← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 18647 | Posts: 60 | Started: 2005-06-13
2005-06-13 12:58 | User Profile
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqrecruitment;_ylt=AnvaW3TgGQPORZaXmbiUoVZh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBicHYwMzZ1BHNlYwNjaWQxNjk5[/url]
US will 'have to face' military draft dilemma: senator
Sun Jun 12, 6:06 PM ET
The United States will "have to face" a painful dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties result in persistent shortfalls in US Army recruitment, a top US senator warned.
Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months.
"We're going to have to face that question," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" television show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft.
"The truth of the matter is, it is going to become a subject, if, in fact, there's a 40 percent shortfall in recruitment. It's just a reality," he said.
The comment came after the Department of Defense announced Friday the army had missed its recruiting goal for May by 1,661 recruits, or 25 percent. Similar losses have been reported by army officials every month since February.
But experts said even that figure was misleading because the army has quietly lowered its May recruitment target from 8,050 to 6,700 people.
That has prompted charges that the real shortfall was closer to 40 percent, which in turn has led to questions about the future viability of the army as a force, if it continues to be plagued by lack of new recruits.
Since October, the army has recruited more than 8,000 fewer people that it had hoped to, which amounts to a loss of about a modern brigade.
The army, navy and marine corps reserves also fell short of their monthly goals by 18 percent, six percent and 12 percent respectively, according to the figures.
Recruitment at the Army National Guard was down 29 percent while the Air National Guard fell short 22 percent.
The United States abandoned the military draft in 1973, following mass protest during the Vietnam War, and switched to an all-volunteer force.
Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but resumed in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men are currently registered with the US government as potential draftees.
During the 2004 election campaign, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry repeatedly accused President George W. Bush of planning to re-instate "a back-door draft," charges the president vehemently denied.
But while admitting that restoring the draft would be politically "very difficult," Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said something will have to be done because the situation with recruitment was not likely to improve.
"If you think you have trouble getting recruits today, you're going to have far more trouble six months from now," Leahy predicted on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "It is not going to get better. That's going to get worse."
Republican Representative Curt Weldon called the recruitment shortfalls "troublesome" and "unacceptable."
But he urged the military "to find ways to fix the current system" and to attract more recruits with the help of new incentives.
Nearly 1,900 US troops have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere since the beginning of the war on terror in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
2005-06-13 13:30 | User Profile
I am solidly against the war in Iraq, and equally against the draft.
But...but...is there a chance that a draft might be a useful thing, in light of the increasing number of young non-whites in our schools and job market? Sending hundreds of thousands or even millions of non-whites overseas is, on the face of it, not a bad thing. Is it? The problem arises when they ask to return.
Similarly, the creation of a foreign legion made up of illegal aliens, as Neocon Max Boot has suggested, might also be beneficial. Getting rid of undesirables and non-French was one of the motivations behind the creation of the French Foreign Legion in the 19th C.
2005-06-13 14:56 | User Profile
The only reason there is a "shortfall" is because the US is trying to maintain an overseas empire. If the military simply defended US territory, it could be cut by two-thirds.
If the US announced that it would use the military to patrol the southern border, recruiters would be turning people away.
2005-06-13 15:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Republican Representative Curt Weldon called the recruitment shortfalls [B]"troublesome" and "unacceptable."[/B]
But he urged the military "to find ways to fix the current system" and to attract more recruits with the help of new incentives.[/QUOTE]
What a smug A-hole Mr Weldon seems to be. Did Mr Weldon serve in a US foreign war in the past? Does Mr Weldon have children currently fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan?
2005-06-13 15:52 | User Profile
I spport the draft.
It's the surest way to see the Empire collapse.
And in the ensuing chaos, who knows what might happen?
It's gotta be an improvement over the slow dispossession we're facing now.
2005-06-13 15:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]The only reason there is a "shortfall" is because the US is trying to maintain an overseas empire. If the military simply defended US territory, it could be cut by two-thirds.
If the US announced that it would use the military to patrol the southern border, recruiters would be turning people away.[/QUOTE]
You got it Steamship, with 278 known US military bases overseas and two "wars" in foreign lands we need more warm bodies no only to replace those in action but also to "liberate" new lands in the name of "freedom".
2005-06-13 16:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]You got it Steamship, with 278 known US military bases overseas and two "wars" in foreign lands we need more warm bodies no only to replace those in action but also to "liberate" new lands in the name of "freedom".[/QUOTE]
You Marielitos- always pushing the U.S. for more and bigger forces with which to go adventuring. Just 'cause you use them there squiggly punctumatation marks don't mean we don't know perzactly where you're coming from, el guapo. Go liberate yourownself.
We need to ignore the strident voices of these aliens who advocate foreign adventurism, and bring the troops home now. As said before, they belong on the southern (and northern) border- not overseas meeting new and interesting people and killing them.
2005-06-13 17:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]What a smug A-hole Mr Weldon seems to be. [B][I]Did Mr Weldon serve in a US foreign war in the past[/I]?[/B] Does Mr Weldon have children currently fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan?[/QUOTE]The honorable patriot, Curt Weldon, is my representative. He could not be bothered to suit up for the war in Vietnam. His belligerent prose and tough-guy pose only endear him to the electorate. They know he has no intention of exposing his or their offspring to danger.
Senator Biden likewise passed on his chance to wear the uniform.
What a great country!!!
2005-06-13 19:10 | User Profile
MSNBC's [URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/]Question Of The Day[/URL] asks:
[B][SIZE=3]Should there be an end date for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq?[/SIZE] [/B]
[I]* 9398 responses[/I]
[COLOR=DarkRed]Yes[/COLOR]
77%
[COLOR=DarkRed]No[/COLOR] 23%
So, is it safe to say that a majority of Americans are losing faith in the occupation?? If so, there's only 2 solutions: Withdraw or Escalate. No wonder these politicians are now openly talking about a military draft.
2005-06-13 19:47 | User Profile
I think we may be out by Nov. 2006 (Congressional elections), and perhaps even by Dec. 2005 ("Home for Christmas!" "Mission Accomplished!").
OTOH, Junior could just grit his teeth, stay put, and punt the whole mess to the next President in 2008. However, I think he's under a lot of pressure from Congressional Republicans who are beginning to hear from a lot of angry people. That's why I think we head back to Kuwait and Qatar sooner rather than later.
2005-06-13 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]I think we may be out by Nov. 2006 (Congressional elections), and perhaps even by Dec. 2005 ("Home for Christmas!" "Mission Accomplished!").
OTOH, Junior could just grit his teeth, stay put, and punt the whole mess to the next President in 2008. However, I think he's under a lot of pressure from Congressional Republicans who are beginning to hear from a lot of angry people. That's why I think we head back to Kuwait and Qatar sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE]
We can't leave. We need to stay in there, and not only that wage war on Syria and Iran simultaneously.
Anything else will disrupt my plan to take over the world.
2005-06-13 20:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]The honorable patriot, Curt Weldon, is my representative. He could not be bothered to suit up for the war in Vietnam. His belligerent prose and tough-guy pose only endear him to the electorate. They know he has no intention of exposing his or their offspring to danger.
Senator Biden likewise passed on his chance to wear the uniform.
What a great country!!![/QUOTE]You know if we have to go to a draft, there's one way I think to make it acceptable. Extend it across the board, to people of all ages, so young people don't feel they're being picked on. And Congress could specifically make sure it is non-exempt. Congressman Delay etc. (not to mention gang messr's Kristol, Boot, Goldberg, etc.) aren't just going to pontificate about the war on terror, they'll get to participate first hand!
Start talking about that - let's see if our rep's suddenly get a change of heart about overseas adventureism :lol:
2005-06-15 18:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]And Congress could specifically make sure it is non-exempt. Congressman Delay etc. (not to mention gang messr's Kristol, Boot, Goldberg, etc.) aren't just going to pontificate about the war on terror, they'll get to participate first hand![/QUOTE]
Not exactly what Senator Biden had in mind but close. This idiot openly plays the "Poor" card saying too many "Minorities" and "non-citizens" are being conscripted by virtue of not being able to get a good job and it's only fair to go to war if there is a Draft and the rich kids have to go too.
I like your idea better, make the draft truly politically correct and don't discriminate on the basis of Age or position in Congress, Senate, or White House.
2005-06-15 19:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]Not exactly what Senator Biden had in mind but close. This idiot openly plays the "Poor" card saying too many "Minorities" and "non-citizens" are being conscripted by virtue of not being able to get a good job and it's only fair to go to war if there is a Draft and the rich kids have to go too. Uh-hmm. And I bet he's already personally enlisted in the reserve himself, and is begging for a chance to go over. Remember when in WWII that was the fashionable thing to do for a while for congressman? LBJ for instance made a big show of it, until FDR "called him back for more important duty stateside" :wink: Funny that's fallen out of favor. But maybe the cosponsor of the draft could put it in his first bill. "As a show a solidarity, all congressman sponsoring this measure have enlisted in the Army or Marine reserves, and we have specifically asked the military not to treat us preferentially." :whstl:
I like your idea better, make the draft truly politically correct and don't discriminate on the basis of Age or position in Congress, Senate, or White House.[/QUOTE]I have to imagine its funny in a way. Can you imagine ditz's like Senator Patty Murray over in the military? :tank: :lol:
2005-06-15 20:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]I like your idea better, make the draft truly politically correct and don't discriminate on the basis of Age or position in Congress, Senate, or White House.[/QUOTE]Actually I just thought of another alternative to the draft. Maybe all those denominations that are so gung-ho on fighting over in the mideast,maybe they could start raising their own "crusader battalions" of volunteers from their churches to fight over there.
Can't you just see Jerry and Pat renaming themselves names like "Richard the Lion Hearted the II" etc.,and riding an elephant over there, at the head of their army of "Christian Crusaders"? :lol: :starwars:
Seriously I think they need to do something like that. After all if the war is important, they surely ought to be wiling to make a few minor personal sacrifices. :wink:
2005-06-15 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Actually I just thought of another alternative to the draft. Maybe all those denominations that are so gung-ho on fighting over in the mideast,maybe they could start raising their own "crusader battalions" of volunteers from their churches to fight over there.
Can't you just see Jerry and Pat renaming themselves names like "Richard the Lion Hearted the II" etc.,and riding an elephant over there, at the head of their army of "Christian Crusaders"? :lol: :starwars:
Seriously I think they need to do something like that. After all if the war is important, they surely ought to be wiling to make a few minor personal sacrifices. :wink:[/QUOTE]
Yes! Send the Zionuts along with the idiotic Free Republicans thrown in for good measure too. They rant that everything's so rosy in Iraq and that Iraq is better off nowadays and it's just "liberal media bias" that's causing military enlistment declines. They should lead by example and head for the front, I say.
2005-07-19 11:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I spport the draft.
It's the surest way to see the Empire collapse.
And in the ensuing chaos, who knows what might happen?
It's gotta be an improvement over the slow dispossession we're facing now.[/QUOTE]I don't know about making the empire collapse. I think more likely its a sign that the empire is already collapsing.
Nation's (or empires) power ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun. Nothing seems more impotent really than political leaders who have fancy titles but lack people willing to take up arms in their defense.
It is a sign that the empire is collapsing. The Army undoubtedly is now going downhill at a rapid pace.
However I take no comfort this will bring us any good. The collapse of our nation isn't going to hurt the people responsible. I suspect they've already got their parachutes ready and are getting ready to jump.
And we see the revolution happen in front of our eyes, and really can do practically nothing, as we have no organization poised to take advantage of the situation.
2005-07-19 13:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I spport the draft.
It's the surest way to see the Empire collapse.
And in the ensuing chaos, who knows what might happen?
It's gotta be an improvement over the slow dispossession we're facing now.[/QUOTE]
Walter, if you had a son, you wouldn't be saying that. I think that you do have at least one daughter who is college age. Do you want her going overseas fighting for Bush's warmongering? As you know, the children of the elite who are supporting this wil be excempt. A draft riot on soil wouldn't be enough to bring chaos, the children of the sheeple will go off to their slaughter.
2005-07-19 13:48 | User Profile
[IMG]http://www.ncc-1776.com/tletoon/Russmo-ExitStrategy.gif[/IMG] Even "freepers" and "dittoheads" should be able to understand this.
2005-07-19 14:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Walter, if you had a son, you wouldn't be saying that. I think that you do have at least one daughter who is college age. Do you want her going overseas fighting for Bush's warmongering? As you know, the children of the elite who are supporting this wil be excempt. A draft riot on soil wouldn't be enough to bring chaos, the children of the sheeple will go off to their slaughter.[/QUOTE]
We need to rise above the merely personal here, Skemper.
2005-07-19 15:54 | User Profile
The back door to the US is already open and the only thing keeping the enmy at the gate is the nuclears that we have.
Mano a mano there is no way that we could fight another enemy unless we use nuclear because we would not have the time to train new troops and our only hope would be the civialians groups like the minute men.
If anyone here thinks that we can fight another war like in Korea, Iran and so on then you are badly mistaken because it would be suicide for America.
But of course the US has to prove that they still have balls therefore they will start something against an "enemy" that will not be able to defend themselves.
If you disagree with me then please let me know.
2005-07-19 16:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]The back door to the US is already open and the only thing keeping the enmy at the gate is the nuclears that we have.
Which enemy?
[QUOTE]Mano a mano there is no way that we could fight another enemy unless we use nuclear because we would not have the time to train new troops and our only hope would be the civialians groups like the minute men.[/QUOTE]
I presume that you mean that "while we are still in the Iraq mess." If that is what you mean, I agree.
[QUOTE]
If anyone here thinks that we can fight another war like in Korea, Iran and so on then you are badly mistaken because it would be suicide for America.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, trying to do two at once will break the bank, just as the American Revolution broke the bank for Louis XVI. Hell, the one we are in now is going to break the bank if Guns and Butter continues to be the policy.
How do we agree twice in the same post? Is there an eclipse of the moon going on?????
2005-07-19 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE]We need to rise above the merely personal here, Skemper.[/QUOTE]
[I]Translation[/I]: oh no no no; [I]my[/I] kid's not going. But let's send [U]yours[/U], so that - you know - me and my family can watch the Empire fall from my hideout in the boonies.
2005-07-19 23:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We need to rise above the merely personal here, Skemper.[/QUOTE]
I expect better from you, Walter. It is personal if your own flesh and blood is on the line. I for one do not want my son or daughter drafted as fodder for this fool's warmongering and I don't want to see yours or anybodys' children here on the line unless of course they are leftist fools or Freak Republics. I just think that the people are so "sheepized" that it would not start the riots that you envision, or at least not enough to topple the empire. There were riots in the North against the draft in the Civil War, but it did not stop the war and the supply of soldiers, many of whom ended up as fodder for 3X as many Union soldiers were killed for every Southern soldier.
2005-07-20 00:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]I expect better from you, Walter. It is personal if your own flesh and blood is on the line. I for one do not want my son or daughter drafted as fodder for this fool's warmongering and I don't want to see yours or anybodys' children here on the line unless of course they are leftist fools or Freak Republics. I just think that the people are so "sheepized" that it would not start the riots that you envision, or at least not enough to topple the empire. There were riots in the North against the draft in the Civil War, but it did not stop the war and the supply of soldiers, many of whom ended up as fodder for 3X as many Union soldiers were killed for every Southern soldier.[/QUOTE]But I think you misunderstood Walter, Skemper. I'm pretty sure I heard Walter tell me that he looked forward to the resumption of the draft, up to and including men his age. It seems to me he said he looked forward to being drafted and sent to Iraq, so he could spread subversion in the Army and undermine it, the way the Bolshevics did in the WWI Russian army.
I know a lot of people think us bloggers are just cowards hiding from behind our computer screens, and have no intention of really doing anything really about the empire, other than writing some really nasty posts about it. But Walter's not like this I'm sure. I almost remember him telling me he was getting tired of waiting for the draft, and practically had most of his bags packed right now to go over to Iraq and fight as a mercenary - get it all started right now.
Ain't that right Walter? :lol:
2005-07-20 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno][I]Translation[/I]: oh no no no; [I]my[/I] kid's not going. But let's send [U]yours[/U], so that - you know - me and my family can watch the Empire fall from my hideout in the boonies.[/QUOTE]
Correct!
2005-07-20 07:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Ain't that right Walter? :lol:[/QUOTE] Wrong again, Okie!
No, the name of the game is "externalize costs."
I want the result, but I sure as hell don't want to pay the price, at least not if I can at all avoid it.
What's your objection to that?
Seriously, I don't see the problem.
It's called realpolitik.
Nobody wins by dying for their cause, but rather by making the enemy die for his. I mean really.
Freepers and Dittoheads (and their misbegotten Judeo-Christian spawn) are the enemy, and therefore it's only fitting that they should die for their crazy pro-Zhid ideas, and that those of us who oppose them should use their stupidity as a vault up and inside.
I swear, it's like talking to a bunch of altar boys around here sometime.
Methinks you and Ragman have much more in common than either of you would care to admit.
I have this mental image of Ragman, hands folded, eyes rolled in a holy gaze upward, halo shined and wings nicely preened, telling me how tough he'll be on the Jews.
Get a clue, boys. It's the way this old world works.
As I always say, one can never be too rich, too thin, or too cynical.
Respectfully, you both need to work on the cynicism thing.
I suggest that you start with Lenin's "The State and Revolution."
Regards,
Walter
2005-07-20 15:48 | User Profile
Bush tried the same thing LBJ tried in Viet Nam except on a lesser scale. The idea of having both guns and butter, that is, war without increasing taxes.
Bush has fought this war within the confines of our budgets. As a result, he can have a nice little war without tremendous loss, without inflation, and without a draft. Any of which would have spelled doom for future Republican candidates across the country, and for years to come. If Bush pulls this off, he can also have a place in history.
Do we need a draft? According to Bush, this is a different kind of war. I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, but thus far we haven't felt the effects of war at home. So, in this respect it is different.
The one fear I have is the Muslims will launch a Tet-like offensive against our troops, and destroy them in the field. The Chinese did this during the Korean War, and damn near ran us off the penninsula. If something like this does happen, then a draft would seem inevitable.
2005-07-20 16:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron] The one fear I have is the Muslims will launch a Tet-like offensive against our troops, and destroy them in the field. The Chinese did this during the Korean War, and damn near ran us off the penninsula. If something like this does happen, then a draft would seem inevitable.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, this is a possibility and I share your fear. Sadly, the American soldier and civilian alike will all suffer and the warmonger cowards in office will live in comfort and fine dining.
Does "let them eat cake" apply here?
2005-07-23 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno][I]Translation[/I]: oh no no no; [I]my[/I] kid's not going. But let's send [U]yours[/U], so that - you know - me and my family can watch the Empire fall from my hideout in the boonies.[/QUOTE] We need the draft in order to eliminate the unemployed, the unemployable, and the otherwise useless, Afterall, WW2 got us out of the Great Depression, and the effects lasted for decades. Who knows, some young person may actually find a skill, an occupation, a life. It's worth the chance.
2005-07-23 22:02 | User Profile
Someone asked me at one time "how come you post so much?".....well, to me not answering or posting would be like hiding in bunnies.
I do live in the bunnies and I do feel safe but that does not mean that I won't do something about what I think is wrong.
PS: the kid shoot in the subway in the UK was a Brasilian citizen who was running away from the smoke that could have been an explosion.
2005-07-26 15:22 | User Profile
Nobody wants to see someone's son or daughter die, whether it be a war, automobile accident or drug overdose. However, when young people die from the last two events, there is barely a national outcry. However, when the draft is mentioned parents suddenly become concerned about their kids.
Further, if our army decreases to the point where national defense is questionable, then our enemies are correct. That is, Americans will not fight for their country, and the only defense between us and them are the cops, and the the NRA. From what I have read here, there are too many people have yet to fathom the Islamic terrorists want to kill you, your kids, and your way of life. Far too many people are in a state of denial, and should know better. They are claiming this war is a fraud, it's Israel's fault, or it's for Bush's friends in the oil industry. What Bush did was stir up a hornets nest, and put us in the middle of it. President Bush has demonstrated his lack of judgment and blatant disregard for the lives of Americans (as he has about immigration). However, I don't like it either, but there is no turning back and quitting. This will only embolden the terrorists, and result in greater recruitment for their side, and more Americans, young and old, will die. If we cannot raise an army due to lack of interest, then the country may very well be doomed.
2005-07-26 15:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron] From what I have read here, too many people have yet to fathom is the Islamic terrorists want to kill you, your kids, and your way of life. Far too many people are in a state of denial. They are claiming this war is a fraud, it's Israel's fault, or it's for Bush's friends in the oil industry. What Bush did was stir up a hornets nest, and put us in the middle of it. President Bush has demonstrated his lack of judgment and blatant disregard for the lives of Americans (as he has about immigration) Ron, This war is a fraud, and there is no reason for one more American to die fighting it. I recognize the threat Islam poses, and has posed for the last 1400 years, and I am certainly no naive, 'Islam-is-peace' moron. That said, proximity breeds conflict. If we got the Muslims out of the West, and the West out of Muslim lands, the terrorism would stop. If America were ever actually threatened with invasion, then you wouldn't need a draft to enlarge the army; people would volunteer left and right. The current lack of volunteers is because the American people are realizing that this war is BS.
2005-07-26 15:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]This will only embolden the terrorists, and result in greater recruitment for their side, and more Americans, young and old, will die. If we cannot raise an army due to lack of interest, then the country may very well be doomed.[/QUOTE]
Can't fight fire by pouring gasoline on it. Actually Ron, the recruitment for terrorist outfits has increased exponentially since Bush blundered into attacking Iraq. And that Arabs "want to kill us all and take away our freedoms" slogan is rubbish. Actually, if you look around, it's the US government itself that's planning on taking away our freedoms. It's the US government that's subservient and a pawn to a foreign power, Israel. It's the US government that's infected the country with the disease of multiculturalism. And on and on....and therein lies the doom of this country.
I belive Quantrill said it best in his post above.
2005-07-26 22:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Ron, This war is a fraud, and there is no reason for one more American to die fighting it. I recognize the threat Islam poses, and has posed for the last 1400 years, and I am certainly no naive, 'Islam-is-peace' moron. That said, proximity breeds conflict. If we got the Muslims out of the West, and the West out of Muslim lands, the terrorism would stop. If America were ever actually threatened with invasion, then you wouldn't need a draft to enlarge the army; people would volunteer left and right. The current lack of volunteers is because the American people are realizing that this war is BS.[/QUOTE] Look, there were those who claimed the Gulf of Tonkin was a fraud to get the US in Viet Nam, or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known, and a US setup to entice Japan, or we blew up the Maine in order to go to war with Spain. I will agree, the WMD was wrong, however the train has already left the station. Whether we should or shouldn't have become involved in Iraq is a moot question. Our forces are there, and they are fighting and dying. The time to withdraw has passed. At this point, withdrawl will appear to be retreat, and this will embolden the enemy.
2005-07-26 22:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Can't fight fire by pouring gasoline on it. Actually Ron, the recruitment for terrorist outfits has increased exponentially since Bush blundered into attacking Iraq. And that Arabs "want to kill us all and take away our freedoms" slogan is rubbish. Actually, if you look around, it's the US government itself that's planning on taking away our freedoms. It's the US government that's subservient and a pawn to a foreign power, Israel. It's the US government that's infected the country with the disease of multiculturalism. And on and on....and therein lies the doom of this country.
I belive Quantrill said it best in his post above.[/QUOTE]
In this case, we have two enemies This is what I meant by denial.
2005-07-26 23:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]Look, there were those who claimed the Gulf of Tonkin was a fraud to get the US in Viet Nam, That's exactly what it was.> or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known, This also is a well known fact that even the court historians don't bother to deny anymore.> and a US setup to entice Japan, It was. That and the fact we were strangling their economy which made war inevitable anyway.> or we blew up the Maine in order to go to war with Spain. Probably true, but the evidence has long since been eradicated.> I will agree, the WMD was wrong, however the train has already left the station. How many times are you going to be fooled into fighting other people's wars, against your own self-interest, and yet never put the blame where it belongs and finally hold those accountable who are truly guilty? By not only tolerating, but supporting, their evil, you become complicit.> Whether we should or shouldn't have become involved in Iraq is a moot question. No it isn't.> Our forces are there, and they are fighting and dying. The time to withdraw has passed. No it has not.> At this point, withdrawl will appear to be retreat, and this will embolden the enemy.[/QUOTE]To do what?
What will they do? They'll immediately fall into civil war fighting each other. They won't give a damn about us once we are gone.
Your problem is that you have given your government a blank check - once the war is on you think you are powerless to do anything about the lies that got us into war - and the government and those who control it count on your obedience and refusal to think, to get away with their schemes.
We're going to leave Iraq eventually. It's simply a question of how much blood and gold we will wash down that sewer before we get tired of it. The longer we wait, the higher the price. The meter is running - pay now, or wait, and pay more later.
2005-07-26 23:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]In this case, we have two enemies This is what I meant by denial.[/QUOTE] The government has near total power over us; Islamicists, next to none.
Your "solution" is to obey the most dangerous enemy, in order to "defeat" the much more harmless enemy.
It is you who is in denial.
2005-07-27 04:22 | User Profile
The US could function with 1/10 of our current military budget if we shifted our priorities to a more reasonable posture. The burden of empire is crippling this nation as it did Britain, France, Spain and many more before. Solution -- a republic, not an empire!
2005-07-27 12:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]The US could function with 1/10 of our current military budget if we shifted our priorities to a more reasonable posture. The burden of empire is crippling this nation as it did Britain, France, Spain and many more before. Solution -- a republic, not an empire![/QUOTE]
I agree! With border patrols.
2005-07-27 14:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]I agree! With border patrols.[/QUOTE] The military/industrial complex was one of the two great welfare programs of the 20th century. I'm all for a strong defense, but the further we stand out from our neighbors, the more they must build up to match us, the more we must respond to remain ahead, and so on and so forth. All the arms race did was drain our treasury and line the pockets of big business. Meanwhile the true invasion is occurring over the Rio Grande and the government does nothing. Not to mention that our foreign policy is so unpopular with the American people that the Army has to display Spanish recruitment adds to meet their quotas. So, in effect, we are providing free military training to people who don't have the best intentions for our society in the first place.
2005-07-27 15:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]The government has near total power over us; Islamicists, next to none.
Your "solution" is to obey the most dangerous enemy, in order to "defeat" the much more harmless enemy.
It is you who is in denial.[/QUOTE]
My solution is kill our enemies before they can kill us. I am not interested in what motivates them, I don't care about their poverty, and I don't care about their God or religion. Finally, I'm not so paranoid as to believe the US Government is more dangerous than Islamic Fundamentalism.
2005-07-27 15:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]The government has near total power over us; Islamicists, next to none.
Your "solution" is to obey the most dangerous enemy, in order to "defeat" the much more harmless enemy.
It is you who is in denial.[/QUOTE]
The Government has no power over you which you don't let them have.
This idea we are nothing, but powerless puppets is dangerous. :bash:
2005-07-27 15:44 | User Profile
There is a business concept that states that sunk costs should not be considered when making decisions. In other words, you make a decision based upon what the best course of action is currently, not because you already have a bunch of money sunk into something. What's done is done. Yes, we are already in Iraq. Yes, we screwed up by invading. The question is what should we do now? The argument that since we already screwed up, we have no choice but to continue screwing up doesn't hold water. Should we continue to spend blood and treasure to try to pacify a country full of people that hate our guts, while simultaneously making the rest of the world's Muslims hate our guts more, while not making us any safer here at home? Or, should we leave Iraq to the Iraqis, bring the troops home, and seal the borders, which would cost less in money and lives and which would improve our security tremendously?
2005-07-28 19:27 | User Profile
Senator Biden and others in Congress are worried about 'what we're gonna do' about the recruitment dilemma. The answer is simple and apparently being discussed:
Get out of Iraq. Now...no excuses. Don Rumsfeld has just visited the sitting pres. of that country and told him that the Iraqi troops had better be ready to take over 'cause we're going.
There are problems brewing in Afghanistan with Afghans attacking the barbed-wire compound wherein our soldiers are honkered down...they want us out...
Getting out of Afghanistan is NOT going to happen...but it will happen in Iraq...and soon.
2005-08-01 12:25 | User Profile
Ron, and I say this with all respect, you're really Exhibit A for why we need this war.
While I agree with Q, X, Grep and others, we're the minority opinion, and Ron's in the majority "Freeper" and "Dittohead" opinion. In order to utterly discredit the Freepers and Dittoheads we must give them what they want. We must press this war forward to it's logical conclusion: the collapse of the Empire.
Then we'll have our day, and Freepers, Dittoheads and assorted Judeo-Christians will be put up against the wall (speaking metaphorically, of course!). That will be a great day.
But we won't get there from here until we give these morons what they want. War, and endless war.
The effects will be much broader and deeper than they can imagine with their thoroughly televitzed brains. Despite their protestatations to the contrary, this war is a Crusade, and the flip side of the Crusade coin is stamped "Inquisition." The longer we fight our external enemies, the more we'll be forced to confront our internal enemies. The recent bombings in London and the Dutch outrage over the van Gogh murder are just the beginning. This war is a good thing for us because it is increasing both xenophobia and, inasmuch as at bottom this war is being fought for Jewish interests, anti-Semitism domestically. Not only Freepers and Dittoheads will find themselves facing angry mobs with lots of stiff rope (again, metaphorically speaking!!).
It's gotta hurt, folks.
Our only chance for victory is a collapse of the Empire. And we won't get collapse until the Empire takes on enough stress vectors to make the thing go "pop." I don't know when that will be, but a war on Iran would certainly help. Ron, what's your position on that? I hope and pray we go in there in a big way.
Anyway, Ron, keep up the good work, dude. You're doing a great job of advancing our cause.
Regards,
2005-08-01 13:04 | User Profile
Walter,
August 1, 2005 Issue Copyright é 2005 The American Conservative
Deep Background
In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheneyââ¬â¢s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doingââ¬âthat Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attackââ¬âbut no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
A CIA internal review of the agencyââ¬â¢s performance prior to 9/11 is harshly critical of former CIA Director George Tenet, former Director of Operations James Pavitt, and the former chief of the Counterterrorist Center, Cofer Black, for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. Pavitt, who was reluctant to take on risky missions against bin Laden encouraged by the National Security Council during the second term of President Bill Clinton, is particularly criticized. The report, completed by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, is especially acerbic regarding the failure of the agency to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States. Black did not share information on the two men with the FBI agents assigned to the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA and also turned down a request for a formal memorandum to be sent to FBI Headquarters. The report will be finalized and given to Congress after those criticized in it add their own comments. Pavitt, as head of the Operations Directorate, has publicly accepted full responsibility for the agencyââ¬â¢s failure, but Black has not acknowledged any deficiencies in his performance. Tenet has not yet responded.
There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shiââ¬â¢ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shiââ¬â¢ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates.
August 1, 2005 Issue [url]http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html[/url] ====================
[url=http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/irannuked350.jpg]Something to warm the heart of every hanniot, freeper and dispensationalist.[/url]
2005-08-01 13:09 | User Profile
Walter, eloquently stated post, as usual.
You know after church yesterday, during the after service social hour, the subject of war in Iraq came up, as well as the London bombings, and the threat of terrorism in the USA. I'm saddened to say that the majority of my congregation is of the mindset of OD resident Ron, although my church is as far away from dispensationalist thinking as Antartica is from Maine. Has every Christian lost faith in Christ?
For Christians who believe in this "war", read your scripture and pray that God opens your heart to His truth. Besides the Ten Commandments, there's dozens of verses in the New Testament preached by Jesus, as well as Paul, that deal directly with regards to things such as revenge, pride, making wicked plans against the innocent, lying, as well as praying for your enemies, making peace, and glorifying Jesus Christ by one's example. Although my pastor has told me privately that he is appalled by the US wars of aggression, I'd doubt that he'd preach it in the pulpit....but I don't hold that against him.
The wages of sin is death for the individual and nation alike.....like the huge sin that America, as a nation, is committing in the Middle East. As far as I can see, there's not an ounce of moral high ground that the US can claim in this war.
2005-08-01 13:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. :wacko:
[QUOTE=Sertorius]There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shiââ¬â¢ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad.[/QUOTE] According to those in the know, Iraq is on the brink of full-scale civil war (as opposed to the low-level civil war of the last couple years).
2005-08-01 13:31 | User Profile
[B][SIZE=3]Five GIs Killed by Roadside Bombs in Iraq[/SIZE][/B] [URL=http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050731%2F0724208751.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20050730BAG120]Link[/URL] BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)- Five U.S. soldiers were killed by roadside bombs in two separate incidents in Baghdad, the U.S. military said Sunday.
In the first attack Saturday around 1:40 p.m., a patrol hit a roadside bomb in the southern Dora neighborhood, killing a soldier from Task Force Baghdad, a statement said. Two others were wounded in that incident.
Later that evening, around 11 p.m., four Task Force Baghdad soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb exploded in southwestern Baghdad.
The names of all the soldiers killed are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.
2005-08-01 15:47 | User Profile
Ho hum, five more "little people" dead in the war against "th' evildoooers" and to spread "freedumb" to all corners of the globe. Freepers rejoice! It's not your precious kids being eviscerated by shrapnel. Just go slap another magnetic ribbon on your SUV, keep believing in The Chimp and everything will be OK. :wallbash:
Now, back to the important news about The Chimp blathering meaningless soundbites to an emasculated Man/Boy Scouts.
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheneyââ¬â¢s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.
With the increasing unpopularity of the war in Eye-rack, a new Pearl Harbor/9-11 attack is going to be the only way to get the Amurrican Pipple to flock to the uniform in the droves necessary to continue the perpetual war against Israel's enemies.
Kudos to General Forrest for making "lampost" a most sorely needed verb.
2005-08-01 16:25 | User Profile
Divide the country and conquer, by Iraqis killing Iraqis they are doing want the US and the Jews want's them to do.
When a foreign country invades the US what will they do? support the illegals and blacks to fight the whites? will we have a divided U/S?
The Jews will be on the side of the invaders, no matter who they are, and because they are on the chair of power (Zionists) that means that the governmen will very easily fall.
Either we get rid of the danger right now or we are lost.
2005-08-01 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Can't fight fire by pouring gasoline on it. Actually Ron, the recruitment for terrorist outfits has increased exponentially since Bush blundered into attacking Iraq. And that Arabs "want to kill us all and take away our freedoms" slogan is rubbish. Actually, if you look around, it's the US government itself that's planning on taking away our freedoms. It's the US government that's subservient and a pawn to a foreign power, Israel. It's the US government that's infected the country with the disease of multiculturalism. And on and on....and therein lies the doom of this country.
I belive Quantrill said it best in his post above.[/QUOTE]
Bush didn't blunder into Iraq it's been on the agenda since his election. Only after 9/11 did the invasion gain momentum. The fault lies with the American people who voted the bastard into office.
The Israel issue is a non-issue. It's ludicrous to believe the US is not following its own agenda in the Middle East. We support Israel, this is true, but I truly doubt Israel dicates American foreign policy. We support Israel because it's in our interest to do so.
2005-08-01 17:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]
The Israel issue is a non-issue. It's ludicrous to believe the US is not following its own agenda in the Middle East. We support Israel, this is true, but I truly doubt Israel dicates American foreign policy. We support Israel because it's in our interest to do so.[/QUOTE] How so?
2005-08-01 19:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]The Israel issue is a non-issue. It's ludicrous to believe the US is not following its own agenda in the Middle East. Quite the opposite. It's ludicrous to think US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs serves any purposes other than Israel's. We should be buying oil from the Arabs and having little else to do with them.
We support Israel, this is true, but I truly doubt Israel dicates American foreign policy. Israel DOES dictate American foreign policy in the Middle East. The entire Iraq invasion was for Israel's benefit. Neocon Jews have a plan to force "democracy" on the Muslims on the theory that it will make them more pliable and agreeable to the Jews.
Here's a little tidbit I've posted many times before that explains (in a Jew's own words) exactly what the Iraq plan was all about. It was written shortly before the Iraq invasion took place (note the Israeli URL):
[url]http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html[/url]
DEMOCRATIZING ISLAM Paul Eidelberg Policy Paper No. 141, 2002 Executive Summary
"Democratizing Islam" shows that "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Islamism" is in fact authentic Islam ââ¬â the Islam of Muhammad. **To democratize Islam it will be necessary for the United States to conquer Iraq and other Islamic regimes and maintain an occupation force for two or three decades, as was done in post-war Japan and Germany.**
A generation of Muslim children will have to be re-educated. Anti-Jewish and anti-Christian verses in the Qur'an should be neutralized by contrary verses and commentaries. The principle of Jihad must be eliminated from the four schools of Islamic law. **Islamic regimes must abide by the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality.**
Does that make things pretty clear? It should!
We support Israel because it's in our interest to do so.[/QUOTE]That is completely ridiculous. For all the billions of dollars we send to Israel every year, we get nothing in return except arrogance, economic (especially technical) espionage, and the righteous (and deserved) anger of Muslims, who don't like it any better than we would when their poverty-stricken children get shot repeatedly with American weapons while walking to school each day.
Why do "we" support Israel, then? Simply because of the Israeli lobby (AIPAC and other groups). Those people have US politicians by the balls. And of course there are
Jewish politicians;
Jewish plants in other government positions (e.g., intelligence analysts) who are more loyal to Israel than to the US;
A primarily Jewish-owned media that brainwashes the public into thinking that the Jews are a noble people and the Arabs deserve whatever they get;
Christian Zionist churches (this overlaps with the Israeli lobby)
Books have been written on the subject of Israeli control of the US government. If you are sincere, Ron, and not actually a Jew or Jew-sympathizer pretending to be the "voice of reason" here, I recommend you do some more research on the subject. Maybe pick one of these books at Amazon.com:
One Nation Under Israel by Andrew Hurley They Dare to Speak Out : People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by Paul Findley Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship by Paul Findley Terror Enigma: 9/11 And the Israeli Connection by Justin Raimondo
Finally, I recommend you pay a visit to this website, which was what initially awoke me to the Israel question:
[url]http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/[/url]
2005-08-01 19:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]
| or we blew up the Maine in order to go to war with Spain. |
The cause of the destruction of the [u]Maine[/u] has remained controversial despite the two Navy investigations. Captain Sigsbee published his own account of the event in 1899. During the 1960s, Admiral H. G. Rickover commissioned a study which concluded that the [u]Maine[/u] was destroyed by spontaneous combustion in a coal bunker, which set off an ammunition magazine. However, a recent work by Peggy and Harold Samuels argues that a homemade mine was planted and exploded by a group of Spanish fanatics who opposed Cuban independence. These three books, plus two other recent studies, are listed below and can be obtained on interlibrary loan from any public library. * [list] []Blow, Michael. A Ship To Remember: The Maine and the Spanish American War . New York: Morrow, 1992. []Rickover, Hyman G. How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed. Washington: Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, 1976. []Samuels, Peggy and Harold. Remembering the Maine. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. []Sigsbee, Charles D. The Maine: An Account of Her Destruction in Havana Harbor. New York: Century, 1899. []Weems, John E. The Fate of the Maine. New York: Holt, 1958. [/list]The most likely cause of that explosion was that it was an accident, buffoonery, like the USS Iowa turret explosion of more recent vintage. That said, since investigations take a long time, the explosion was presumed to have been a hostile act, and was thus used as a convenient excuse to garner support for the War versus Spain. The forensic investigation was some decades later.
A lot has been written. See here for more sources. Not everyone agrees with Rickover's assessment, though having read it, I find its reasoning sound.
[url="http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/dodandmilitaryejournals/www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio7/biblio7c.htm"]http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/dodandmilitaryejournals/www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio7/biblio7c.htm[/url]
2005-08-02 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Walter,
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Sert, I'll check it out.
As I've said previously, I freely admit that there's a significant element of wishful thinking in this whole collapse scenario.
But then again, all we can do is play the odds.
I say we bet the farm and 32 Black and spin the wheel.
2005-08-02 19:01 | User Profile
[I]Can you spell D-R-A-F-T?? The Debacle of Death now has claimed more than 1800 American soldiers.[/I]
[B][SIZE=4]Seven Marines die in two Iraq attacks[/SIZE][/B]
[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.main/index.html]STORY LINK[/URL]
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Posted: 2:21 p.m. EDT (18:21 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Seven U.S. Marines died Monday in two incidents north of Baghdad, the military said Tuesday.
According to military news releases, six Marines died in combat near Haditha, about 135 miles (217 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad.
Another Marine died in a suicide car bombing near Hit, 95 miles (152 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad.
All seven were assigned to Regimental Combat Team-2, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force.
Insurgents attacked a group of Marines patrolling on foot outside Haditha on Monday, the Marine Corps said in a written statement. Five died in the initial attack, and the body of a sixth was discovered later a few kilometers away. All were killed by small-arms fire, the Marines said.
No further information was released about the gun battle, and the names of the dead were not immediately released.
"The circumstances of the incident are under investigation," the Marines said.
Hit and Haditha are Sunni Arab cities along the Euphrates River. Both have been the subject of recent efforts by U.S. and Iraqi troops to clear out insurgents.
Haditha has been the subject of at least two Marine-led anti-insurgent operations since January. A third operation has targeted areas along the Euphrates between Haditha and Hit.
The deaths brought the number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war to 1,806, according to military reports. U.S. convoy hit
A suicide car bomber attacked a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad on Tuesday, wounding 29 people, Iraqi police said.
Police said the attacker struck as the convoy traveled though an underpass beneath al-Tahrir Square. Fifteen vehicles were destroyed.
Police said they found the remains of the suicide bomber.
In Baquba, meanwhile, police said gunmen on Tuesday killed a Diyala province Health Ministry official and his driver near Diyala Medical College.
Dr. Abdul Hassan Mehdi was director of Khalis General Hospital in the town of Khalis, police said.
Also in Baquba on Tuesday, a bomb attack on an Iraqi police convoy killed a police officer and a child, police said. Seven police and a civilian were wounded in the blast. Baquba is about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Baghdad.
2005-08-02 19:09 | User Profile
With minor modifications, I repeat myself...
Ho hum, seven more "little people" dead in the war against "th' evildoooers" and to spread "freedumb" to all corners of the globe. Freepers rejoice! It's not your precious kids being eviscerated by shrapnel. Just go slap another magnetic ribbon on your SUV, keep believing in The Chimp and everything will be OK.
Now, back to the important news about The Chimp blathering meaningless soundbites about Bolton and the loyal opposition Democrats' response to it.
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheneyââ¬â¢s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.
With the increasing unpopularity of the war in Eye-rack, a new Pearl Harbor/9-11 attack is going to be the only way to get the Amurrican Pipple to flock to the uniform in the droves necessary to continue the perpetual war against Israel's enemies.
Kudos to General Forrest for making "lampost" a most sorely needed verb.
2005-08-03 14:32 | User Profile
14 more just made the ultimate sacrifice keeping Israel safe.
Freepers! Sign your kids up toot-sweet!