had no exit strategy. All we knew was we were going to win--someday.
With Japen, we had no chouce but to go to war. In Iraq we chose war because
we were told Iraq was a major threat to the USA who would Nuke us at any
moment. That turns out to have been a lie. But now our troops are spending
their Christmas in Iraq (in many cases their second Christmas in the middle
east in Bush's little war-to-get-more-attention) because were are in a war
that se didn't need to get into.
>
>
> -- Steven L.
>
Thom
wrote:
>
>From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
>http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
>
>Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
Yah, especially the kind that lets Neo-cons, republican devil spawn
and the likes of Bush get out of it while the real Americans have to
serve.
THOM
Diogenes
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:26:46 GMT, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
>
>>http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
>>
>>Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
>
>
> Yah, especially the kind that lets Neo-cons, republican devil spawn
> and the likes of Bush get out of it while the real Americans have to
> serve.
I wasn't aware that you didn't consider Bill Clinton a "real American."
Harry Grogan
How many brush fires did Bubba have the troops involved in?He's
bringing the troops home from Bosnia by Christmas remember.
Harry Grogan
Hillary keeps pushing for more troops in Iraq only because she feels
if Bush brought back the draft before 2004 it would be his demise.You
won't see a draft till after 2004 and he's firmly ensconced in the
Oval Office.
Ashland Henderson
Actually the exit strategy concept has been something of a standard of
US policy for awhile. For the intelligence constrained among us (that's
you, Steve) I'd point out that it applies to wars we start. I know that
many conservatives like to rewrite history but claiming that we started
WWII with Japan is a bit much.
rwwff
> Reserve and National Guard troops have been deployed far longer than
> they expected.
>
> This may soon start to erode enlistment and re-enlistment rates.
Actually, the two are completely unrelated, what Rummy and Co want to
do is rearrange the service makeup. Right now, most of the logistical
support function personel are Reserve and Guard members; what they
want to do is create regular army slots for logistics and support, now
that we are in a time of continual deployment. Once this occurs, the
demand on the guard and reserves will diminish again, though it won't
be overnight.
> At the same time, Bush's reckless preventive-war strategy could commit
> further troops to battles in other countries.
>
> If Bush's policy keeps demanding more and more troops, and the supply
> of volunteers dwindles, it only takes a simple act of Congress to
> start the draft.
The problem with this line of thought is that the US has finally come
to understand that a highly professional, career army is vastly
superior to any quantity of drafted forces. There will be no draft,
guaranteed. What you *could* see, if they ever start having
difficulty with recruitment, is improved benefits and money for
re-ups. They probably won't touch the actual paygrade scale because I
think there is some federal civil service compensation ramifications,
but they could easily do things like enhance re-up bonuses, reduce the
number of years to get some amount of military retirement, lengthen
individual duty tours and years between paygrades, bonuses at
promotion, etc.
As far as I can tell, making recruitment goals is not currently a
problem, and isn't likely to be a problem for many years to come.
Now, I know you personally may not feel this way, but a lot of us
Americans are still *way* pissed off, and enough of us that are pissed
off, are at points in our lives that we can go sign up. And its not
necessarily a "duty" thing, its a "get even" thing.
> If there were a draft, I felt, a lot of young people and their parents
> might have had second thoughts about cheering Bush's invasion of Iraq.
"If" is a huge word, about like, "If the moon blew up, I'd have to
edit my tide tables.." Its true enough, but the If clause is so
improbable that it is really silly to even bring it into a
conversation.
Simple fact, there are tons of us that are just outright jealous of
the opportunity to serve.
> It would pull in people from all strata of society, rather than just
> those who volunteer because they need a job or could not otherwise
> afford college.
While some volunteer for that reason, I know people who have taken
drastic pay cuts and suffered serious family disruption inorder to
sign up. Not reservists being called up, but plain civilians dropping
good paying, middle class jobs, and dragging their families with them
in order to sign up.
> But unless they make the draft age 55, to conscript war-loving
> lawmakers, "fair draft" is an oxymoron, like "smart bomb" or "friendly
> fire."
Now there's an angle I hadn't thought of, If I could get drafted then
the wife would have to tolerate it. Hmmmmmm. Still, it wouldn't be
worth it, even with my immearsurable talents :-> (I'm a great cook,
large scale and small), the net effect of including drafties in the
armed forces would be a vast reduction in fighting capability.
As to your oxymorons, I think most folks in the know usually call them
"precision munitions", not "smart bombs".
> Who knows what "October surprise" invasion Bush may have in store to
> boost his re-election chances in 2004?
He won't need it, but I betcha a bunch of us would cheer if Syria were
next.
King Pineapple
in message news:xs2dnV1hQa4...@comcast.com...
> Big difference...Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't.
1. We fought Germany and Italy, too. Neither attacked us.
2. The Iraq/9-11 link HAS been made, you're just too scared to admit it.
PBS's "Frontline" did a whole expose about how foreign terrorists were
trained how to hijack airliners at Salman Pak, 15 miles outside of Baghdad.
A story broke last week about 9/11 leader Atta training IN Baghdad prior to
9/11 (which the Clinton-lovers at Newsweak Magazine IMMEDIATELY set out to
discredit , even producing a "handwriting expert" who prononouced it a fake
without even seeing it!), and just 2 DAYS ago another story came out with
senior Iraqi Army officers admitting the Iraq/AQ link.
There are plenty of cites linking the two out there, you're just afraid to
read them, because they make our previous pResident (and you) look REALLY
bad...
> Also, as a matter of
> interest, after we won the war with Japan not one American was killed by
the
> occupied people of Japan.
Cite, please?
By the way, I notice you ignore the fact that MANY American soldiers *were*
killed by the "occupied people of Germany" over the postwar period-for at
least 3 years, as a matter of fact. I know you'll say you were ONLY talking
about Japan, but at least be honest about the other theatre of war.
> After we won the war in Iraq
LOL. No one, and I repeat NO ONE, ever said we "won the war in Iraq". The
only people using Bush's "end of major combat operations" statement as a
"siegheil!" are irrelevant smirks like you, and antiwar.com...
>we have lost an
> average of one American a day
2/3 of which have been IN COMBAT
>to a population that hates our occupation.
That's a lie, according to TWO polls of the Iraqi people done since their
liberation.
> That's why we need an exit strategy
We HAVE one, kid.
>or would you suggest we stay there
> forever and keep losing Americans?
Tell us what leaving now will accomplish. Wouldn't it make those American
lives lost so far in vain? Of course it would. A majority of Americans
realize this, and want us to stay.
> Seems we did something like that not too
> long ago, remember Vietnam?
Sorry, not even a nice try, due to several major differences:
1. Vietnam was fought by soldiers who didn't want to be there. They were
draftees for the most part. Our forces now are all-volunteer.
2. The Vietnam war was "fought" by a DEMOCRAT Commander in Chief. This one
isn't.
3. This war DOES have the support of the majority of the American people.
You're in the minority, and you know it.
"I took a Semtex today. I feel fantastic"-Liberal dim-bulb Bill Maher,
babbling about plastic explosives.
abracadabra
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VZVGb.10036$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Smirking DU College Kid "Dickmcb" <mcbur...@comcast.net> cluelessly
wrote
> in message news:xs2dnV1hQa4...@comcast.com...
>
> > Big difference...Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't.
>
> 1. We fought Germany and Italy, too. Neither attacked us.
Both declared war on the USA, and certainly Germany had the means to harm
the USA (like destroying our shipping in our own waters). Iraq did not have
the means to do a thing to the USA
You're full of shit as usual.
abracadabra
"Harry Grogan" <maynardgk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bdd8f88.03122...@posting.google.com...
None that involved 150K+ troops.
Steven Litvintchouk
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Then why all the harping about an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan? We
didn't "start" that war. That war was forced upon us by 9-11, which was
the first opening battle of that war.
-- Steven L.
Steven Litvintchouk
Thom wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:26:46 GMT, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:
>
>>http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story
>>
>>Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
>
>
> Yah, especially the kind that lets Neo-cons, republican devil spawn
> and the likes of Bush get out of it while the real Americans have to
> serve.
History lesson: In 1980, President Carter re-instituted registration
for the military draft. Reagan opposed the draft as involuntary
servitude--and said so in his acceptance speech at the GOP National
Convention.
When Reagan became President in 1981, he led the U.S. on a huge military
buildup. But he NEVER proposed a draft. The Reagan defense program had
the U.S. vastly expand its forces--with volunteers only.
-- Steven L.
SPQR
There is a difference, fool. Japan attacked the US -- not just in
Pearl Harbor but also in the Phillipines -- and they attacked British
and French possessions in the Pacific at the same time. Iraq did not
attack the US and had no capability to do so.
>>>>
SPQR
<<<<
abracadabra
<ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgr7yr...@panix2.panix.com...
> >>>>> King Pineapple writes:
>
> King> Smirking DU College Kid "Dickmcb" <mcbur...@comcast.net>
cluelessly wrote
> King> in message news:xs2dnV1hQa4...@comcast.com...
>
> >> Big difference...Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't.
>
>
> Germany most certainly did.
>
> Read some history.
He thinks the USA won WW2 because we caught Hitler spelling something wrong.
mike webb
Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
of Bush get out of it while the real Americans have to
> > serve.
>
> History lesson: In 1980, President Carter re-instituted registration
> for the military draft. Reagan opposed the draft as involuntary
> servitude--and said so in his acceptance speech at the GOP National
> Convention.
>
> When Reagan became President in 1981, he led the U.S. on a huge military
> buildup. But he NEVER proposed a draft. The Reagan defense program had
> the U.S. vastly expand its forces--with volunteers only.
>
>
> -- Steven L.
>
Yo, Stevie, you gonna volunteer?
Seems the intellectually honest thing to do in your case.
Also, is time running out on your drop dead date for the discovery of
WMD in Iraq?
Seems to me you were going to give the discovery process until Jan 1,
2003 inorder to declare your belief in the honesty of the Bush
administration's manipulation of the information they used to promote
the immediate nesessity of an invasion of Iraq.
What was our "drop dead" date on this issue?
--
Man, it must be mighty dark up Limbaugh's Butt...
Steven Litvintchouk
mike webb wrote:
> In article <DhZGb.10278$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> of Bush get out of it while the real Americans have to
>
>>>serve.
>>
>>History lesson: In 1980, President Carter re-instituted registration
>>for the military draft. Reagan opposed the draft as involuntary
>>servitude--and said so in his acceptance speech at the GOP National
>>Convention.
>>
>>When Reagan became President in 1981, he led the U.S. on a huge military
>>buildup. But he NEVER proposed a draft. The Reagan defense program had
>>the U.S. vastly expand its forces--with volunteers only.
>>
>>
>>-- Steven L.
>>
>
>
> Yo, Stevie, you gonna volunteer?
The only thing I'll be able to volunteer for soon is Social Security.
>
> Seems the intellectually honest thing to do in your case.
>
> Also, is time running out on your drop dead date for the discovery of
> WMD in Iraq?
>
> Seems to me you were going to give the discovery process until Jan 1,
> 2003....
I had said the end of 2003. Not the beginning of 2003.
-- Steven L.
Thom
wrote:
>Thom wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:26:46 GMT, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>>From New York Newsday, 12/22/03:=20
>>=20
>>>http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.st=
>ory
>>>
>>>Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft
>>=20
>>=20
>> Yah, especially the kind that lets Neo-cons, republican devil spawn
>> and the likes of Bush get out of it while the real Americans have to
>> serve.
>
>I wasn't aware that you didn't consider Bill Clinton a "real American."
I put Clinton in the same boat as Bush and Cheney. The only
difference is they all used different methods to avoid their
responsibilites.
THOM
>
>>=20
>> THOM
>>=20
>>>By Bob Keeler
>>>
>>>
>>>It has been 30 years since the last time an American entered the armed
>>>forces through the not-so-tender mercies of the draft, on June 30,
>>>1973.=20
>>>
>>>The next time could be just around the corner, if President George W.
>>>Bush is re-elected.
>>>
>>>No, no, no, a thousand times no, say the White House, the Pentagon and
>>>Congress.=20
>>>
>>>They insist they have no plans for a draft.=20
>>>
>>>In any case, take this to the bank: It will not happen before Nov. 2,
>>>2004.=20
>>>
>>>Still, the rumors refuse to die, and it was the Pentagon itself that
>>>started the buzz.
>>>
>>>Last month, on its anti-terrorism Web site, the Pentagon posted a plea
>>>for volunteers to serve on the draft boards and appeals boards that
>>>will decide whether men (current draft law does not affect women) can
>>>get deferments or exemptions.=20
>>>
>>>The law created the boards as an insurance policy, in case of an
>>>emergency need for more troops.
>>>
>>>The Selective Service System - the civilian agency that registers men
>>>when they turn 18 for a possible future draft - had nothing to do with
>>>this announcement.=20
>>>
>>>But it did get a lot of applications for draft board membership as a
>>>result.=20
>>>
>>>(Hint: Opponents of war are also eligible to sit on these boards.)=20
>>>
>>>When the appeal created a flurry of stories, the Pentagon quickly took
>>>it off the Web.
>>>
>>>At the time, an organization vitally interested in the draft, the
>>>Center on Conscience and War, got a flood of anxious e-mails and
>>>calls.=20
>>>
>>>The center's executive director, J. E. McNeil, did not see the
>>>incident as evidence of movement toward the draft.=20
>>>
>>>But in recent weeks, she has heard of rumblings, from the Republican
>>>side of the aisle in Congress, about a draft after the election.
>>>
>>>In a perfect world, the Pentagon would reject a draft.=20
>>>
>>>It likes its soldiers willing and malleable, not angry and cynical.=20
>>>
>>>But the current situation is far from perfect.=20
>>>
>>>Despite the capture of Saddam Hussein, young Americans are likely to
>>>keep dying in Iraq.=20
>>>
>>>Reserve and National Guard troops have been deployed far longer than
>>>they expected.=20
>>>
>>>This may soon start to erode enlistment and re-enlistment rates.=20
>>>
>>>At the same time, Bush's reckless preventive-war strategy could commit
>>>further troops to battles in other countries.
>>>
>>>If Bush's policy keeps demanding more and more troops, and the supply
>>>of volunteers dwindles, it only takes a simple act of Congress to
>>>start the draft.=20
>>>
>>>That would be a profoundly bad idea.
>>>
>>>As one of 230,991 draftees in 1965, I have some interest in this.=20
>>>
>>>When Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) proposed this year to create a
>>>fairer, more comprehensive draft, including women, it got me thinking
>>>about the issue again.=20
>>>
>>>If there were a draft, I felt, a lot of young people and their parents
>>>might have had second thoughts about cheering Bush's invasion of Iraq.
>>>
>>>Then I had a second thought of my own:=20
>>>
>>>Naaaah!
>>>
>>>"There are usually two reasons for a draft," McNeil said.=20
>>>
>>>"One is people who believe that having a draft will keep us out of
>>>war. The reality is that the draft has never kept us out of war."=20
>>>
>>>The second argument, which seems central to Rangel's thinking, is that
>>>a draft would make the military more equitable.=20
>>>
>>>It would pull in people from all strata of society, rather than just
>>>those who volunteer because they need a job or could not otherwise
>>>afford college.
>>>
>>>Some even argue, against the evidence of history, that a draft would
>>>conscript the children of members of Congress.=20
>>>
>>>"During Vietnam, not one single member of Congress had a child who was
>>>drafted," McNeil said.=20
>>>
>>>"The reality is that the middle class and the upper middle class
>>>always have more options than the lower class in the face of the
>>>draft."
>>>
>>>As the law now stands, once Congress activates the draft, it would be
>>>somewhat tighter and fairer than in the early Vietnam era, with fewer
>>>exemptions.=20
>>>
>>>Selective Service would leap into action, using a lottery to start by
>>>drafting 20-year-olds.=20
>>>
>>>But unless they make the draft age 55, to conscript war-loving
>>>lawmakers, "fair draft" is an oxymoron, like "smart bomb" or "friendly
>>>fire."
>>>
>>>As divided as this country is now, a new draft would only exacerbate
>>>the division.=20
>>>
>>>And it would give this war-without-end presidency an endless source of
>>>warm bodies to pursue its cowboy foreign policy.=20
>>>
>>>Who knows what "October surprise" invasion Bush may have in store to
>>>boost his re-election chances in 2004?=20
>>>
>>>Then the next step might be a "February surprise" draft in 2005.=20
>>>
>>>___________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone
>>>else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by
>>>personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of
>>>experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person=92s youth.=
>
>>>
>>>Harry
>>>
>>>
>>=20
>>=20
>
>
Alan McIntire
Saddam Hussein had been offering bounties to Palestinian suicide
bombers. Palestinians are among the few who mourn the capture of
Huesein.
Ashland Henderson
While I don't object to the Afghanistan war it was not "forced" on us. We
started it. While Al Qaida attacked us and had strong links with the Taliban
government, Afghanistan did not attack us.
abracadabra
"Alan McIntire" <alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8a02e9a.03122...@posting.google.com...
Nope - he was giving money to families of suicide bombers, which is not the
same thing. And from what I've heard the Palestinians have been saying he
never did much for them, so they don't really give a shit about his capture.
ANywho, the suicide bombers were Isreals problem, not ours.
Suicide bombers in Isreal does not justify the deaths of hundreds of
American soldiers, nor the maiming and crippling of thousands of American
soldiers, nor the 100+billion$ we'll be tossing in the trash to pay for all
this.
And in the end they'll probably be an Iranian style Islamofascist
"republic".
What a great deal!!!!! Instead of the evil but secular Saddam to balence
against the Crazy Fundamentalist Iranians, we'll have two, Islamic, Shiite,
Fundamentalist AMERICAN HATING countries right around the persian gulf.
What a great fucking idea!
>Palestinians are among the few who mourn the capture of
> Huesein.
That's actually not true.
Ed Medlin
> the USA (like destroying our shipping in our own waters). Iraq did not
have
> the means to do a thing to the USA
>
> You're full of shit as usual.
>
>
So did Saddam.
EM
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 12/23/2003
abracadabra
"Ed Medlin" <e...@edmedlin.com> wrote in message
news:bsk1c1$dlur3$1...@ID-189253.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Both declared war on the USA, and certainly Germany had the means to
harm
> > the USA (like destroying our shipping in our own waters). Iraq did not
> have
> > the means to do a thing to the USA
> >
> > You're full of shit as usual.
> >
> >
>
> So did Saddam.
Saddam lacked the means to do anything to the USA. We had him so contained
he could only hurt his own people.
Rhinehold
Or Israilis through paying people to attack them or Americans through
passing support to different terrorist organizations financially or
passing support to different terrorist organizations via WMD that he
might have (and might yet have done, we don't know yet).
Good conatinment, that. (besides the fact that we basically let the
Iraqi people rot, good plan!)
Rhinehold
Steven Litvintchouk
> Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<KeZGb.10273$IM3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Then why all the harping about an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan? We
>>didn't "start" that war. That war was forced upon us by 9-11, which was
>>the first opening battle of that war.
>
>
> While I don't object to the Afghanistan war it was not "forced" on us. We
> started it. While Al Qaida attacked us and had strong links with the Taliban
> government, Afghanistan did not attack us.
WRONG.
That was a case of state-sponsored terrorism. When state-sponsored
terrorists commit a terrorist act against us, the STATE is who attacked us.
It's no different from the days of yore when governments actually
employed freebooters (pirates) to prey on the shipping of foreign
nations. The government was responsible, not the pirates alone.
-- Steven L.
Dilbert Firestorm
suicide!
JC from Gnat Flats
"Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb*nospam*31XXX@nospam*i-55*nospam*.com> wrote in
message news:bspmvj$o38$1...@news.datasync.com...
> don't know about you all... but reviving the draft would be political
> suicide!
>
You think it would cause Charlie Rangel to be voted out of office?
BlackWater
wrote:
>don't know about you all... but reviving the draft would be political
>suicide!
For who ? Now if we just rig things so registered
Democrats always get the low numbers ...
hank
...............................................
Think about it...they do........
Who makes up the majority of the army?
How do they vote?
Mother natures way of weedin out the stupids....
hank
Dilbert Firestorm
yes, charlie & other sponsors have the bad case of the stupids for
bringing it up in the first place.
Alan McIntire
> "Alan McIntire" <alanm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f8a02e9a.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<AcYGb.10140$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:VZVGb.10036$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > > Smirking DU College Kid "Dickmcb" <mcbur...@comcast.net> cluelessly
> wrote
> > > > in message news:xs2dnV1hQa4...@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Big difference...Japan attacked us, Iraq didn't.
> > > >
> > > > 1. We fought Germany and Italy, too. Neither attacked us.
> > >
> > > Both declared war on the USA, and certainly Germany had the means to
> harm
> > > the USA (like destroying our shipping in our own waters). Iraq did not
> have
> > > the means to do a thing to the USA
> > >
> > > We attacked the Vichy French in North Africa during WWII. They had
> neither attacked us nor declared war on us.
> >
> > Saddam Hussein had been offering bounties to Palestinian suicide
> > bombers.
>
> Nope - he was giving money to families of suicide bombers, which is not the
> same thing.
And from what I've heard the Palestinians have been saying he
> never did much for them, so they don't really give a shit about his capture.
> ANywho, the suicide bombers were Isreals problem, not ours.
> Suicide bombers in Isreal does not justify the deaths of hundreds of
> American soldiers, nor the maiming and crippling of thousands of American
> soldiers, nor the 100+billion$ we'll be tossing in the trash to pay for all
> this.
> And in the end they'll probably be an Iranian style Islamofascist
> "republic".
> What a great deal!!!!! Instead of the evil but secular Saddam to balence
> against the Crazy Fundamentalist Iranians, we'll have two, Islamic, Shiite,
> Fundamentalist AMERICAN HATING countries right around the persian gulf.
> What a great fucking idea!
>
> >Palestinians are among the few who mourn the capture of
> > Huesein.
>
> That's actually not true.
Palestinians see Hussein as a tyrant, yet their ally
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | December 16, 2003 | LUCIO GUERRERO Staff
Reporter
Posted on 12/16/2003 10:32:22 AM PST by Chi-townChief
While most agree that Hussein was a tyrant and ruthless dictator to
his people, they also know that the former Iraqi president was a
friend to the Palestinian cause. He was also praised by many
Palestinians for lobbing a missile at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.
"It was a shock to see him like that," said Fayez Salah, a Palestinian
from Jerusalem who owns the World of Gifts store in Bridgeview. "For
his people he was bad, but he talked about helping the Palestinian
people."
"At least he was on our side."
And it was more than just talk. Iraq and Hussein were responsible for
giving cash to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. "
It looks to me like a significant fraction of Palestinians mourn the
capture of Hussein-A.McIntire
Gary DeWaay
> > Saddam lacked the means to do anything to the USA. We had him so contained
> > he could only hurt his own people.
>
> Or Israilis through paying people to attack them or Americans through
> passing support to different terrorist organizations financially or
> passing support to different terrorist organizations via WMD that he
> might have (and might yet have done, we don't know yet).
>
> Good conatinment, that. (besides the fact that we basically let the
> Iraqi people rot, good plan!)
>
Are you suggesting there is absolutely no other diplomatic solution to
any of these problems besides invasion and occupation?
I have news for you. There are a lot of countries that fund and support
terrorism and anti-Americanism, and its growing by the day.
I guess we have to look forward to a lot of invading and occupying
according to your "plan".
How soon before we start up the draft again? Ready to involuntarily
send our sons and _daughters_ in this invasion and occupation strategy
America?
Wake up. We are being ruled by a tyrant.
Gary
Rhinehold
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a5ff80fc...@news.midco.net...
> Rhinehold, typed...
>
> > > Saddam lacked the means to do anything to the USA. We had him so
contained
> > > he could only hurt his own people.
> >
> > Or Israilis through paying people to attack them or Americans through
> > passing support to different terrorist organizations financially or
> > passing support to different terrorist organizations via WMD that he
> > might have (and might yet have done, we don't know yet).
> >
> > Good conatinment, that. (besides the fact that we basically let the
> > Iraqi people rot, good plan!)
> >
>
>
> Are you suggesting there is absolutely no other diplomatic solution to
> any of these problems besides invasion and occupation?
Of course not, diplomacy should be exhausted before such action is taken.
Like spending 12 years of getting a nation to do what it agreed to do in 45
days, eventually allowing thousands of people to die in the process.
> I have news for you. There are a lot of countries that fund and support
> terrorism and anti-Americanism, and its growing by the day.
Growing? Not from what I've been reading. Iran is making strides. Libya
and Syria are modifying their tone and no longer supporting the PLO, etc.
Do you have a list of the countries that are jumping on the terrorism
bandwagon?
> I guess we have to look forward to a lot of invading and occupying
> according to your "plan".
They you have no idea what my 'plan' is. Listen for a bit before responding
with the partisan politics.
> How soon before we start up the draft again? Ready to involuntarily
> send our sons and _daughters_ in this invasion and occupation strategy
> America?
The draft will never start again.
> Wake up. We are being ruled by a tyrant.
Ooookay. Btw, do you get points with posting the mantra? Can you get cool
things with them if you turn them in?
Rhinehold
Gary DeWaay
>
> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a5ff80fc...@news.midco.net...
> > Rhinehold, typed...
> >
> > > > Saddam lacked the means to do anything to the USA. We had him so
> contained
> > > > he could only hurt his own people.
> > >
> > > Or Israilis through paying people to attack them or Americans through
> > > passing support to different terrorist organizations financially or
> > > passing support to different terrorist organizations via WMD that he
> > > might have (and might yet have done, we don't know yet).
> > >
> > > Good conatinment, that. (besides the fact that we basically let the
> > > Iraqi people rot, good plan!)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Are you suggesting there is absolutely no other diplomatic solution to
> > any of these problems besides invasion and occupation?
>
> Of course not, diplomacy should be exhausted before such action is taken.
>
> Like spending 12 years of getting a nation to do what it agreed to do in 45
> days, eventually allowing thousands of people to die in the process.
Which thousands of people? The ones that we killed, or the ones that
Saddam killed?
>
> > I have news for you. There are a lot of countries that fund and support
> > terrorism and anti-Americanism, and its growing by the day.
>
> Growing? Not from what I've been reading. Iran is making strides. Libya
> and Syria are modifying their tone and no longer supporting the PLO, etc.
>
> Do you have a list of the countries that are jumping on the terrorism
> bandwagon?
Just applying common sense. You certainly don't think occupying a
mostly Islamic country unprovoked does not piss a lot of radical people
off, do you?
>
> > I guess we have to look forward to a lot of invading and occupying
> > according to your "plan".
>
> They you have no idea what my 'plan' is. Listen for a bit before responding
> with the partisan politics.
Okee dokey.
>
> > How soon before we start up the draft again? Ready to involuntarily
> > send our sons and _daughters_ in this invasion and occupation strategy
> > America?
>
> The draft will never start again.
>
> > Wake up. We are being ruled by a tyrant.
>
> Ooookay. Btw, do you get points with posting the mantra? Can you get cool
> things with them if you turn them in?
I could tell you, but you know how the rest of the saying goes.
Gary
Harry Grogan
Oh?How many have served in Bosnia?Btw,why the fuck are we there and
why are we still there?
Rhinehold
> Rhinehold, typed...
>
> >
> > > Are you suggesting there is absolutely no other diplomatic solution to
> > > any of these problems besides invasion and occupation?
> >
> > Of course not, diplomacy should be exhausted before such action is
taken.
> >
> > Like spending 12 years of getting a nation to do what it agreed to do in
45
> > days, eventually allowing thousands of people to die in the process.
>
> Which thousands of people? The ones that we killed, or the ones that
> Saddam killed?
All of them, including the ones that the UN killed, the US killed and Saddam
killed. Finally that 'situation' that should NOT have existed for 12 years
is over and Iraq and its people can now move forward instead of living in
deadly limbo. The amount of death, rape and torture in Iraq is now reduced
a ton compared to the situation the people were in under the UN sanctions,
the thumb of Saddam and the US turning its back on them.
> > > I have news for you. There are a lot of countries that fund and
support
> > > terrorism and anti-Americanism, and its growing by the day.
> >
> > Growing? Not from what I've been reading. Iran is making strides.
Libya
> > and Syria are modifying their tone and no longer supporting the PLO,
etc.
> >
> > Do you have a list of the countries that are jumping on the terrorism
> > bandwagon?
>
> Just applying common sense. You certainly don't think occupying a
> mostly Islamic country unprovoked does not piss a lot of radical people
> off, do you?
Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt that it's increased, the radical people have
hated us for decades. I don't imagine that there are many who are saying
"That US was a pretty great country until they attacked Iraq the second
time!"
Again, if you can list a country that is now supporting terrorism and
anti-american that wasn't before, please list them.
Rhinehold
qwerty
In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of troops that are
now in Iraq. The US troop deployment in Bosnia never exceeded about 20,000
which was only a small part of the total NATO troop deployment of 60,000.
This was quickly downsized to 8,500 US troops within a year or two and now
there are less than 1500 US troops in Bosnia now, that's 1% of the current
Iraqi troop deployment. We're there because it's a NATO operation and the
US is part of NATO.
Gary DeWaay
>
> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a6024a64...@news.midco.net...
> > Rhinehold, typed...
> >
> > >
> > > > Are you suggesting there is absolutely no other diplomatic solution to
> > > > any of these problems besides invasion and occupation?
> > >
> > > Of course not, diplomacy should be exhausted before such action is
> taken.
> > >
> > > Like spending 12 years of getting a nation to do what it agreed to do in
> 45
> > > days, eventually allowing thousands of people to die in the process.
> >
> > Which thousands of people? The ones that we killed, or the ones that
> > Saddam killed?
>
> All of them, including the ones that the UN killed, the US killed and Saddam
> killed. Finally that 'situation' that should NOT have existed for 12 years
> is over and Iraq and its people can now move forward instead of living in
> deadly limbo. The amount of death, rape and torture in Iraq is now reduced
> a ton compared to the situation the people were in under the UN sanctions,
> the thumb of Saddam and the US turning its back on them.
Thats all fine and dandy, but at what cost? As a libertarian, I can't
see how you can justify spending 100's of billions of dollars on one
single humanitarian cause overseas... especially when it would have been
more cost effective to simply keep Saddam weak and inspected.
What libertarian ideals do you actually believe in? Just guns for all?
You sound more like a neo-con than a libertarian.
>
> > > > I have news for you. There are a lot of countries that fund and
> support
> > > > terrorism and anti-Americanism, and its growing by the day.
> > >
> > > Growing? Not from what I've been reading. Iran is making strides.
> Libya
> > > and Syria are modifying their tone and no longer supporting the PLO,
> etc.
> > >
> > > Do you have a list of the countries that are jumping on the terrorism
> > > bandwagon?
> >
> > Just applying common sense. You certainly don't think occupying a
> > mostly Islamic country unprovoked does not piss a lot of radical people
> > off, do you?
>
> Maybe, maybe not, but I doubt that it's increased, the radical people have
> hated us for decades. I don't imagine that there are many who are saying
> "That US was a pretty great country until they attacked Iraq the second
> time!"
Attacked, occupied, and most importantly, we will dictate the government
set up there. You honestly don't think the Shrub will let this be a
Taliban like government the majority Shiite Muslims desire?
>
> Again, if you can list a country that is now supporting terrorism and
> anti-american that wasn't before, please list them.
I can't. I'll retract the statement, for now.
Gary
Rhinehold
> Rhinehold, typed...
> > All of them, including the ones that the UN killed, the US killed and
Saddam
> > killed. Finally that 'situation' that should NOT have existed for 12
years
> > is over and Iraq and its people can now move forward instead of living
in
> > deadly limbo. The amount of death, rape and torture in Iraq is now
reduced
> > a ton compared to the situation the people were in under the UN
sanctions,
> > the thumb of Saddam and the US turning its back on them.
>
> Thats all fine and dandy, but at what cost? As a libertarian, I can't
> see how you can justify spending 100's of billions of dollars on one
> single humanitarian cause overseas... especially when it would have been
> more cost effective to simply keep Saddam weak and inspected.
>
> What libertarian ideals do you actually believe in? Just guns for all?
>
> You sound more like a neo-con than a libertarian.
You'd be wrong, but that's the mistake of a lot of people who assume to know
someone else's political leanings based on 1 issue, especially since there
are many libertarians who support the war. One thing about the war is that
it splits all of the parties, some democrats support, some are against.
Some republicans are for, some are against. The libertarians are no
different.
As for the 'keep Saddam weak and inspected', if we could actually inspect
them then that MIGHT be an argument, but we spent 12 years getting them to
just do what they agreed to do in 45 days. It was obvious to people who
aren't partisan that it wasn't working.
There are many reasons to support or not support the war. I've weighed them
all and believe that finally resolving the issue is the best choice.
Continued sanctions were killing people and angering the arab community as
much as they are angered now, it was the right thing to do for Iraq, the
region, the US, the UN and the world. I'm glad it was finally done, we
really messed it up in the years after the Gulf War, something I blame Bush
I and Clinton for. We've mismanaged the terrorism problem for the past 15
years or possibly longer, the only way to deal with terrorism and
Governments like Saddam's is to be tough and not let them claim any sort of
victory, which Saddam did after the Gulf War.
But, if you want to discuss my libertarian views, go ahead and start a new
thread.
Rhinehold
Lone Haranguer
>
> In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of troops that are
> now in Iraq.
Nor did we invade Bosnia, dummy.
The US troop deployment in Bosnia never exceeded about 20,000
> which was only a small part of the total NATO troop deployment of 60,000.
> This was quickly downsized to 8,500 US troops within a year or two and now
> there are less than 1500 US troops in Bosnia now, that's 1% of the current
> Iraqi troop deployment. We're there because it's a NATO operation and the
> US is part of NATO.
>
NATO has ZERO authority for peacekeeping operations. You must be really
stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO was used because the UN troops
ran like chickens rather than defend civilians in Bosnia.
NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in Bosnia OR
Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf War on a LEGAL basis.
You can save your propaganda blasts for the 4th grade class; they might
be gullible enough to buy them.
LZ
qwerty
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:bt7lks$48dul$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
> qwerty wrote:
>
> >
> > In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of troops that
are
> > now in Iraq.
>
> Nor did we invade Bosnia, dummy.
We don't have troops there?
> The US troop deployment in Bosnia never exceeded about 20,000
> > which was only a small part of the total NATO troop deployment of
60,000.
> > This was quickly downsized to 8,500 US troops within a year or two and
now
> > there are less than 1500 US troops in Bosnia now, that's 1% of the
current
> > Iraqi troop deployment. We're there because it's a NATO operation and
the
> > US is part of NATO.
> >
> NATO has ZERO authority for peacekeeping operations.
What? NATO has no authority to protect its member nations and maintain the
peace?
> You must be really
> stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO was used because the UN troops
> ran like chickens rather than defend civilians in Bosnia.
Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever managed to do!
> NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in Bosnia OR
> Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf War on a LEGAL
basis.
What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
Gary DeWaay
>
> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a60dc4cf...@news.midco.net...
> > Rhinehold, typed...
> > > All of them, including the ones that the UN killed, the US killed and
> Saddam
> > > killed. Finally that 'situation' that should NOT have existed for 12
> years
> > > is over and Iraq and its people can now move forward instead of living
> in
> > > deadly limbo. The amount of death, rape and torture in Iraq is now
> reduced
> > > a ton compared to the situation the people were in under the UN
> sanctions,
> > > the thumb of Saddam and the US turning its back on them.
> >
> > Thats all fine and dandy, but at what cost? As a libertarian, I can't
> > see how you can justify spending 100's of billions of dollars on one
> > single humanitarian cause overseas... especially when it would have been
> > more cost effective to simply keep Saddam weak and inspected.
> >
> > What libertarian ideals do you actually believe in? Just guns for all?
> >
> > You sound more like a neo-con than a libertarian.
>
> You'd be wrong, but that's the mistake of a lot of people who assume to know
> someone else's political leanings based on 1 issue, especially since there
> are many libertarians who support the war.
Thats why I asked you to expand. Hell, Bill Bonde considers himself a
libertarian. Doesn't mean he is.
One thing about the war is that
> it splits all of the parties, some democrats support, some are against.
> Some republicans are for, some are against. The libertarians are no
> different.
AFAIK, the libertarian party is very much isolationist. I don't think
this is true with the Dem or Rep party.
>
> As for the 'keep Saddam weak and inspected', if we could actually inspect
> them then that MIGHT be an argument, but we spent 12 years getting them to
> just do what they agreed to do in 45 days. It was obvious to people who
> aren't partisan that it wasn't working.
Is that why Blix said the inspections were working, and also why we
didn't find WMD?
>
> There are many reasons to support or not support the war. I've weighed them
> all and believe that finally resolving the issue is the best choice.
> Continued sanctions were killing people and angering the arab community as
> much as they are angered now,
Maybe for now. But you have to look long term. The SHiite Muslims
might be happy now, because they were repressed under Saddam, but how
happy are they going to be after we don't let them establish the Taliban
like government that they desire? The Sunni's are pissed because they
lost power, and the Kurds already feel we are neglecting them in the new
government proceedings.
Oh well... at least they aren't angry according to you.
it was the right thing to do for Iraq, the
> region, the US, the UN and the world.
Rah rah rah!
I'm glad it was finally done, we
> really messed it up in the years after the Gulf War, something I blame Bush
> I and Clinton for. We've mismanaged the terrorism problem for the past 15
> years or possibly longer, the only way to deal with terrorism and
> Governments like Saddam's is to be tough and not let them claim any sort of
> victory,
Yea, just look at Isreal for the blueprint for how to deal with
terrorism, huh?
What a joke. Methinks you haven't given this a lick of consideration.
> which Saddam did after the Gulf War.
> But, if you want to discuss my libertarian views, go ahead and start a new
> thread.
Why?
Gary
Harry Grogan
But why the fuck are we still there?Bubba "promised" to have our
troops home by Christmas.
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:bt7lks$48dul$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>qwerty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of troops that
>
> are
>
>>>now in Iraq.
>>
>>Nor did we invade Bosnia, dummy.
>
>
> We don't have troops there?
Nor did we INVADE Bosnia, dummy. We didn't INVADE Kosovo either. We
just bombed civilians for 39 days until the Serbs marched out of their
province and let us occupy it.
>
>> The US troop deployment in Bosnia never exceeded about 20,000
>>
>>>which was only a small part of the total NATO troop deployment of
>
> 60,000.
>
>>>This was quickly downsized to 8,500 US troops within a year or two and
>
> now
>
>>>there are less than 1500 US troops in Bosnia now, that's 1% of the
>
> current
>
>>>Iraqi troop deployment. We're there because it's a NATO operation and
>
> the
>
>>>US is part of NATO.
>>>
>>
>>NATO has ZERO authority for peacekeeping operations.
>
>
> What? NATO has no authority to protect its member nations and maintain the
> peace?
The members of NATO were in no danger from Bosnia. NATO was chartered
as a DEFENSIVE alliance against the Warsaw Pact nations. (An alliance
which no longer exists.) Any actions it takes against other nations is a
violation of the UN charter.
I suggest you read it sometime.
>
>
>>You must be really
>>stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO was used because the UN troops
>>ran like chickens rather than defend civilians in Bosnia.
>
>
> Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever managed to do!
Clinton was afraid to even ASK the UN to sanction his war crimes. He
used NATO as a cover and they resented being bullied. Immediately after
the Serbian bombings the EU formed their own policing force. Oddly
enough the military units assigned to it are the SAME ones committed to
NATO.
You're probably too stupid to realize what that means in real terms.
>
>
>>NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in Bosnia OR
>>Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf War on a LEGAL
>
> basis.
>
> What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
They approved punitive action. Iraq had never honored the cease fire
agreement so the Gulf War never ended. Guess who was a signatory in the
Gulf War cease fire?
Look it up.
BTW, the same situation exists on the Korean peninsula.
qwerty
> qwerty wrote:
>
> > "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> > news:bt7lks$48dul$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>qwerty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of troops that
> >
> > are
> >
> >>>now in Iraq.
> >>
> >>Nor did we invade Bosnia, dummy.
> >
> >
> > We don't have troops there?
>
> Nor did we INVADE Bosnia, dummy. We didn't INVADE Kosovo either. We
> just bombed civilians for 39 days until the Serbs marched out of their
> province and let us occupy it.
So? The number of troops used in Bosnia and there today is minuscule
compared to Iraq.
> >
> >> The US troop deployment in Bosnia never exceeded about 20,000
> >>
> >>>which was only a small part of the total NATO troop deployment of
> >
> > 60,000.
> >
> >>>This was quickly downsized to 8,500 US troops within a year or two and
> >
> > now
> >
> >>>there are less than 1500 US troops in Bosnia now, that's 1% of the
> >
> > current
> >
> >>>Iraqi troop deployment. We're there because it's a NATO operation and
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>US is part of NATO.
> >>>
> >>
> >>NATO has ZERO authority for peacekeeping operations.
> >
> >
> > What? NATO has no authority to protect its member nations and maintain
the
> > peace?
>
> The members of NATO were in no danger from Bosnia.
Really? Where did WWI start again?
> NATO was chartered
> as a DEFENSIVE alliance against the Warsaw Pact nations. (An alliance
> which no longer exists.) Any actions it takes against other nations is a
> violation of the UN charter.
Really?
> I suggest you read it sometime.
I suggest you keep up with the times.
> >
> >
> >>You must be really
> >>stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO was used because the UN troops
> >>ran like chickens rather than defend civilians in Bosnia.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever managed to
do!
>
> Clinton was afraid to even ASK the UN to sanction his war crimes.
Clinton's war crimes?
> He
> used NATO as a cover and they resented being bullied.
What? Cite please.....
> Immediately after
> the Serbian bombings the EU formed their own policing force. Oddly
> enough the military units assigned to it are the SAME ones committed to
> NATO.
>
> You're probably too stupid to realize what that means in real terms.
> >
> >
> >>NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in Bosnia OR
> >>Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf War on a LEGAL
> >
> > basis.
> >
> > What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
>
> They approved punitive action.
Oh please, the UN never authorized Bush to invade Iraq.
> Iraq had never honored the cease fire
> agreement so the Gulf War never ended.
Sorry, but that's a bunch of BS.
> Guess who was a signatory in the
> Gulf War cease fire?
>
> Look it up.
Nope, I don't go on wild goose hunts. You post whatever evidence you have.
> BTW, the same situation exists on the Korean peninsula.
> >
> >
> You can save your propaganda blasts for the 4th grade class; they might
> be gullible enough to buy them.
What propaganda would that be? All I've done is show the absurdness of
comparing Clinton's action in Bosnia as somehow be equivalent and justifying
Bush's military adventure in Iraq.
qwerty
Part of a true international coalition of peacekeepers. Did you miss that?
The number of US troops in Bosnia is miniscule!
Rhinehold
> Rhinehold, typed...
> > One thing about the war is that
> > it splits all of the parties, some democrats support, some are against.
> > Some republicans are for, some are against. The libertarians are no
> > different.
>
> AFAIK, the libertarian party is very much isolationist. I don't think
> this is true with the Dem or Rep party.
The official stance of the libertarian party on the Iraq war is that it is
against it. It was against the sanctions too, etc. In this case I disagree
for a variety of reasons, one being I understand that isolationism isn't
practical until other things in our government changes first.
> > As for the 'keep Saddam weak and inspected', if we could actually
inspect
> > them then that MIGHT be an argument, but we spent 12 years getting them
to
> > just do what they agreed to do in 45 days. It was obvious to people who
> > aren't partisan that it wasn't working.
>
> Is that why Blix said the inspections were working, and also why we
> didn't find WMD?
Blix also said that he was getting turned down for access that was suppose
to be given to him and wasn't. That was the condition that Iraq was placed
under because of 1441, they refused to adhere AGAIN to the resolutions.
Blix's job was not to decide policy, just report and let others decide.
They did. I'm sure if it were up to Blix, who was against any action for
any reason ever, then Saddam would still be torturing, killing and raping
his citizens as well as starving them and the UN sanctions would be killing
thousands more, creating another Germany circa 1930-ish. Its a shame we
don't learn from our history...
> Yea, just look at Isreal for the blueprint for how to deal with
> terrorism, huh?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. </sarcasm>
Again, I say we have to be strong in response to terrorism, and you assume I
mean 'like Israel'?
I suppose that means you think we should be soft? Give them what they want
so that they will stop?
*shrug*
> What a joke. Methinks you haven't given this a lick of consideration.
Thankfully I don't give a fuck what you think. I also find your posturing
hilarious.
> > which Saddam did after the Gulf War.
> > But, if you want to discuss my libertarian views, go ahead and start a
new
> > thread.
>
> Why?
Depending on why you said why...
1) I would rather it be a new thread so it will be easier to follow
or
2) You seemed interested. If you're not then don't. I prefer my debate to
be rational, logical and based on what I say, not what is ascribed and
assigned to me by others, it appears from your reply that you feel a
different way...
Rhinehold
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:bt82s9$3tj38$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> qwerty wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bt7lks$48dul$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>> qwerty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of
>>>>> troops that
>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>>> now in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> Nor did we invade Bosnia, dummy.
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't have troops there?
>>
>> Nor did we INVADE Bosnia, dummy. We didn't INVADE Kosovo either.
>> We just bombed civilians for 39 days until the Serbs marched out of
>> their province and let us occupy it.
>
>
> So? The number of troops used in Bosnia and there today is minuscule
> compared to Iraq.
>
You don't need a lot of troops when there is no resistance, dummy. We
did NOT "invade" Bosnia.
>
>>>> The US troop deployment in Bosnia never exceeded about 20,000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> which was only a small part of the total NATO troop
>>>>> deployment of
>>>
>>> 60,000.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This was quickly downsized to 8,500 US troops within a year
>>>>> or two and
>>>
>>> now
>>>
>>>
>>>>> there are less than 1500 US troops in Bosnia now, that's 1%
>>>>> of the
>>>
>>> current
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Iraqi troop deployment. We're there because it's a NATO
>>>>> operation and
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>>> US is part of NATO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NATO has ZERO authority for peacekeeping operations.
>>>
>>>
>>> What? NATO has no authority to protect its member nations and
>>> maintain
>
> the
>
>>> peace?
>>
>> The members of NATO were in no danger from Bosnia.
>
>
> Really? Where did WWI start again?
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was not where
the war started, pooky, it was merely used as excuse for what the
countries had been preparing for. The old Austro-Hungarian Empire was
crumbling and a lot of nationalists wanted to break loose.
In the former Yugoslavia, various ethnic and religious groups were
vying for power BUT ALL WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. They
weren't attacking their neighbors.
>> NATO was chartered as a DEFENSIVE alliance against the Warsaw Pact
>> nations. (An alliance which no longer exists.) Any actions it
>> takes against other nations is a violation of the UN charter.
>
>
> Really?
Yep really. I spent 6 years in NATO units, 3 of them at NATO's primary
training grounds at Grafenwohr, Germany.
>
>
>> I suggest you read it sometime.
>
>
> I suggest you keep up with the times.
<snicker> Show me the documents that lets NATO take over the UN's role
in world affairs.....
>
>
>>>
>>>> You must be really stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO
>>>> was used because the UN troops ran like chickens rather than
>>>> defend civilians in Bosnia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever
>>> managed to
>
> do!
>
>> Clinton was afraid to even ASK the UN to sanction his war crimes.
>
>
> Clinton's war crimes?
Yep. Deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure and use of cluster
bombs on civilian targets is a clearly defined war crime.
>
> May 9, 1999 Bill Clinton/NATO Officials Charged With War Crimes
>
> "Even in a legal war you cannot kill civilians and destroy an entire
> country as a military strategy. But this is an illegal war and the
> NATO leaders are acting like outlaws. So far they have risked nothing
> by sending others to do their killing and destroying. We believe that
> if they are held individually responsible, as the law requires, they
> won't feel so free to spill other peoples blood." Michael Mandel,
> York University, Toronto
>
> _______
>
> Dear Madam Justice Arbour: Re: the attached complaint
>
> Enclosed please find a complaint against certain named individuals
> for crimes within your jurisdiction.
>
> I trust that you will take all the necessary steps to see that these
> crimes are investigated and indictments prepared against those
> responsible. I am sure that I need not impress upon you the urgency
> of the situation. I would be grateful if your office kept us abreast
> of the progress of your investigations and, in that regard, I am
> authorized by all of the complainants to advise you that all
> correspondence may be sent to me on behalf of them.
>
> Yours very truly, Michael Mandel, Professor
>
> **** PRESS RELEASE MAY 7, 1999 LAWYERS CHARGE NATO LEADERS BEFORE WAR
> CRIMES TRIBUNAL
>
> A group lawyers from several countries has laid a formal complaint
> with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
> against all of the individual leaders of the NATO countries and
> officials of NATO itself. The complaint was initiated by professors
> from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto -- where
> Tribunal prosecutor Louise Arbour was also a professor before
> becoming a judge. The group has charged Bill Clinton, Madeleine
> Albright, Javier Solana, Jamie Shea, Jean Chretien, Art Eggleton,
> Lloyd Axworthy and 60 other heads of state and government, foreign
> ministers, defence ministers and NATO officials, with war crimes
> committed in NATOs six-week old bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.
>
> The list of crimes includes "willful killing, willfully causing great
> suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction
> of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out
> unlawfully and wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons or other
> weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities,
> towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military
> necessity, attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended
> towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings, destruction or willful
> damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and
> education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art
> and science."
>
> The complaint also alleges "open violation" of the United Nations
> Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions and the
> Principles of International Law Recognized by the Nüremberg Tribunal
> (the latter of which makes "planning, preparation, initiation or
> waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international
> treaties, agreements or assurances" a crime).
>
> Under the Statute "a person who planned, instigated, ordered,
> committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation
> or execution of a crime shall be individually responsible for the
> crime" and "the official position of any accused person, whether as
> Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official,
> shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate
> punishment."
>
> The complaint points to the bombing of civilian targets and alleges
> that NATO leaders "have admitted publicly to having agreed upon and
> ordered these actions, being fully aware of their nature and effects"
> and that "there is ample evidence in the public statements of NATO
> leaders that these attacks on civilian targets are part of a
> deliberate attempt to terrorize the population to turn it against its
> leadership;"
>> He used NATO as a cover and they resented being bullied.
>
>
> What? Cite please.....
Keep up with the times. Did the EU form their own continengy group
OUTSIDE OF NATO immediately after the Serbian bombings or not.
>
>
>> Immediately after the Serbian bombings the EU formed their own
>> policing force. Oddly enough the military units assigned to it are
>> the SAME ones committed to NATO.
>>
>> You're probably too stupid to realize what that means in real
>> terms.
>>
>>>
>>>> NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in
>>>> Bosnia OR Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf
>>>> War on a LEGAL
>>>
>>> basis.
>>>
>>> What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
>>
>> They approved punitive action.
>
>
> Oh please, the UN never authorized Bush to invade Iraq.
They authorized punishment if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions.
Iraq did not comply, the Gulf War cease fire was terminated and the
punitive action was launched.
Leaning on DNC pamphlets for your information is foolhardy.
>
>
>> Iraq had never honored the cease fire agreement so the Gulf War
>> never ended.
>
>
> Sorry, but that's a bunch of BS.
Prove it. I can prove my point; can you prove yours?
>
>
>> Guess who was a signatory in the Gulf War cease fire?
>>
>> Look it up.
>
>
> Nope, I don't go on wild goose hunts. You post whatever evidence you
> have.
You don't know how to do the research to prove your claims.
>
>
>> BTW, the same situation exists on the Korean peninsula.
>>
>>>
>> You can save your propaganda blasts for the 4th grade class; they
>> might be gullible enough to buy them.
>
>
> What propaganda would that be? All I've done is show the absurdness
> of comparing Clinton's action in Bosnia as somehow be equivalent and
> justifying Bush's military adventure in Iraq.
>
Except that you are trying to float lies as the basis for your arguments.
We didn't invade Bosnia. NATO has no power that allows it to occupy
other countries. Iraq WAS in violation of the cease fire agreement that
suspended the Gulf War.
Try again. This time do your homework first.
LZ
>
Lone Haranguer
Your brain also fits that description.
LZ
qwerty
> qwerty wrote:
>
> > "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> > news:bt82s9$3tj38$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> qwerty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:bt7lks$48dul$1...@ID-192430.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> qwerty wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In Bosnia the US never had anything close to the number of
> >>>>> troops that
> >>>
> >>> are
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> now in Iraq.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nor did we invade Bosnia, dummy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We don't have troops there?
> >>
> >> Nor did we INVADE Bosnia, dummy. We didn't INVADE Kosovo either.
> >> We just bombed civilians for 39 days until the Serbs marched out of
> >> their province and let us occupy it.
> >
> >
> > So? The number of troops used in Bosnia and there today is minuscule
> > compared to Iraq.
> >
> You don't need a lot of troops when there is no resistance, dummy. We
> did NOT "invade" Bosnia.
LOL, we didn't "invade" but we did use military force to bring about "Regime
Change"! There is litte "resistance" because the occupation was handled
much better than Bush's bungling in Iraq.
LOL, the cause of WWI started in Sarejevo, thanks for confirming that!
> In the former Yugoslavia, various ethnic and religious groups were
> vying for power BUT ALL WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. They
> weren't attacking their neighbors.
So? It was destabilizing the entire region. Gee, using Bush's new
pre-emptive doctrine then the NATO action was entirely justified, right?
> >> NATO was chartered as a DEFENSIVE alliance against the Warsaw Pact
> >> nations. (An alliance which no longer exists.) Any actions it
> >> takes against other nations is a violation of the UN charter.
> >
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yep really. I spent 6 years in NATO units, 3 of them at NATO's primary
> training grounds at Grafenwohr, Germany.
So? This is proof of violating the UN charter just how?
> >
> >
> >> I suggest you read it sometime.
> >
> >
> > I suggest you keep up with the times.
>
> <snicker> Show me the documents that lets NATO take over the UN's role
> in world affairs.....
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> You must be really stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO
> >>>> was used because the UN troops ran like chickens rather than
> >>>> defend civilians in Bosnia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever
> >>> managed to
> >
> > do!
> >
> >> Clinton was afraid to even ASK the UN to sanction his war crimes.
> >
> >
> > Clinton's war crimes?
>
> Yep. Deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure and use of cluster
> bombs on civilian targets is a clearly defined war crime.
Credible cite please......
.
.
Bunch of unverifiable quotes deleted.....
.
.
> >> He used NATO as a cover and they resented being bullied.
> >
> >
> > What? Cite please.....
>
> Keep up with the times. Did the EU form their own continengy group
> OUTSIDE OF NATO immediately after the Serbian bombings or not.
That's a cite?
> >
> >
> >> Immediately after the Serbian bombings the EU formed their own
> >> policing force. Oddly enough the military units assigned to it are
> >> the SAME ones committed to NATO.
> >>
> >> You're probably too stupid to realize what that means in real
> >> terms.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in
> >>>> Bosnia OR Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf
> >>>> War on a LEGAL
> >>>
> >>> basis.
> >>>
> >>> What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
> >>
> >> They approved punitive action.
> >
> >
> > Oh please, the UN never authorized Bush to invade Iraq.
>
> They authorized punishment if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions.
> Iraq did not comply, the Gulf War cease fire was terminated and the
> punitive action was launched.
They DID NOT authorize an invasion. How did the vote in UN Security council
go prior to Bush's invasion. You know, the one where Bush said that all the
cards would be shown?
> Leaning on DNC pamphlets for your information is foolhardy.
> >
> >
> >> Iraq had never honored the cease fire agreement so the Gulf War
> >> never ended.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but that's a bunch of BS.
>
> Prove it. I can prove my point; can you prove yours?
YOU made the claim, YOU prove it!
> >
> >
> >> Guess who was a signatory in the Gulf War cease fire?
> >>
> >> Look it up.
> >
> >
> > Nope, I don't go on wild goose hunts. You post whatever evidence you
> > have.
>
> You don't know how to do the research to prove your claims.
You don't have the proof, don't blame me.
> >
> >
> >> BTW, the same situation exists on the Korean peninsula.
> >>
> >>>
> >> You can save your propaganda blasts for the 4th grade class; they
> >> might be gullible enough to buy them.
> >
> >
> > What propaganda would that be? All I've done is show the absurdness
> > of comparing Clinton's action in Bosnia as somehow be equivalent and
> > justifying Bush's military adventure in Iraq.
> >
> Except that you are trying to float lies as the basis for your arguments.
What lies?
> We didn't invade Bosnia. NATO has no power that allows it to occupy
> other countries. Iraq WAS in violation of the cease fire agreement that
> suspended the Gulf War.
>
> Try again. This time do your homework first.
LOL, there you go again. It's YOUR homework, NOT mine!
Gary DeWaay
>
> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a6131325...@news.midco.net...
> > Rhinehold, typed...
> > > One thing about the war is that
> > > it splits all of the parties, some democrats support, some are against.
> > > Some republicans are for, some are against. The libertarians are no
> > > different.
> >
> > AFAIK, the libertarian party is very much isolationist. I don't think
> > this is true with the Dem or Rep party.
>
> The official stance of the libertarian party on the Iraq war is that it is
> against it. It was against the sanctions too, etc. In this case I disagree
> for a variety of reasons, one being I understand that isolationism isn't
> practical until other things in our government changes first.
What other things?
>
> > > As for the 'keep Saddam weak and inspected', if we could actually
> inspect
> > > them then that MIGHT be an argument, but we spent 12 years getting them
> to
> > > just do what they agreed to do in 45 days. It was obvious to people who
> > > aren't partisan that it wasn't working.
> >
> > Is that why Blix said the inspections were working, and also why we
> > didn't find WMD?
>
> Blix also said that he was getting turned down for access that was suppose
> to be given to him and wasn't. That was the condition that Iraq was placed
> under because of 1441, they refused to adhere AGAIN to the resolutions.
> Blix's job was not to decide policy, just report and let others decide.
> They did.
Yes, and the UN decided we should not invade.
But you seem more interested in the UN's support of 1441.
Why is that?
You sure have the consistency of a conservative.
I'm sure if it were up to Blix, who was against any action for
> any reason ever, then Saddam would still be torturing, killing and raping
> his citizens as well as starving them and the UN sanctions would be killing
> thousands more, creating another Germany circa 1930-ish. Its a shame we
> don't learn from our history...
How many countries do you suggest we invade and occupy, Mr. Libertarian?
>
> > Yea, just look at Isreal for the blueprint for how to deal with
> > terrorism, huh?
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. </sarcasm>
>
> Again, I say we have to be strong in response to terrorism, and you assume I
> mean 'like Israel'?
>
Well gee whiz Rhinhold. There aren't people fighting terrorism in
Isreal?
I think Isreal is a very valid comparison. It has well-motivated
terrorists, and the other side is fighting the terrorists with military
might. Its been going on for what, 30 years? So it is a historical
example that can be compared to.
Exactly why do you disagree this is not a good comparison?
> I suppose that means you think we should be soft?
No.
Give them what they want
> so that they will stop?
>
No, keep them weak and regularly inspected. Its cheap and relatively
effective.
Can't have that can we Mr. Libertrian?
> *shrug*
>
> > What a joke. Methinks you haven't given this a lick of consideration.
>
> Thankfully I don't give a fuck what you think. I also find your posturing
> hilarious.
>
> > > which Saddam did after the Gulf War.
> > > But, if you want to discuss my libertarian views, go ahead and start a
> new
> > > thread.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Depending on why you said why...
>
> 1) I would rather it be a new thread so it will be easier to follow
>
Fine, have it your way.
List your libertarian views here:
I'll bet its all about guns and money... same as a conservative.
Gary
Lone Haranguer
Changing your story now?
There is litte "resistance" because the occupation was handled
> much better than Bush's bungling in Iraq.
Iraq was a completely different situation. Bosnia/Kosovo was a civil
war we intervened in. Not so with the invasion of Iraq.
The occupation of Bosnia was arranged. We just drove in, we didn't
fight out way in. Clinton was too much of a pussy.
Do you recommend we fight all wars by bombing civilians from 15,000 feet
until the government does what we want?
In that case you better convene another Geneva Convention.
"Regime change" in FR Yugoslavia did not occur until well after the
Kosovo occupation and it happened BY AN ELECTION. AFTER Milosevic was
voted out his successor was bribed to turn him over to the International
Tribunal. His party STILL won the majoriry of seats in last week's
election.
Were you aware of that?
Wrong, booby. A nutcase assassinated someone there and the event was
siezed on as an excuse for a war that had already been prepared for.
May I recommend the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman?
>
>
>>In the former Yugoslavia, various ethnic and religious groups were
>>vying for power BUT ALL WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. They
>>weren't attacking their neighbors.
>
>
> So? It was destabilizing the entire region.
Propaganda. Explain "destabilizing" for us. What has been stabilized?
Nothing. Only the presence of foreign occupation troops keep the
peace. When they leave, the ethnic/religious wars will return.
Gee, using Bush's new
> pre-emptive doctrine then the NATO action was entirely justified, right?
A state of war already existed with Iraq, temporarily suspended by the
1991 cease fire. Since Hussein did not honor the terms he agreed to,
the fighting was resumed.
Nothing of the sort existed in the Balkans. These were INTERNAL wars.
>
>
>>>>NATO was chartered as a DEFENSIVE alliance against the Warsaw Pact
>>>>nations. (An alliance which no longer exists.) Any actions it
>>>>takes against other nations is a violation of the UN charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really?
>>
>>Yep really. I spent 6 years in NATO units, 3 of them at NATO's primary
>>training grounds at Grafenwohr, Germany.
>
>
> So? This is proof of violating the UN charter just how?
I suggest you read the UN charter. NATO is NOT the armed wing of the UN.
>
>
>>>
>>>>I suggest you read it sometime.
>>>
>>>
>>>I suggest you keep up with the times.
>>
>><snicker> Show me the documents that lets NATO take over the UN's role
>>in world affairs.....
>>
>>>
>>>>>>You must be really stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO
>>>>>>was used because the UN troops ran like chickens rather than
>>>>>>defend civilians in Bosnia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever
>>>>>managed to
>>>
>>>do!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clinton was afraid to even ASK the UN to sanction his war crimes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Clinton's war crimes?
>>
>>Yep. Deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure and use of cluster
>>bombs on civilian targets is a clearly defined war crime.
>
>
> Credible cite please......
You got your credible cites once already.
> .
> .
> Bunch of unverifiable quotes deleted.....
> .
Easily verified but original documents do not require a URL. Just read
them, they speak for themselves.
>
>
>>>>He used NATO as a cover and they resented being bullied.
>>>
>>>
>>>What? Cite please.....
>>
>>Keep up with the times. Did the EU form their own continengy group
>>OUTSIDE OF NATO immediately after the Serbian bombings or not.
>
>
> That's a cite?
You don't even know that, right?
>
>
>>>
>>>>Immediately after the Serbian bombings the EU formed their own
>>>>policing force. Oddly enough the military units assigned to it are
>>>>the SAME ones committed to NATO.
>>>>
>>>>You're probably too stupid to realize what that means in real
>>>>terms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in
>>>>>>Bosnia OR Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf
>>>>>>War on a LEGAL
>>>>>
>>>>>basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
>>>>
>>>>They approved punitive action.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh please, the UN never authorized Bush to invade Iraq.
>>
>>They authorized punishment if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions.
>>Iraq did not comply, the Gulf War cease fire was terminated and the
>>punitive action was launched.
>
>
> They DID NOT authorize an invasion.
They authorized punishment if Iraq did not comply. Since we were
parties to the cease fire, we had the authority to resume action when
Iraq violated the cease fire.
Simple.
How did the vote in UN Security council
> go prior to Bush's invasion. You know, the one where Bush said that all the
> cards would be shown?
So France was trying to preserve their cozy arrangement. Prior to the
last UN vote, the authority to punish had already been approved.
>
>
>>Leaning on DNC pamphlets for your information is foolhardy.
>>
>>>
>>>>Iraq had never honored the cease fire agreement so the Gulf War
>>>>never ended.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, but that's a bunch of BS.
>>
>>Prove it. I can prove my point; can you prove yours?
>
>
> YOU made the claim, YOU prove it!
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
So Iraq had complied with all terms in the cease fire agreement? Is
that what you are saying, pooky? Afraid you are wrong, as usual.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Guess who was a signatory in the Gulf War cease fire?
>>>>
>>>>Look it up.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, I don't go on wild goose hunts. You post whatever evidence you
>>>have.
>>
>>You don't know how to do the research to prove your claims.
>
>
> You don't have the proof, don't blame me.
>
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
Of course when I furnish it, you snip it on your reply. Who do you
think you are fooling with your juvenile ploys?
>
>>>
>>>>BTW, the same situation exists on the Korean peninsula.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You can save your propaganda blasts for the 4th grade class; they
>>>>might be gullible enough to buy them.
>>>
>>>
>>>What propaganda would that be? All I've done is show the absurdness
>>>of comparing Clinton's action in Bosnia as somehow be equivalent and
>>>justifying Bush's military adventure in Iraq.
>>>
>>
>>Except that you are trying to float lies as the basis for your arguments.
>
>
> What lies?
Everything you state.
>
>
>>We didn't invade Bosnia. NATO has no power that allows it to occupy
>>other countries. Iraq WAS in violation of the cease fire agreement that
>> suspended the Gulf War.
>>
>>Try again. This time do your homework first.
>
If snipping is your only way to stay in the argument, why make the
claims you can't support?
LZ
>
>
Rhinehold
> Rhinehold, typed...
Did it? I hadn't realized it was voted upon specifically other than the
ability being granted in 1441...
When was this vote taken? I could look for it on their website if I knew an
approximate date or something...
> > I'm sure if it were up to Blix, who was against any action for
> > any reason ever, then Saddam would still be torturing, killing and
raping
> > his citizens as well as starving them and the UN sanctions would be
killing
> > thousands more, creating another Germany circa 1930-ish. Its a shame we
> > don't learn from our history...
>
> How many countries do you suggest we invade and occupy, Mr. Libertarian?
I suggest we take it on a case by case basis when we've exhausted all
diplomatic options and don't want to starve any more people to death.
> > > Yea, just look at Isreal for the blueprint for how to deal with
> > > terrorism, huh?
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. </sarcasm>
> >
> > Again, I say we have to be strong in response to terrorism, and you
assume I
> > mean 'like Israel'?
>
> Well gee whiz Rhinhold. There aren't people fighting terrorism in
> Isreal?
Yes, they are.
> I think Isreal is a very valid comparison. It has well-motivated
> terrorists, and the other side is fighting the terrorists with military
> might. Its been going on for what, 30 years? So it is a historical
> example that can be compared to.
>
> Exactly why do you disagree this is not a good comparison?
In that just because Isreal is dealing with Terrorism that doesn't mean that
they're the only ones who can come up with a way to deal with it? I thought
that the concept was pretty clear, the US is not Isreal, but maybe I'm not
explaining it properly...
Let's try this way: I think that the US should develop a strong way of
dealing with terrorism so that it will no longer threaten anyone in the
world again. We should get everyone who wants to see terrorism be destroyed
as a valid form of political change together and stamp it out once and for
all.
The fact that the French, who was one of the first countries who gave into
terrorism and those who benefited from that are teaching the current crop,
are resistant to this notion doesn't surprise me.
> > I suppose that means you think we should be soft?
>
> No.
>
> Give them what they want
> > so that they will stop?
>
> No, keep them weak and regularly inspected. Its cheap and relatively
> effective.
>
> Can't have that can we Mr. Libertrian?
Sure, if you want to see thousands of people die from starvation of the
sanctions year after year. I'm a little more compassionate than that...
Personally, in the case of Iraq, I believe that we should have and did
correctly take care of the problem that wasn't going away and now the
country has a CHANCE to move forward, it's people have futures, etc.
> Fine, have it your way.
>
> List your libertarian views here:
>
> I'll bet its all about guns and money... same as a conservative.
1. Everyone should be free to engange in any activity that they wish as long
as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Meaning:
1a. If you want to be gay, married, have children, etc. That's your
business not the government's
1b. If you want to drink Drano or kill yourself, etc. That's your
business not the government's
1c. If you want to sit in your house naked with a bowl of jell-o, a
porno magazine and handgun on your lap, etc. That's your business not the
government's.
2. The federal government should be limited to the powers expressely given
to it by the constitution as Amendment 10 states quite clearly. This means:
2a. Abolish the Department of Education. This function should be left
to the state to resolve in a way that is best for the people in that state,
or more specifically, county/township/etc.
2b. Abolish Welfare, Medicaid, etc. This function should be left to the
state to resolve in a way that is best for the people in that state, or more
specifically, county/township/etc.
3. The constitution should be strictly adhered to. If something needs to be
added to the constitution or changed, do it the prescribed way, with a
constitutional amendment that passes properly.
4. The list of rights that a person has are well spelled out in the
constitution. These also should be fought for with the lives of the
american people.
5. All federal government functions should be paid for by user fees and
eliminate taxes. I also believe this should exist on the state level but
that should be up to the individual states. If an individual state wants to
take up socialism, they should be allowed to. That is what was prescribed
by the constitution.
6. Free Speech is the most important right that anyone has, any attempt to
take it away should be met with resistance (hence the 2nd amendment)
6a Block any attempt to pass an amendment against flag burning
6b Block any attempt to put constraints on what people say on personal
web sites
7. Remove religion from all aspects of government, though we should allow
anyone in the government to participate in any religion they wish. As the
constitution states, participation in a religion should not be a 'litmus
test' for office.
7a. Return the Pledge of Alligance to it's original best form, without
the 'under god' phrase.
7b. Do not prevent anyone from practicing their religion as long as that
does not harm another person, but do not allow government leading of
religious activities.
8. Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask
anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun
ownership by itself harms no other person and cannot morally justify
criminal penalties.
9. Homosexual marriage should be possible for all citizens, male or female,
without hesitation. We are violating these individual's rights under the
14th amendment to equal treament under the law. They are unable to marry a
person that they love, the only requirement that any sane person would place
on marriage, and participate in all of the legal aspects of that union,
including social security, etc.
10. Trade barriers should be outlawed except in cases of war/criminal
activity by the state.
11. Health care should be fixed via a variety of methods that do NOT involve
the government taking over administration of it. A few of the things that
should be done are:
11a. Establish Medical Savings Accounts
11b. Restructure the tax policy so that all medical expenditures are
100% tax deductible
11c. Deregulate the health care industry including elimination of
mandated benefits, repeal of the Certificate-of-Need program, and expansion
of the scope of practice for non-physician health professionals.
11d. Replace the FDA - There is no evidence that agency offers Americans
any real protection, but there is massive evidence that it is causing great
harm -- driving up health care costs and depriving millions of Americans of
the medical care they need. The agency should be abolished and replaced with
voluntary certification by a private-sector organization, similar to the way
Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances.
11e. Privatize Medicare and Medicaid.
12. Get tough on real, victim crime. Anyone who harms another person should
be held responsible for that action. Sentences should be what they say they
are.
13. Allow for open and free immigration, however the right to immigrate does
not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service. Moreover,
this is not simply a matter of saving tax money. Most government welfare
programs are destructive to the recipients themselves. Thus, immigrants
would actually be better off without access to these programs.
14. Eliminate Social Security. Everyone who has put money in should get
their money out but new workers should be able to put their money into
acutally profitable retirement plans that are fully tax deductible.
That's a few, if you like we can discuss more or I can even debate other
topics than this. Hopefully this gives you a picture...
Rhinehold
qwerty
Nope, just simply putting it in words that you might actually understand.
> There is litte "resistance" because the occupation was handled
> > much better than Bush's bungling in Iraq.
>
> Iraq was a completely different situation. Bosnia/Kosovo was a civil
> war we intervened in. Not so with the invasion of Iraq.
>
> The occupation of Bosnia was arranged. We just drove in, we didn't
> fight out way in. Clinton was too much of a pussy.
What? We should have fought our way into Bonsia? That just shows how much
smarter Clinton is than Bush.
> Do you recommend we fight all wars by bombing civilians from 15,000 feet
> until the government does what we want?
Nice straw man you've built there.
> In that case you better convene another Geneva Convention.
>
> "Regime change" in FR Yugoslavia did not occur until well after the
> Kosovo occupation and it happened BY AN ELECTION. AFTER Milosevic was
> voted out his successor was bribed to turn him over to the International
> Tribunal. His party STILL won the majoriry of seats in last week's
> election.
>
> Were you aware of that?
What?
That assassination triggered the start of WWI. I again thank you for
admitting that!
> >
> >
> >>In the former Yugoslavia, various ethnic and religious groups were
> >>vying for power BUT ALL WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. They
> >>weren't attacking their neighbors.
> >
> >
> > So? It was destabilizing the entire region.
>
> Propaganda. Explain "destabilizing" for us. What has been stabilized?
LOL! Yes, letting countries just deterorate (like in Afghanistan) is so
much better.
> Nothing. Only the presence of foreign occupation troops keep the
> peace. When they leave, the ethnic/religious wars will return.
The very same can be said about Iraq & Afghanistan.
> Gee, using Bush's new
> > pre-emptive doctrine then the NATO action was entirely justified, right?
>
> A state of war already existed with Iraq, temporarily suspended by the
> 1991 cease fire. Since Hussein did not honor the terms he agreed to,
> the fighting was resumed.
>
> Nothing of the sort existed in the Balkans. These were INTERNAL wars.
Just like in Afghanistan, right?
> >
> >
> >>>>NATO was chartered as a DEFENSIVE alliance against the Warsaw Pact
> >>>>nations. (An alliance which no longer exists.) Any actions it
> >>>>takes against other nations is a violation of the UN charter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Really?
> >>
> >>Yep really. I spent 6 years in NATO units, 3 of them at NATO's primary
> >>training grounds at Grafenwohr, Germany.
> >
> >
> > So? This is proof of violating the UN charter just how?
>
> I suggest you read the UN charter. NATO is NOT the armed wing of the UN.
I suggest you provide credible proof of your allegations.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>I suggest you read it sometime.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I suggest you keep up with the times.
> >>
> >><snicker> Show me the documents that lets NATO take over the UN's role
> >>in world affairs.....
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>You must be really stupid to have swallowed that ploy. NATO
> >>>>>>was used because the UN troops ran like chickens rather than
> >>>>>>defend civilians in Bosnia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Hmmm, Clinton got NATO approval, which is more than Bush ever
> >>>>>managed to
> >>>
> >>>do!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Clinton was afraid to even ASK the UN to sanction his war crimes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Clinton's war crimes?
> >>
> >>Yep. Deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure and use of cluster
> >>bombs on civilian targets is a clearly defined war crime.
> >
> >
> > Credible cite please......
>
> You got your credible cites once already.
LOL, unreferenced quotes?
> > .
> > .
> > Bunch of unverifiable quotes deleted.....
> > .
> Easily verified but original documents do not require a URL. Just read
> them, they speak for themselves.
If they're so "easily verified" then post that verifcation here....
> >
> >
> >>>>He used NATO as a cover and they resented being bullied.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What? Cite please.....
> >>
> >>Keep up with the times. Did the EU form their own continengy group
> >>OUTSIDE OF NATO immediately after the Serbian bombings or not.
> >
> >
> > That's a cite?
>
> You don't even know that, right?
You don't have a credible cite, right?
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Immediately after the Serbian bombings the EU formed their own
> >>>>policing force. Oddly enough the military units assigned to it are
> >>>>the SAME ones committed to NATO.
> >>>>
> >>>>You're probably too stupid to realize what that means in real
> >>>>terms.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>NO UN resolutions support the operations Clinton ordered in
> >>>>>>Bosnia OR Kosovo, unlike Iraq which is a resumption of the Gulf
> >>>>>>War on a LEGAL
> >>>>>
> >>>>>basis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What? The UN approved the invasion? I think NOT!
> >>>>
> >>>>They approved punitive action.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh please, the UN never authorized Bush to invade Iraq.
> >>
> >>They authorized punishment if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions.
> >>Iraq did not comply, the Gulf War cease fire was terminated and the
> >>punitive action was launched.
> >
> >
> > They DID NOT authorize an invasion.
>
> They authorized punishment if Iraq did not comply.
Whoa, now that "punishment" certainly didn't include an invasion.
> Since we were
> parties to the cease fire, we had the authority to resume action when
> Iraq violated the cease fire.
What? You're now claiming that Bush invaded Iraq because of a cease fire
violation?
> Simple.
Deluded.
> How did the vote in UN Security council
> > go prior to Bush's invasion. You know, the one where Bush said that all
the
> > cards would be shown?
>
> So France was trying to preserve their cozy arrangement.
How did that Security Council vote again? Were they forced to "show their
cards" as Bush promised?
> Prior to the
> last UN vote, the authority to punish had already been approved.
Not the authority to invade. Bush invaded Iraq WITHOUG UN approval.
> >>Except that you are trying to float lies as the basis for your
arguments.
> >
> >
> > What lies?
>
> Everything you state.
Really, can you be a bit more specific?
> >
> >
> >>We didn't invade Bosnia. NATO has no power that allows it to occupy
> >>other countries. Iraq WAS in violation of the cease fire agreement that
> >> suspended the Gulf War.
> >>
> >>Try again. This time do your homework first.
> >
> If snipping is your only way to stay in the argument, why make the
> claims you can't support?
If you can't back up your silly assertion then don't blame.
Gary DeWaay
>
> 1. Everyone should be free to engange in any activity that they wish as long
> as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Meaning:
> 1a. If you want to be gay, married, have children, etc. That's your
> business not the government's
> 1b. If you want to drink Drano or kill yourself, etc. That's your
> business not the government's
> 1c. If you want to sit in your house naked with a bowl of jell-o, a
> porno magazine and handgun on your lap, etc. That's your business not the
> government's.
>
> 2. The federal government should be limited to the powers expressely given
> to it by the constitution as Amendment 10 states quite clearly. This means:
> 2a. Abolish the Department of Education. This function should be left
> to the state to resolve in a way that is best for the people in that state,
> or more specifically, county/township/etc.
> 2b. Abolish Welfare, Medicaid, etc. This function should be left to the
> state to resolve in a way that is best for the people in that state, or more
> specifically, county/township/etc.
Interesting you say this, but want to provide humanitarian aid to all
Iraqi's. You did read where the Shrub is providing free health care
there?
F. Free health care for the countries we invade and occupy.
>
> 12. Get tough on real, victim crime. Anyone who harms another person should
> be held responsible for that action. Sentences should be what they say they
> are.
>
> 13. Allow for open and free immigration, however the right to immigrate does
> not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service. Moreover,
> this is not simply a matter of saving tax money. Most government welfare
> programs are destructive to the recipients themselves. Thus, immigrants
> would actually be better off without access to these programs.
>
> 14. Eliminate Social Security. Everyone who has put money in should get
> their money out but new workers should be able to put their money into
> acutally profitable retirement plans that are fully tax deductible.
>
> That's a few, if you like we can discuss more or I can even debate other
> topics than this. Hopefully this gives you a picture...
>
Thanx for the explanation.
Gary