Discussion:
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT
(too old to reply)
jasmine
2004-10-14 18:50:04 UTC
Permalink
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!

I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.

http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft

George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.

He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.

Join me and demand some answers:

http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
Impmon
2004-10-14 20:31:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:50:04 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I think you fell for an old hoax. There is no plan to start drafting
anytime soon. It would take a scale similiar to World War II before
they'd resort to drafting. There's been word here and there that the
gov't may start drafting but they aren't out of men yet. There's
million of men on reserve duty and those who only served a few years
and can be recalled to serve a few more years. So if you enlist and
served 4 years, you still owe 4 more years and you will be called back
when needed. This is not draft. This is completing an unfinished
obilgation.

No draft no matter what. Iraq is not that big or strong a hositile
country.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
jasmine
2004-10-15 04:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Impmon
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:50:04 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I think you fell for an old hoax.
I think you fell for the hoax since it appears that you support Bush's
invasion?
Most rational people believe that it will begin soon.

Chicago Sun Tim by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.

He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.

There is no plan to start drafting
Post by Impmon
anytime soon. It would take a scale similiar to World War II before
they'd resort to drafting. There's been word here and there that the
gov't may start drafting but they aren't out of men yet. There's
million of men on reserve duty and those who only served a few years
and can be recalled to serve a few more years. So if you enlist and
served 4 years, you still owe 4 more years and you will be called back
when needed. This is not draft. This is completing an unfinished
obilgation.
Backdoor draft.
Post by Impmon
No draft no matter what. Iraq is not that big or strong a hositile
country.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
NY Dark Blue
2004-10-15 07:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Impmon
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:50:04 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I think you fell for an old hoax.
I think you fell for the hoax since it appears that you support Bush's
invasion?
Most rational people believe that it will begin soon.
The Only draft is the Democrat draft . The only bills proposed are sponsored
by Democrats .. Must be getting ready for a Kerry Draft then
Impmon
2004-10-15 09:08:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:11:40 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
I think you fell for the hoax since it appears that you support Bush's
invasion?
I never said I supported Bush's invasion. Only pointed out that draft
is not being considered at all at this time.

Posting the same thing 3 or 4 times only makes you look like a whining
troll who's really pissed off at Bush.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
jasmine
2004-10-15 22:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Impmon
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:11:40 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
I think you fell for the hoax since it appears that you support Bush's
invasion?
I never said I supported Bush's invasion. Only pointed out that draft
is not being considered at all at this time.
Posting the same thing 3 or 4 times only makes you look like a whining
troll who's really pissed off at Bush.
No, I simply am presenting the evidence that supports my thesis with some
URLS and and quotes.

You stated: "There is no plan to start drafting
anytime soon.", and back it up with supposed personal experience and
opinion. Yuo mention that Iraq is not big enough for a draft at this stage.
It is 1/3 the population of Vietnam, but in a region that is nevertheless
quite large. You may be right. I hope so. This is why we are having a
discussion; since no one knows for sure at this stage what is in Bush's mind
and since he will not tell one way or the other - his word is not worth much
either way.

But many reputable people have been floated that a draft is a real
possibility.
Post by Impmon
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Sue
2004-10-15 22:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Just curious-who, exactly, are these 'reputable people'? What are the
names of all those pundits who feel the draft is a possibility?

Links to the articles where their opinions are spelled out would also be
great.

Thanks!

Sue
Post by jasmine
But many reputable people have been floated that a draft is a real
possibility.
Post by Impmon
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
luminos
2004-10-16 02:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue
Just curious-who, exactly, are these 'reputable people'? What are the
names of all those pundits who feel the draft is a possibility?
In utter amazement I noticed Kerry himself suggested this today at a rally.

He will say or do anything to become president.
Fred
2004-10-16 03:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue
Just curious-who, exactly, are these 'reputable people'? What are the
names of all those pundits who feel the draft is a possibility?
Links to the articles where their opinions are spelled out would also be
great.
Thanks!
Sue
Post by jasmine
But many reputable people have been floated that a draft is a real
possibility.
Search results:
*Make no mistake folks, Bush will reinstate the draft if he's
re-elected. He's has to. President Bush has depleated, demoralized,
and streched-thin our troops so bad that reinstating the draft is
going to be a must.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John
Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world,
raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be
reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-22-kerry-wed_x.htm


*Military draft is a possibility, , Western Courier, a newspaper of
Western
Illinois University. ... Military draft is a possibility. By ...
www.westerncourier.com/news/2003/02/
26/Opinion/Military.Draft.Is.A.Possibility-444283.shtml

*www.unews.com/news/2004/09/27/News/Election.

*White House site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html

Bush: "What we need to do is .... don't worry about it." That's not
a real
answer.(as usual)!

This is called "stonewalling".
*http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/601/601p15b.htm
Post by Sue
Post by jasmine
Post by Impmon
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
becca
2004-10-16 01:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Impmon
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:11:40 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
I think you fell for the hoax since it appears that you support Bush's
invasion?
I never said I supported Bush's invasion. Only pointed out that draft
is not being considered at all at this time.
Posting the same thing 3 or 4 times only makes you look like a whining
troll who's really pissed off at Bush.
No, I simply am presenting the evidence that supports my thesis with some
URLS and and quotes.
You stated: "There is no plan to start drafting
anytime soon.", and back it up with supposed personal experience and
opinion. Yuo mention that Iraq is not big enough for a draft at this stage.
It is 1/3 the population of Vietnam, but in a region that is nevertheless
quite large. You may be right. I hope so. This is why we are having a
discussion; since no one knows for sure at this stage what is in Bush's mind
and since he will not tell one way or the other - his word is not worth much
either way.
But many reputable people have been floated that a draft is a real
possibility.
You obviously did not watch the presidential debates, which makes me
skeptical on your ability to think critically about anything, rather
than swallowing it whole just because some lefty conspiracy theorist
proposed it on his website.

becca
--
"you dumb fucking idealist." -NavyKurt
jasmine
2004-10-16 03:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by becca
Post by jasmine
Post by Impmon
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:11:40 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
I think you fell for the hoax since it appears that you support Bush's
invasion?
I never said I supported Bush's invasion. Only pointed out that draft
is not being considered at all at this time.
Posting the same thing 3 or 4 times only makes you look like a whining
troll who's really pissed off at Bush.
No, I simply am presenting the evidence that supports my thesis with some
URLS and and quotes.
You stated: "There is no plan to start drafting
anytime soon.", and back it up with supposed personal experience and
opinion. Yuo mention that Iraq is not big enough for a draft at this stage.
It is 1/3 the population of Vietnam, but in a region that is
nevertheless
Post by becca
Post by jasmine
quite large. You may be right. I hope so. This is why we are having a
discussion; since no one knows for sure at this stage what is in Bush's mind
and since he will not tell one way or the other - his word is not worth much
either way.
But many reputable people have been floated that a draft is a real
possibility.
You obviously did not watch the presidential debates, which makes me
skeptical on your ability to think critically about anything, rather
than swallowing it whole just because some lefty conspiracy theorist
proposed it on his website.
I didn't watch the debates. I listened to them. What is "conspiracy" about a
draft?

Conspiracy?

NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!

Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.
Post by becca
becca
--
"you dumb fucking idealist." -NavyKurt
Digital Dude
2004-10-16 04:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!
only the terrorists don't want democracy
Post by jasmine
Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
terrorism was a far more serious threat on 9/10. It's way less of a
threat now.
Post by jasmine
The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.
Gosh, a guess a world wide blow job is out the question. I really give
a rat's ass what France thinks of the US
jasmine
2004-10-16 21:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!
only the terrorists don't want democracy
Post by jasmine
Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
terrorism was a far more serious threat on 9/10. It's way less of a
threat now.
ARE YOU SERIOUS...proof?
As also anticipated, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East
specialists who moniter attitudes in the Muslim world were astonished by the
revival of the appeal of "global jihadi Islam," which had been in decline.
Recruitment for al-Qaeda networks increased. Iraq, which had no ties to
terror before, became a "terrorist haven" (Harvard terrorism specialist
Jessica Stern), also suffering its first suicide attacks since the 13th
century. Suicide attacks for 2003 reached their highest level in modern
times. The year ended with a terror alert in the US of unprecedented
severity.
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.
Gosh, a guess a world wide blow job is out the question. I really give
a rat's ass what France thinks of the US.
The US would not have gained its independence without Frances help. But we
are talking about EVERYONE. Including many Americans who HATE Bush. (Perhaps
a majority...we will soon see.
Digital Dude
2004-10-17 03:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Impmon
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and
supported
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!
only the terrorists don't want democracy
Post by jasmine
Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal
invasion
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
terrorism was a far more serious threat on 9/10. It's way less of a
threat now.
ARE YOU SERIOUS...proof?
Your proof first.
Post by Impmon
As also anticipated, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East
specialists who moniter attitudes in the Muslim world were astonished by the
revival of the appeal of "global jihadi Islam," which had been in decline.
Proof?
Post by Impmon
Recruitment for al-Qaeda networks increased.
Proof?
Post by Impmon
Iraq, which had no ties to
terror before, became a "terrorist haven" (Harvard terrorism specialist
Jessica Stern)
Jessica Stern is a liar, any credible proof?

, also suffering its first suicide attacks since the 13th
Post by Impmon
century. Suicide attacks for 2003 reached their highest level in modern
times. The year ended with a terror alert in the US of unprecedented
severity.
but no terrorists attacking US soil like they did on 9/11 huh? Goes
your theory
Post by Impmon
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now
more
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
than ever.
Gosh, a guess a world wide blow job is out the question. I really give
a rat's ass what France thinks of the US.
The US would not have gained its independence without Frances help.
and vice versa. Still the little frenchies hate us, those ingrates.
Post by Impmon
But we
are talking about EVERYONE.
all 6,000,000,000 people on the planet? Yeah right? You're a kook
Post by Impmon
Including many Americans who HATE Bush. (Perhaps
a majority...we will soon see.
They're hateful bastards.
jasmine
2004-10-17 07:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and
snip
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
terrorism was a far more serious threat on 9/10. It's way less of a
threat now.
ARE YOU SERIOUS...proof?
Your proof first.
No proof, urls ...or ANYTHING from you.

Thought so.

You are still saying the sun goes around the earth...and calling Galileo a
liar.




'As predicted, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East expert
Fawaz Gerges found it "simply unbelievable how the war has revived the
appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11."
Recruitment for the Al Qaeda networks increased, while Iraq itself became a
"terrorist haven" for the first time. Suicide attacks for the year 2003
reached the highest level in modern times; Iraq suffered its first since the
thirteenth century. Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war
also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.



As the anniversary of the invasion approached, New York's Grand Central
Station was patrolled by police with submachine guns, a reaction to the
March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people in Europe's worst
terrorist crime. A few days later, the Spanish electorate voted out the
government that had gone to war despite overwhelming popular opposition.
Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing
troops from Iraq in the absence of UN authorization -- that is, for taking a
stand rather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the UN to
take the leading role in Iraq.



Bush assured Americans that "The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our
coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built
weapons of mass destruction." The president's handlers know that every word
is false, but they also know that lies can become Truth, if repeated
insistently enough.



There is broad agreement among specialists on how to reduce the threat of
terror -- keeping here to the subcategory that is doctrinally acceptable,
their terror against us -- and also on how to incite terrorist atrocities,
which may become truly horrendous. The consensus is well articulated by
Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and
informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin
Laden is hardly more than a symbol (a more dangerous one after he is killed,
perhaps, becoming a martyr who inspires others to join his cause). The role
of Washington's current incumbents, in their Reaganite phase, in creating
the radical Islamist networks is well known. Less familiar is their
tolerance of Pakistan's slide toward radical Islamist extremism and its
development of nuclear weapons....'
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
As also anticipated, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East
specialists who moniter attitudes in the Muslim world were astonished by the
revival of the appeal of "global jihadi Islam," which had been in decline.
Proof?
Post by jasmine
Recruitment for al-Qaeda networks increased.
Proof?
Post by jasmine
Iraq, which had no ties to
terror before, became a "terrorist haven" (Harvard terrorism specialist
Jessica Stern)
Jessica Stern is a liar,
Digital Dude
2004-10-18 04:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and
snip
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
terrorism was a far more serious threat on 9/10. It's way less of a
threat now.
ARE YOU SERIOUS...proof?
Your proof first.
No proof, urls ...or ANYTHING from you.
Thought so.
You are still saying the sun goes around the earth...and calling Galileo a
liar.
'As predicted, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East expert
Fawaz Gerges found
Fawas Gerges is just another extremist militant raghead:

July 21, 2003, 10:25 a.m.
Who Is Fawaz Gerges?
Another problem Mideast scholar.

By Jonathan Calt Harris

awaz Gerges, professor of Middle East studies at Sarah Lawrence College
in New York, has emerged as a foremost media interpreter of the Middle
East. He is a frequent guest of Paula Zahn on CNN, has appeared recently
on The Charlie Rose Show and The Oprah Winfrey Show, and is now a
regular Middle East analyst for ABC News.

Gerges is typical of his field: He's yet another Middle East specialist
who minimizes the threat of militant Islam while presenting the United
States as a sinister force. Let's look at his thinking on four key issues.

Iraq. "Principles like human rights and the rule of law were sacrificed
at the altar of America's real political interests, that is, maintaining
relations with autocratic regimes," says Gerges, referring to America's
history with Iraq. So good were these relations, he concludes, that
American companies "provided Saddam Hussein with the biological and
chemical tools which enabled him to develop these deadly weapons in the
first place and use them against his own people." This distorted
emphasis on decades-old support of Iraq against Iran neglects the much
greater military assistance to aid Saddam's nuclear and WMD program, up
to the very eve of war, by Germany, Russia, and France. It better suits
Gerges's theories to maintain, with tunnel vision, "America shares a
heavy burden in Hussein's bloody legacy."

The war in March-April of this year Gerges dismisses as a "unilateral
military onslaught" Likewise, he minimizes the brutal tyranny of Saddam
Hussein by comparing it with that of Israel's democratically elected
leadership and specifically Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Arabs and
Muslims fault the administration, for example, for obsessing ways,
enforcing sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Why not Israel?" Gerges
asks. "Why is Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in power to
collectively punish the Palestinians?"

Militant Islam. Gerges consistently downplays the threat of militant
Islam in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. One year before
9/11, he found that Osama bin Laden was "exceptionally isolated," and
"preoccupied mainly with survival, not attacking American targets." He
also ridiculed "exaggerated rhetoric" in Washington about the Bin Laden
threat. Al Qaeda was no longer more than a "shadow of its former self,"
Gerges had the misfortune of writing, as bin Laden was "confined to
Afghanistan, constantly on the run," and, "hemmed in by the United
States, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt." Not just that, but his "resources are
depleting rapidly." Gerges drew the bizarre conclusion that the U.S.
government must have its reasons for "inflating his importance." Six
months before 9/11, Gerges publicly ridiculed what he called "the terror
industry" — his term for specialists voicing concerns about militant
Islam — for fomenting an "irrational fear of terrorism by focusing too
much on far-fetched horrible scenarios."

Foreign-policy recommendations. Gerges offered his proposals for U.S.
policy in a 1999 book. These are not exactly operational. For example,
while stating that "Washington should make its foreign aid conditional
on a respect for basic human, political and cultural rights," he also
warned against enacting "collective punishment" policies that confirm
the Muslim perception of the United States as a "ruthless hegemony" bent
on punishing unruly Arabs and Muslims. Does Gerges's first
recommendation, to withhold aid from countries that violate human,
political and cultural rights, not constitute a form of collective
punishment that increases the perception of the U.S. as a ruthless hegemony?

Gerges also offers contradictory recommendations for combating
terrorism. The U. S. needs to "engage in earnest dialogue with
non-violent Islamist movements" in search of sincere commitments "to
constitutional and democratic processes" and to push them further along
in that direction. He also suggests that the U.S. government needs to
maintain its honest broker role in the Arab-Israeli peace process with
the goal of "literally pushing Arabs and Israelis to a just and
comprehensive settlement." Hmm. Isn't he asking Washington to meddle
"hegemonically"?

Western views of the Middle East. The professor concedes in his book
that Islamic leaders have been "equivocal about democratic norms, human
rights, peaceful relations with the West, and the use of terror in the
pursuit of domestic political goals." Yet, Gerges then laments that,
"Islamist leaders have provided much ammunition to those in the West,
who seek to turn the 'Islamic menace' into another bogeyman."

That's right. It is those in the West, who seek to turn militant Islam
into something dangerous. Gerges's is in effect saying that the West
needed an enemy, so it set out to demonize the Muslim world. Luckily, a
few crazy militant Islamic leaders did some bad things, and the
previously flimsy case for a dangerously militant branch of Islam
suddenly became more plausible. But in this pre-9/11 book on political
Islam, the supposed dangers of militant Islam are mere right-wing
fantasies. You won't find "Osama bin Laden," "al Qaeda," or "Wahhabism"
in the index.

In summary, Gerges's feels America is wrong for taking militant Islam
seriously, wrong for aiding Arab states against militant Islamic
opposition and wrong for not aiding Arab states against Israel. America
should not "collectively punish," yet should deny aid to a state based
on the actions of its unelected ruler. America should not act
"hegemonically," yet must "push along" Islamist groups to democracy, and
"literally push" Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape
its "blood legacy" for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is
perpetrating a "unilateral military onslaught" by removing him.

It is fortunate that Prof. Gerges is only analyzing U. S. policy, and
not making it, for his thinking is a mish-mash of warmed-over bromides,
inconsistencies, and anti-American banalities.
jasmine
2004-10-18 19:49:19 UTC
Permalink
snip> In summary, America should not act
"hegemonically," yet must "push along" Islamist groups to democracy, and
"literally push" Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape
its "blood legacy" for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is
perpetrating a "unilateral military onslaught" by removing him.
You attempt at copying a smear, but for the most part this summary is
absolutely TRUE!
Digital Dude
2004-10-19 12:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
snip> In summary, America should not act
"hegemonically," yet must "push along" Islamist groups to democracy, and
"literally push" Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape
its "blood legacy" for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is
perpetrating a "unilateral military onslaught" by removing him.
You attempt at copying a smear, but for the most part this summary is
absolutely TRUE!
I see you fail to rise to the challenge of giving us a precise number of
terrorists before the Iraq War and after the Iraq war. That's a ok, I
knew you couldn't.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
2004-10-19 20:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
snip> In summary, America should not act
"hegemonically," yet must "push along" Islamist groups to democracy, and
"literally push" Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape
its "blood legacy" for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is
perpetrating a "unilateral military onslaught" by removing him.
You attempt at copying a smear, but for the most part this summary is
absolutely TRUE!
I see you fail to rise to the challenge of giving us a precise number of
terrorists before the Iraq War and after the Iraq war. That's a ok, I
knew you couldn't.
The futures market indicates that terrorists are up .16, or 32% since
October of 2001.

-F
Digital Dude
2004-10-18 04:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war
Post by jasmine
also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
what WMD? LOL? Either there's WMD or not.

Since you claim the number of terrorists increased since the war on
Iraq, please provide the precise number of terrorists worldwide on
January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004, or any other pre/post Iraq time
window of your choosing.
jasmine
2004-10-18 19:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war
Post by jasmine
also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
what WMD? LOL? Either there's WMD or not.
Since you claim the number of terrorists increased since the war on
Iraq, please provide the precise number of terrorists worldwide on
January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004, or any other pre/post Iraq time
window of your choosing.
Not only is this common sense, and I am not sure if you consider the near
daily bombings in IRAQ terrorism or acts of war.


However, " the IISS report says that, overall, risks of terrorism to
Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after
the Iraq war began in March 2003. With the military invasion and occupation
of Iraq, the United States sought to change the political status quo in the
Arab world to advance American strategic and political interests. Al-Qaeda
seeks, among other things, to purge the Arab and larger Muslim world of US
influence. Accordingly, the Iraq intervention was always likely in the short
term to enhance jihadist recruitment and intensify al-Qaeda's motivation to
encourage and assist terrorist operations.

Drr John Chipman, Director of the IISS, said, "The May 2003 attacks in Saudi
Arabia and Morocco, the gathering of foreign jihadists in Iraq, and the
November 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey confirmed this
expectation.The Madrid bombings in March 2004 reinforced the perception that
al-Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the US and its
closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus
operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates."

The report says, "Al-Qaeda must be expected to keep trying to develop more
promising plans for terrorist operations in North America and Europe,
potentially involving weapons of mass destruction.Meanwhile, soft targets
encompassing Americans, Europeans and Israelis, and aiding the insurgency in
Iraq, will suffice. Given the group's maximalist objectives, its ubiquity
and its covertness, stiff operational counter-terrorist measures,
inter-governmentally coordinated, are still acutely required. Progress in
marginalising transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally. It
is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments
that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, such as the stable
democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Navy Kurt
2004-10-19 02:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Not only is this common sense, and I am not sure if you consider the near
daily bombings in IRAQ terrorism or acts of war.
However, " the IISS report says that, overall, risks of terrorism to
Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after
the Iraq war began in March 2003. With the military invasion and occupation
of Iraq, the United States sought to change the political status quo in the
Arab world to advance American strategic and political interests. Al-Qaeda
seeks, among other things, to purge the Arab and larger Muslim world of US
influence. Accordingly, the Iraq intervention was always likely in the short
term to enhance jihadist recruitment and intensify al-Qaeda's motivation to
encourage and assist terrorist operations.
Drr John Chipman, Director of the IISS, said, "The May 2003 attacks in Saudi
Arabia and Morocco, the gathering of foreign jihadists in Iraq, and the
November 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey confirmed this
expectation.The Madrid bombings in March 2004 reinforced the perception that
al-Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the US and its
closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus
operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates."
The report says, "Al-Qaeda must be expected to keep trying to develop more
promising plans for terrorist operations in North America and Europe,
potentially involving weapons of mass destruction.Meanwhile, soft targets
encompassing Americans, Europeans and Israelis, and aiding the insurgency in
Iraq, will suffice. Given the group's maximalist objectives, its ubiquity
and its covertness, stiff operational counter-terrorist measures,
inter-governmentally coordinated, are still acutely required. Progress in
marginalising transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally. It
is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments
that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, such as the stable
democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
clinton was more effective against terrorists, right? that's why they
never struck again. no wait they did strike again. seems comrade reno
didn't scare them enough with her arrest warrants. maybe we should
roll over and play even more dead than we did under the clinton
administration. we could stick warships in foreign ports with unarmed
topside watches as sacrificial lambs, just like clinton did. now i
know why you think bush is so stupid. all we have to do is pretend
that they don't exist.
Eric R.
2004-10-19 13:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Navy Kurt
all we have to do is pretend
that they don't exist.
...just like Bush before 9/11

-Eric
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
2004-10-19 20:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric R.
Post by Navy Kurt
all we have to do is pretend
that they don't exist.
...just like Bush before 9/11
This makes for a very sensible policy. Perception makes reality, you
see, and if you don't believe in terrorists, then there aren't any.
Your mental belief in terrorists brings them into being.

You can't blame Clinton or Bush for the evil in Americans' hearts that
nucleated as the WTC bombing. If Americans didn't imagine Arabs
hurting them, then Arabs would never had hurt them.

We all just need to calm down, accept our Islamic brothers, and all of
the region's problems will dissapear.

We should also probably be a little more delicate in our foreign
policy.

For example, we should go to nations we suspect of harboring "secret"
nuclear programs and ask them to please stop their research if we
supply them with fuel for nuclear plants.

This is such a sensible and realistic solution that I'm surprised that
one of the candidates hasn't proposed it.

It's a wonder something similar wasn't tried in North Korea.

-F
Eric R.
2004-10-20 13:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
We all just need to calm down, accept our Islamic brothers, and all of
the region's problems will dissapear.
We should also probably be a little more delicate in our foreign
policy.
For example, we should go to nations we suspect of harboring "secret"
nuclear programs and ask them to please stop their research if we
supply them with fuel for nuclear plants.
This is such a sensible and realistic solution that I'm surprised that
one of the candidates hasn't proposed it.
It's a wonder something similar wasn't tried in North Korea.
No, what we should do is go into every situation with guns blazing and
screaming "Fuck the rest of the world if they have a problem with it!"
Why rely in the delicate intricacies of international diplomacy when
we can just bomb the shit out of everyone instead? I mean, our
military is completely invincible and possesses infinite numbers of
troops, so we can just say "Fuck all" to all the other countries and
solve all our problems with Tomahawk missles and troop deployments.

Since we are Gods Who Walk the Fucking Planet Earth, let's just do
whatever we want to and ignore everyone else. Hubris has served every
other empire in history so well, why not us too?

-Eric
WinField
2004-10-20 15:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Eric has a present for us. It's in his diaper. It's not a toaster ...

Winfield

====
Eric R. RANT & SCREAMING {deleted}:
Smaug69
2004-10-20 20:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric R.
Post by The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
We all just need to calm down, accept our Islamic brothers, and all of
the region's problems will dissapear.
We should also probably be a little more delicate in our foreign
policy.
For example, we should go to nations we suspect of harboring "secret"
nuclear programs and ask them to please stop their research if we
supply them with fuel for nuclear plants.
This is such a sensible and realistic solution that I'm surprised that
one of the candidates hasn't proposed it.
It's a wonder something similar wasn't tried in North Korea.
No, what we should do is go into every situation with guns blazing and
screaming "Fuck the rest of the world if they have a problem with it!"
Why rely in the delicate intricacies of international diplomacy when
we can just bomb the shit out of everyone instead? I mean, our
military is completely invincible and possesses infinite numbers of
troops, so we can just say "Fuck all" to all the other countries and
solve all our problems with Tomahawk missles and troop deployments.
Since we are Gods Who Walk the Fucking Planet Earth, let's just do
whatever we want to and ignore everyone else. Hubris has served every
other empire in history so well, why not us too?
Okay, enough with the sarcasm grenades. I get it. I surrender. ;-)

Smaug69
Dave Cook
2004-10-21 20:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smaug69
Post by Eric R.
Post by The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
We all just need to calm down, accept our Islamic brothers, and all of
the region's problems will dissapear.
We should also probably be a little more delicate in our foreign
policy.
For example, we should go to nations we suspect of harboring "secret"
nuclear programs and ask them to please stop their research if we
supply them with fuel for nuclear plants.
This is such a sensible and realistic solution that I'm surprised that
one of the candidates hasn't proposed it.
It's a wonder something similar wasn't tried in North Korea.
No, what we should do is go into every situation with guns blazing and
screaming "Fuck the rest of the world if they have a problem with it!"
Why rely in the delicate intricacies of international diplomacy when
we can just bomb the shit out of everyone instead? I mean, our
military is completely invincible and possesses infinite numbers of
troops, so we can just say "Fuck all" to all the other countries and
solve all our problems with Tomahawk missles and troop deployments.
Since we are Gods Who Walk the Fucking Planet Earth, let's just do
whatever we want to and ignore everyone else. Hubris has served every
other empire in history so well, why not us too?
Okay, enough with the sarcasm grenades. I get it. I surrender. ;-)
Smaug69
Well, there is also the Kerry approach, we go hat in hand to the UN
and ask them to please protect us from the mean guys that don't like
us. As Kerry says, terrorism is only a nuisance. This conclusion was
more convenient than coming up with a plan to protect the U.S. He
suggests that we reward those that help us with contracts. Hey, why
not. France and the other countries that were taking "oil for food"
money certainly understand bribes.
Navy Kurt
2004-10-22 12:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric R.
No, what we should do is go into every situation with guns blazing and
screaming "Fuck the rest of the world if they have a problem with it!"
Why rely in the delicate intricacies of international diplomacy when
we can just bomb the shit out of everyone instead? I mean, our
military is completely invincible and possesses infinite numbers of
troops, so we can just say "Fuck all" to all the other countries and
solve all our problems with Tomahawk missles and troop deployments.
Since we are Gods Who Walk the Fucking Planet Earth, let's just do
whatever we want to and ignore everyone else. Hubris has served every
other empire in history so well, why not us too?
-Eric
actually we're jolly green giants...with guns.
Eric R.
2004-10-25 13:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Navy Kurt
actually we're jolly green giants...with guns.
Now if we can just get someone to throw hand grenades at us for the
rest of our lives.

-Eric

RnR Lesnar
2004-10-14 21:03:41 UTC
Permalink
How do you start a petition against something that doesn't exist?
--
RnR Lesnar
It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
Bush/Cheney 2004
jasmine
2004-10-15 04:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RnR Lesnar
How do you start a petition against something that doesn't exist?
Most rational people believe that it will begin soon.

Chicago Sun Tim by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.

He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
Post by RnR Lesnar
--
RnR Lesnar
It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
Bush/Cheney 2004
RnR Lesnar
2004-10-15 16:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Ooops, you mean't most irrational people think it will begin.
And if it is reinstated and I get get called up, I'll just have go go.
--
RnR Lesnar
It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
Bush/Cheney 2004
--
RnR Lesnar
It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
Bush/Cheney 2004
Michael Rogers
2004-10-14 21:23:24 UTC
Permalink
The only one who has officially proposed a draft was Charles Rangel as a
Democrat scare tactic designed to get this kind of reaction out of you.

When it went to a vote it was voted against 402-2. Turns out Rangel
voted against it as well even though he authored it BECAUSE IT WAS A
STUNT to say a draft is being considered and to blame it on Bush. He
knew *certain* people(who are totally ignorent about how a draft can
take place in the first place)would eat it all up.

So, how does it feel to be played?
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
jasmine
2004-10-15 04:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rogers
The only one who has officially proposed a draft was Charles Rangel as a
Democrat scare tactic designed to get this kind of reaction out of you.
When it went to a vote it was voted against 402-2. Turns out Rangel
voted against it as well even though he authored it BECAUSE IT WAS A
STUNT to say a draft is being considered and to blame it on Bush. He
knew *certain* people(who are totally ignorent about how a draft can
take place in the first place)would eat it all up.
So, how does it feel to be played?
You must know since it seem you support Bush...
Most rational people believe that it will begin soon.

Chicago Sun Tim by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.

He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
NY Dark Blue
2004-10-15 07:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Copy/pasting a hoax doesn't make it any more true
Post by jasmine
Post by Michael Rogers
The only one who has officially proposed a draft was Charles Rangel as a
Democrat scare tactic designed to get this kind of reaction out of you.
When it went to a vote it was voted against 402-2. Turns out Rangel
voted against it as well even though he authored it BECAUSE IT WAS A
STUNT to say a draft is being considered and to blame it on Bush. He
knew *certain* people(who are totally ignorent about how a draft can
take place in the first place)would eat it all up.
So, how does it feel to be played?
You must know since it seem you support Bush...
Most rational people believe that it will begin soon.
Chicago Sun Tim by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by
sending
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush
has
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
NY Dark Blue
2004-10-15 07:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
This is not a draft ... Everyone who joins knows they can be stop-lossed or
reactivated as they are inactive reserve for 2 years . National Guard troops
know when they put their pen to paper they can be sent over seas ( I know as
I am a National Guard Member ) .

Any more lies you want to copy paste ?
jasmine
2004-10-15 07:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY Dark Blue
Post by jasmine
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
This is not a draft ... Everyone who joins knows they can be stop-lossed or
reactivated as they are inactive reserve for 2 years . National Guard troops
know when they put their pen to paper they can be sent over seas ( I know as
I am a National Guard Member ) .
Any more lies you want to copy paste ?
What IS in this for you Blue? You accuse me of lying, and I accuse you.


At least I copy and paste sources and information with links. You are
shorting shotgun libel.

No knows for sure that Bush will have a draft. However given the
circumstances and the desperate need for soldiers these days, it is HIGHLY
likely. The Chicago Sun Times and others have indicated that this may well
happen sooner than later;
Chicago Sun Time by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
NY Dark Blue
2004-10-15 07:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by NY Dark Blue
Post by jasmine
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers
to
Post by NY Dark Blue
Post by jasmine
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a
foreign
Post by NY Dark Blue
Post by jasmine
country.
This is not a draft ... Everyone who joins knows they can be stop-lossed
or
Post by NY Dark Blue
reactivated as they are inactive reserve for 2 years . National Guard
troops
Post by NY Dark Blue
know when they put their pen to paper they can be sent over seas ( I know
as
Post by NY Dark Blue
I am a National Guard Member ) .
Any more lies you want to copy paste ?
What IS in this for you Blue? You accuse me of lying, and I accuse you.
At least I copy and paste sources and information with links. You are
shorting shotgun libel.
No knows for sure that Bush will have a draft. However given the
circumstances and the desperate need for soldiers these days, it is HIGHLY
likely. The Chicago Sun Times and others have indicated that this may well
happen sooner than later;
Chicago Sun Time by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
I notice no link to the orginal articles . And I see nothing to refute what
I posted about National Guard , inactive reserves or Stop losses .

The NY Times is hardly an unbiased source in an editorial .
jasmine
2004-10-15 22:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Two links: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/601/601p15b.htm, more are on past
posts that we discussed last month oin this same subject. If you cannot
remmeber or do not wishto look them up, I will.
Post by NY Dark Blue
I notice no link to the orginal articles . And I see nothing to refute what
I posted about National Guard , inactive reserves or Stop losses .
The NY Times is hardly an unbiased source in an editorial .
Certainly not, no source is unbiased..which is why we need more than one
point of view.
NY Dark Blue
2004-10-16 06:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Nothing about the fictional draft .
Post by jasmine
Two links: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/601/601p15b.htm, more are on past
posts that we discussed last month oin this same subject. If you cannot
remmeber or do not wishto look them up, I will.
Post by NY Dark Blue
I notice no link to the orginal articles . And I see nothing to refute
what
Post by NY Dark Blue
I posted about National Guard , inactive reserves or Stop losses .
The NY Times is hardly an unbiased source in an editorial .
Certainly not, no source is unbiased..which is why we need more than one
point of view.
jasmine
2004-10-17 00:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Fictional draft?
Post by NY Dark Blue
Nothing about the fictional draft .
BUSH Lie No. 1: "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the
final days of decision."

The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time
having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US
troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most
recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National
Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his
determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US
ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required
was the appropriate pretext-supplied by September 11, 2001.

Lie No. 2: "For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have
pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without
war."

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with
"no-fly" zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal
oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other
vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million
Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food
program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the
sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into
UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA's aim was to spy on Iraq's
top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

Lie No. 3: "The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and
advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding
full disarmament..."

Iraq has never "defied" a Security Council resolution since the end of the
Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of
the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because
many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From
1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of
the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq
accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and
they also destroyed all of Iraq's facilities for making new weapons.

Lie No. 4: "Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again
and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men."

According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998
inspection period: "[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819
proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed
missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological
warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also
supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions,
more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000
tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to
production of such weapons."

Lie No. 5: "The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the
most lethal weapons ever devised."

The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were
concerned "about whether administration officials have exaggerated
intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign
governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems."
The article quoted "a senior intelligence analyst" who said the inspectors
could not locate weapons caches "because there may not be much of a
stockpile."

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair
government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN
authorization, declared, "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction
in the commonly understood sense of the term." Even if Iraq is concealing
some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush's lurid
description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. "Some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised" are those being unleashed by the
United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives,
the 10,000-pound "daisy-cutter" bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in
Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of
nuclear weapons.

Lie No. 6: "[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including
operatives of Al Qaeda."

No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant
connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist
Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The
continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to
link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks.

It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for
sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise Al
Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA
itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as a
weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy was
pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself
was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned
against Washington in the 1990s.

Lie No. 7: "America tried to work with the United Nations to address this
threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully."

The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN
sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up
funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown
operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush's most hawkish advisors, such
as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, initially
opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down the
drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued
that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough
time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.

Lie No. 8: "These governments [the Security Council majority] share our
assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it."

This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the
governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries opposed to
military action, which have repeatedly declared that they see no imminent
threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the Security Council as
cowards, as though they were afraid to take action against Saddam Hussein.
These countries were, in fact, increasingly alarmed-by the United States,
not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up resolve, to the shock of the Bush
administration, it was to deny UN support for the war that Washington had
already decided to wage.

Lie No. 9: "Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act
against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to
enforce the just demands of the world."

Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war: 250,000 from
the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia. The other members of
the "broad coalition" are those which have been bribed or browbeaten to
allow the US to fly over their countries to bomb Iraq, to station troops,
ships or warplanes on their territory, or provide technical assistance or
other material aid to the war. None will do any fighting. All are acting
against the expressed desire of their own population.

Lie No. 10: "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its
responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

Bush defines the UN body's responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp for
whatever action the United States government demands. In relation to the UN,
however, the United States does have definite responsibilities, including
refraining from waging war without Security Council authorization, except in
the case of immediate self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it
is for the Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security
Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision to
"enforce" its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the Security
Council is a violation of international law.

Lie No. 11: "If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed
against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."



The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial bombardment
of Iraq so devastating that it will "shock and awe" the Iraqi people and
compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse. According to one press
preview, US and British forces "plan to launch the deadliest first night of
air strikes on a single country in the history of air power. Hundreds of
targets in every region of Iraq will be hit simultaneously." Estimates of
likely Iraqi civilian casualties from the immediate impact of bombs and
missiles range from thousands to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when
the long-term effects are included.

Lie No. 12: "As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food
and medicine you need."

This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of Bush's
48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid workers and
the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which underwrites the feeding of
60 percent of Iraq's population. As for medicine, the US has systematically
deprived the Iraqi people of needed medicine for the past 12 years,
insisting that even the most basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and
syringes, be banned as "dual-use" items that could be used in a program of
biological warfare.

Lie No. 13: "We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you
to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free."

The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime in
Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military dictatorship. It
is no exaggeration to say that the US government has been the leading
promoter of dictatorships around the world, from Pinochet of Chile to
Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself, who, according to one recent
report, got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a
CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq's left-nationalist President Qasem in
1959.

A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles Times of
March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was unlikely to arise
from the devastation of war, it suggested that this was not even desirable
from the standpoint of American interests, because "anti-American sentiment
is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of
Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States."

Lie No. 14: "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people
can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure
will be taken to win it."

This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has taken
every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing the
resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised hostility and
directing its venom against those countries that have suggested a diplomatic
settlement with Iraq is achievable. In prosecuting the war, the Bush
administration is indeed prepared to use "every measure," up to an including
nuclear weapons, in order to win it.

Lie No. 15: "War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice."

There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices in
blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But for Bush'
s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of American society,
there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the administration is seeking a
tax cut package of over $700 billion, including the abolition of taxation on
corporate dividends. Major US corporations are in line to reap hundreds of
millions of dollars in profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure
shattered by the coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm
Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the Bush
administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its payroll.

Lie No. 16: "[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to
apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
so."

Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to blame
the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is no
different. His hypocritical statements of "concern" for the Iraqi people
cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration apologists freely
admit, this is "a war of choice"-deliberately sought by the US government to
pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle East.

Lie No. 17: "The terrorist threat to America and the world will be
diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously
believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said that a US
conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands of Arabs and
Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world and beyond, will
spark more terrorism, not less.

Lie No. 18: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far
greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on
all free nations would be multiplied many times over."

This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen a
steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never been a
threat to any "free nation," if that term has any meaning, only to the
reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to neighboring Iran, all
ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.

Lie No. 19: "As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor
the deepest commitments of our country."

The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in
cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a
unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways-claiming to
enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq ("the just
demands of the world"), while flagrantly defying the will of the majority of
the Security Council, the majority of the world's governments, and the vast
majority of the world's people.

Lie No. 20: "Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are
deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other
countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region."

For "the Iraqi people," substitute "the Egyptian people," "the people of the
Arabian peninsula," "the Pakistani people" or those of other US-backed
dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live under a brutal
Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington. Does the US government
believe that any of them are "deserving and capable of human liberty?" When
the parliament of Turkey, under the pressure of popular opposition, voted to
bar the US from using Turkish territory to invade Iraq, the Bush
administration appealed to the Turkish military to pressure the government
into overturning this democratic decision.

See Also:
The Bush administration repudiates international law
[18 March 2003]
The Azores summit: Bush sets deadline for US aggression against Iraq
[17 March 2003]
Digital Dude
2004-10-17 03:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Fictional draft?
Post by NY Dark Blue
Nothing about the fictional draft .
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here] but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D, MI),
Tom Daschle (D), John Kerry (D, MA) and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
-- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
-- Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. . .
."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . . . We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction"
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded
that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . . It is clear, however,
that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . . . He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. . . And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. . . . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real. . . "
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
jasmine
2004-10-17 07:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Fictional draft?
Post by NY Dark Blue
Nothing about the fictional draft .
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
You get an argument from me on this issue! Clinton and his republicrat
cronies were only marginally "better" than Bush -both two wings of the same
party. However Bush is bad enough where we must vote for Kerry even in a
Kerry State..just in case.

"The Bush administration is at the extreme savage and brutal end of a narrow
policy spectrum. Accordingly, its actions and policies came under
unprecedented criticism in the mainstream, in conservative circles as well.
A good illustration is the reaction to the National Security Strategy
announced in September 2002, along with the virtual declaration of war
against Iraq, and the onset of a highly successful government-media
propaganda campaign that drove the frightened population far off the
spectrum of world opinion. The NSS was condemned at once in the main
establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, as a new "imperial grand strategy"
that was likely to cause harm to US interests. Others joined in sharp
criticism of the brazen arrogance and incompetence of the planners:
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest. But the criticism was quite
narrow, more concerned with style and implementation than substance.

Typical was the reaction of Madeleine Albright, also in Foreign Affairs.
Like others, she criticized the Bush planners. She added, correctly, that
every president has a similar strategy, but doesn't smash people in the face
with it, antagonizing even allies. Rather, he keeps it in his back pocket to
use when needed. She knew of course that the "Clinton doctrine" was even
more extreme than the NSS, declaring that the US would resort to force
unilaterally if necessary to ensure access to markets and resources, without
even the pretexts of "self-defense" conjured up by Bush propagandists and
their acolytes. But Clinton presented the doctrine quietly, and was careful
to carry out his crimes, which were many, in ways that would be acceptable
to allies and could be justified or concealed by elite opinion, including
the media...."
Post by Digital Dude
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here] but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D, MI),
Tom Daschle (D), John Kerry (D, MA) and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
-- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
-- Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. . .
."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . . . We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction"
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded
that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . . It is clear, however,
that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . . . He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation. . . And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. . . . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real. . . "
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
jasmine
2004-10-17 07:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Fictional draft?
Post by NY Dark Blue
Nothing about the fictional draft .
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
You will NOT get an argument from me on this issue! Clinton and his
republicrat
cronies were only marginally "better" than Bush -both two wings of the same
party. However Bush is bad enough where we must vote for Kerry even in a
Kerry State..just in case.

"The Bush administration is at the extreme savage and brutal end of a narrow
policy spectrum. Accordingly, its actions and policies came under
unprecedented criticism in the mainstream, in conservative circles as well.
A good illustration is the reaction to the National Security Strategy
announced in September 2002, along with the virtual declaration of war
against Iraq, and the onset of a highly successful government-media
propaganda campaign that drove the frightened population far off the
spectrum of world opinion. The NSS was condemned at once in the main
establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, as a new "imperial grand strategy"
that was likely to cause harm to US interests. Others joined in sharp
criticism of the brazen arrogance and incompetence of the planners:
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest. But the criticism was quite
narrow, more concerned with style and implementation than substance.

Typical was the reaction of Madeleine Albright, also in Foreign Affairs.
Like others, she criticized the Bush planners. She added, correctly, that
every president has a similar strategy, but doesn't smash people in the face
with it, antagonizing even allies. Rather, he keeps it in his back pocket to
use when needed. She knew of course that the "Clinton doctrine" was even
more extreme than the NSS, declaring that the US would resort to force
unilaterally if necessary to ensure access to markets and resources, without
even the pretexts of "self-defense" conjured up by Bush propagandists and
their acolytes. But Clinton presented the doctrine quietly, and was careful
to carry out his crimes, which were many, in ways that would be acceptable
to allies and could be justified or concealed by elite opinion, including
the media...."
Post by Digital Dude
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here] but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D, MI),
Tom Daschle (D), John Kerry (D, MA) and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
(Pete Cresswell)
2004-10-17 13:45:49 UTC
Permalink
RE/
Post by Digital Dude
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
(--- other supporting quotes)
You've made the point that most reasonable people probably agree on: Saddam was
an evil guy bent on doing bad things.

The area of contention then becomes how to best deal with that.

Assuming war is the remaining alternative, the area of contention moves to how
to best conduct that war.
--
PeteCresswell
jasmine
2004-10-17 20:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by (Pete Cresswell)
RE/
Post by Digital Dude
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
(--- other supporting quotes)
You've made the point that most reasonable people probably agree on: Saddam was
an evil guy bent on doing bad things.
No more that when Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney supported him until 91. In
fact Saddam's power was a tiny fraction of what it was at the period when
these folk helped him commit his worst atrocities (some AFTER the Iran war).
Other evil guys still exist (as in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea,
Morocco, etc.)
Post by (Pete Cresswell)
The area of contention then becomes how to best deal with that.
It is clear that being "evil" and bad had NOTHING to do with the war since
evil dictators have been (e.g. Suhrato-even worse than Saddam), and still
are supported by the Bush people.

It is also clear that "protection" has NOTHING to do with it: we are/were
"protecting" ourselves from this desperately poor country (lying
on huge oil reserves) that could not even beat another 3rd world country
(Iran)... when far more solvent...and WITH our (meaning Rumsfeld, Bush 1,
Reagan and gang) help in the 80's - while "helping" commit their worst
atrocities!!
(Pete Cresswell)
2004-10-18 01:40:50 UTC
Permalink
RE/
Post by jasmine
when
these folk helped him commit his worst atrocities
Some wag said "We know for sure that Saddam used gas on the Kurds: we still have
the reciepts."
--
PeteCresswell
Michael Rogers
2004-10-15 18:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Your version of rational people kinda differs from mine. Andrew Greeley
would not be among them.

I'd be more worried about Kerry wanting to do a draft since he promised
40,000 troops to Iraq if elected. Unless he's just pulling another
promise out of his ass like usual.

You can believe a draft will not happen unless all branches of
Government are in agreement, and that would take something much worse
than is happening now for that to happen. Bush doesn't have a magic
draft wand to wave whenever he feels like it.

Once again you are a victim of people that want to pull you their way
and are relying on your ignorance of how the country works and hate of
Bush to bring it off.

You are being played. Period.
Post by jasmine
Post by Michael Rogers
The only one who has officially proposed a draft was Charles Rangel as a
Democrat scare tactic designed to get this kind of reaction out of you.
When it went to a vote it was voted against 402-2. Turns out Rangel
voted against it as well even though he authored it BECAUSE IT WAS A
STUNT to say a draft is being considered and to blame it on Bush. He
knew *certain* people(who are totally ignorent about how a draft can
take place in the first place)would eat it all up.
So, how does it feel to be played?
You must know since it seem you support Bush...
Most rational people believe that it will begin soon.
Chicago Sun Tim by Andrew Greeley
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that
there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced
that Selective Service is making preparations for another draft, "in case
one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the
president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and
comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . .
. even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans
understood the need to sacrifice." ...'
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by
sending
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush
has
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
jasmine
2004-10-16 02:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rogers
Your version of rational people kinda differs from mine. Andrew Greeley
would not be among them.
snip>
Post by Michael Rogers
You are being played. Period.
Played?

NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!

Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.

Played....? Even you are not that stupid.

The war ...told to us by Bush that it was mostly over many months ago, is
going worse than ever; they are running out of troops. You figure it out who
is being played...
Michael Rogers
2004-10-16 04:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Michael Rogers
Your version of rational people kinda differs from mine. Andrew Greeley
would not be among them.
snip>
Post by Michael Rogers
You are being played. Period.
Played?
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!
it's not about "democracy" it's about protection of the United States.
The vehicle of which to acomplish that is by driving a wedge of
democracy in the middle east terrorist cauldrins. It is a good plan but
it is not a plan that will yield a quick outcome. It will also be messy
and bumpy at times. But it can and will be done. It took years to
stabilize Germany and Japan after the war. And if you look at the news
of the day during the turbulant aftermath of getting these countries
under control after WW2 it will read very much like the newspapers of
today in terms of Iraq. Right down to acusations of mismanagement and
defeatism. The only difference was the perspective of the press was much
better in that time and people were not conditioned to call anything but
a quick and neat solution a "quagmire".
Post by jasmine
Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
This is another Kool-Aid moment for you. We declared that we will fight
terrorism, not just the people that had something to do with 9/11.
Whether you want to accept it or not, Saddam Hussain had ties to AQ, he
was breaking the UN resolutions left and right and he was firing on US
planes that the UN said should be there to survey. He, in effect broke a
treaty he signed to end the war with us. That alone makes this war
justified.

The result of the war and the aftermath while messy(it is a war after
all)is also concentrating several terrorists to Iraq. As a result, we
are killing a lot of them off there. This is a good thing. This makes
terrorism less of a threat. There have been no attacks on America since
9/11 and with what is being done to occupy and kill terrorists in Iraq
will decrease the chances further(even though there is always the
danger).

We had several attacks on American interests in the 90's that pretty
much went ignored. This is what makes terrorism stronger. Enabling the
view that the USA is a paper tiger that will sit back on it's rich ass
and not do anything to defend itself.
Post by jasmine
The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.
Then they can stop taking our money and benifiting from our defense.
Some of them can also apologize for being bribed by Saddam Hussain to
negate the possibility of a unified world front that might've prevented
this war in the first place. France and Germany have American blood on
thier hands because of taking thier oil kickbacks from Saddam. The rest
of the world hates us huh? Well, I'm doing my best not to hate the rest
of the world back.
jasmine
2004-10-16 21:19:59 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Michael Rogers
Post by jasmine
Played?
NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!
it's not about "democracy" it's about protection of the United States.
OK now we are jetisoning this charade of "installing democracy"! Thanks for
being honest . If only Rumsfeld could do the same...

Yes, we are "protecting" ourselves from this desperately poor country (lying
on huge oil reserves) that could not even beat another 3rd world country
(Iran)... when far more solvent...and WITH our (meaning Rumsfeld, Bush 1,
Reagan and gang) help in the 80's - while "helping" commit their worst
atrocities!! Speaking of Kool Aide moments! WHAT is in this or you?!
Post by Michael Rogers
The vehicle of which to acomplish that is by driving a wedge of
democracy in the middle east terrorist cauldrins. It is a good plan but
it is not a plan that will yield a quick outcome.
As has been suggested many times -and indeed has been demonstrated, Bush has
been the best terrorist recruiting sergeant that they could possibly hope
for..and has seta precedent for unilateral illegal acts of aggression for
the rest of the world. Who are you fooling?? We are FAR worse than before.

It will also be messy
Post by Michael Rogers
and bumpy at times. But it can and will be done. It took years to
stabilize Germany and Japan after the war. snip the ridiculous analogy.
Post by jasmine
Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
This is another Kool-Aid moment for you. We declared that we will fight
terrorism, not just the people that had something to do with 9/11.
Whether you want to accept it or not, Saddam Hussain had ties to AQ, he
was breaking the UN resolutions left and right
The US has vetoed more UN resolutions (didn't need to break them since they
"made" the law) more than ANY other country since the 70's. NO evidence
suggests that secularist Saddam Hussein had reliable and significant ties to
AQ. In fact, they were bitter enemies. . another Kool-Aid moment for you

and he was firing on US
Post by Michael Rogers
planes that the UN said should be there to survey. He, in effect broke a
treaty he signed to end the war with us. That alone makes this war
justified.
Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the
overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion,
conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war
of aggression. Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on
these blue words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality
of the Iraq War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your
webserver: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm



snip: The rest of the world hates us (meaning Bush and cronies)...and
according to an article I read today, it is getting far worse. They do so
for reasonable motives. Most Americans I know hate "us" (meaning Bush and
cronies)...
Rocket Robin Hood
2004-10-14 22:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
You're one of them internets scare mongers.
NOT ON MY INTERNETS!
Chris
2004-10-15 02:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rocket Robin Hood
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
You're one of them internets scare mongers.
NOT ON MY INTERNETS!
Just wear pants.
Digital Dude
2004-10-15 03:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen. The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
jasmine
2004-10-15 04:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
Chris
2004-10-15 04:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
link? what, do you live under a rock?
jasmine
2004-10-15 07:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
link? what, do you live under a rock?
No I am living overseas for now.
NY Dark Blue
2004-10-16 06:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO
VOTE!
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never
going
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
link? what, do you live under a rock?
No I am living overseas for now.
So you are a coward anyway .
jasmine
2004-10-16 20:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY Dark Blue
Post by jasmine
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO
VOTE!
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never
going
Post by Chris
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
link? what, do you live under a rock?
No I am living overseas for now.
So you are a coward anyway .
Coward..no...we have jobs here.... so?

But we are returning...Dark!

NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!

Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.
Neil Krueger
2004-10-15 05:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
Here's the link, Jasmine:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/politics/main647612.shtml

Now would you please find some real issue to worry about? You're making
liberals everywhere look bad.....

Peace,
Neil X.
Chris
2004-10-15 06:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/politics/main647612.shtml
Now would you please find some real issue to worry about? You're making
liberals everywhere look bad.....
Peace,
Neil X.
how galant but i think i read jasmine is a guy FYI......
Digital Dude
2004-10-15 14:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
http://www.fchornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416f15b172de0

http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416cc8893e2a8
jasmine
2004-10-15 22:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
http://www.fchornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416f15b172de0
http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416cc8893e2a8
thanks...this is good news. for now, but many will wager that the story will
change later.


Q: Mr. President, if the war on terrorism continues, do you feel that
there will be a need for the draft? And do you want to start the draft
again?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the war on terror will continue. It's
going to take awhile. And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do
is -- don't worry about it."


White House site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html


"What we need to do is .... don't worry about it." That's not a real
answer.(as usual)!

This is called "stonewalling".

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/601/601p15b.htm
is a good article! Thanks Fred!
Digital Dude
2004-10-15 23:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
http://www.fchornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416f15b172de0
http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416cc8893e2a8
thanks...this is good news. for now, but many will wager that the story will
change later.
Q: Mr. President, if the war on terrorism continues, do you feel that
there will be a need for the draft? And do you want to start the draft
again?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the war on terror will continue. It's
going to take awhile. And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do
is -- don't worry about it."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html
"What we need to do is .... don't worry about it." That's not a real
answer.(as usual)!
This is called "stonewalling".
Keep your petition drive going, this is called "living in fantasyland".
jasmine
2004-10-16 02:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never going
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
http://www.fchornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416f15b172de0
http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416cc8893e2a8
thanks...this is good news. for now, but many will wager that the story will
change later.
Q: Mr. President, if the war on terrorism continues, do you feel that
there will be a need for the draft? And do you want to start the draft
again?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the war on terror will continue. It's
going to take awhile. And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do
is -- don't worry about it."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html
"What we need to do is .... don't worry about it." That's not a real
answer.(as usual)!
This is called "stonewalling".
Keep your petition drive going, this is called "living in fantasyland".
uh....ouch ..nasty (but stupid) comeback!
luminos
2004-10-16 04:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO
VOTE!
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to
avoid
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
Only a retards like you sign petitions against stuff that's never
going
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
to happen.
The house voted 402-2 or something last week against any draft.
A Link please, dude?
http://www.fchornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416f15b172de0
http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416cc8893e2a8
thanks...this is good news. for now, but many will wager that the story
will
Post by Digital Dude
Post by jasmine
change later.
Q: Mr. President, if the war on terrorism continues, do you feel that
there will be a need for the draft? And do you want to start the draft
again?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the war on terror will continue. It's
going to take awhile. And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do
is -- don't worry about it."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-6.html
"What we need to do is .... don't worry about it." That's not a real
answer.(as usual)!
This is called "stonewalling".
Keep your petition drive going, this is called "living in fantasyland".
uh....ouch ..nasty (but stupid) comeback!
And a completely accurate comeback as well!
jasmine
2004-10-16 04:19:58 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by luminos
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Keep your petition drive going, this is called "living in fantasyland".
uh....ouch ..nasty (but stupid) comeback!
And a completely accurate comeback as well!
I'd ask you "why"?... but you proved completely ineffectual in a debate, and
simply have no grasp of the facts.

BTW here is some possible breaking news:
http://www.empirenotes.org/

October 15, 6:07 pm. Apparently, an Army Reserve platoon, part of the 343rd
Quartermaster Company from Rock Hill, South Carolina, is under arrest for
refusing to obey orders to go on what they considered a suicide mission.

Stationed at Tallil Air Base south of Nasiriyah, they were ordered to do a
fuel resupply run up to Taji, north of Baghdad. Fuel convoys in the "Sunni
Triangle" nearly always come under fire; one soldier reportedly claimed that
the chance of being attacked was "99 percent."

The platoon considered their trucks to be extremely unsafe; some were not
able to go more than 40 mph, and would be sitting ducks. They ordinarily get
an escort of armed Humvees and helicopters, but an escort was not available
for the mission.

This actually points to the difficulty the United States would face if it
tried to put in significantly larger numbers of troops, as John Kerry seems
to want (he doesn't say he'll send more troops to Iraq; he says more troops
are needed to do the job, that he intends to do the job, and that he'll
increase the combat forces by 40,000 -- you do the math). It's already
difficult to find enough escorts for resupply operations; that difficulty
will be compounded the more combat troops are put in (because the need for
fuel will increase along with the number of troops in the field).

You could increase the number of logistical and supply troops
proportionately, maybe, but then you have more and more people to be easily
killed by the resistance.

The story's still developing, but the soldiers could be charged with the
willful disobeying of orders, a "crime" that carries fairly serious
consequences.

This is potentially a very significant development. Up to now, the U.S.
military in Iraq has had a very clear policy that certain provocations by
the resistance must be met with by major attacks; the dragging of the
mercenaries' corpses in Fallujah followed by the siege and bombardment of
the town, the refusal of Sadr's forces to capitulate followed by the siege
and bombardment of Najaf, and now the attacks in the Green Zone followed by
a premature offensive on Fallujah.

The logic is clear. The Iraqi people are a potential enemy and the virus of
resistance must not be allowed to spread. It must be crushed before it can.
The logic hasn't worked; quite the reverse. But that is the logic.

The question now is will the U.S. soldiers on the ground also be treated
with the same logic. Will they feel the need to stamp out the virus of fear
and disobedience by making an example of these soldiers? If they cross that
line into treating the soldiers as a potential enemy too then things may
start to look a lot more like the Vietnam War than they do even now.
luminos
2004-10-16 04:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jasmine
snip
Post by luminos
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Keep your petition drive going, this is called "living in
fantasyland".
uh....ouch ..nasty (but stupid) comeback!
And a completely accurate comeback as well!
I'd ask you "why"?... but you proved completely ineffectual in a debate, and
simply have no grasp of the facts.
You do not debate. You, as does Kerry and Bush, provide diatribes based on
canned information. There has never been a debate with you engaged in it.

You sure do copy and paste a lot, though.
jasmine
2004-10-16 20:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by luminos
Post by jasmine
snip
Post by luminos
Post by jasmine
Post by Digital Dude
Keep your petition drive going, this is called "living in fantasyland".
uh....ouch ..nasty (but stupid) comeback!
And a completely accurate comeback as well!
I'd ask you "why"?... but you proved completely ineffectual in a debate, and
simply have no grasp of the facts.
You do not debate. You, as does Kerry and Bush, provide diatribes based on
canned information. There has never been a debate with you engaged in it.
You sure do copy and paste a lot, though.
I debate, and copy and paste... supporting evidence. You insult.

NO WMD, MUCH OIL
...and those who supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and supported
even worse dictators as they crushed democracy movements now want us to
believe that they really want "democracy"?!

Terrorism is now a far more serious threat than before the illegal invasion
to a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

The vast majority of the world hates us according to recent polls - now more
than ever.
No Junk
2004-10-16 14:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Amerikkka is killing itself - long live George War Bu$h
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
Navy Kurt
2004-10-16 22:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by No Junk
Amerikkka is killing itself - long live George War Bu$h
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
hey asshole there isn't going to be a draft. you're boy rangol, a
democrat, was the one pushing for it. it got shot down in the house by
a grotesque margin. how typical, though. a radical leftist introduces
the bill and the far left tries to make bush look guilty for their
misbehavior.
No Junk
2004-10-18 21:49:46 UTC
Permalink
There isn't going to be a draft because we trust george War Bush, right?

Like we trust him that there is a nuclear bomb with Saddam's army. Surrrrre!
Post by Navy Kurt
Post by No Junk
Amerikkka is killing itself - long live George War Bu$h
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
hey asshole there isn't going to be a draft. you're boy rangol, a
democrat, was the one pushing for it. it got shot down in the house by
a grotesque margin. how typical, though. a radical leftist introduces
the bill and the far left tries to make bush look guilty for their
misbehavior.
Daniel Kolle
2004-10-18 00:53:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:50:04 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
Psst... it is not Bush who wants a draft. Charlie Rangel, a democrat
and a socialist, wants it.

Oops.

--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
No Junk
2004-10-18 21:50:46 UTC
Permalink
But please vote for Bu$h!!

He is the surest way to self-destruction for America. We need this to
happen internally!

Long Live more wars and casualties
Post by Impmon
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:50:04 +1300, "jasmine"
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
Psst... it is not Bush who wants a draft. Charlie Rangel, a democrat
and a socialist, wants it.
Oops.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
Navy Kurt
2004-10-19 01:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by No Junk
But please vote for Bu$h!!
He is the surest way to self-destruction for America. We need this to
happen internally!
Long Live more wars and casualties
there's an honest leftie for you.
12 year old
2004-10-24 22:42:08 UTC
Permalink
I like girls and spam
Post by jasmine
PETITION TO STOP BUSH'S DRAFT -OF COURSE THE BEST PETITION IS TO VOTE!
I just signed a petition demanding to know how George Bush plans to avoid
drafting a generation of young people to fight in Iraq.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
George Bush is already drafting some people -- he is forcing soldiers to
stay active beyond their commitments and ripping apart families by sending
unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserves to occupy a foreign
country.
He has been misleading us on Iraq from the beginning -- about nuclear
weapons, about the cost, and about the progress being made. George Bush has
some explaining to do about how he will fix the mess he's made without
asking this generation to make the sacrifice he dodged.
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/nodraft
Loading...