The Draft

[NeverMind]

:o :o
Should we bring the draft back?

I think yes because it would change the opinions of many, many people in regards to war if they knew they might have to go. and also because there are 1/3 the troops in Iraq as the president's advisors said would be needed to keep the peace.

What do y'all think? (I'm not southern, I live in WA, but I think southern people are funny)

"Just because you're paranoid/don't mean they're not after you"

[pnklphnts]

drafting people is a horrible idea, its telling people to kill. all war is is legalized homicide. If the country doesnt have enough people supporting the war to go there then it shouldnt be in it.
"War doesnt prove whos right, only who is left."

[NeverMind]

Ah, Mr. Pnklphnts. There you go again. I'm not saying there isn't support for the war. I'm saying there is TOO MUCH support and bringing back the draft would scare the poop out of all the "poseur" war hawks and bring an end to the war faster.

P.S. Rugby!!!

[pnklphnts]

Senior Nevermind or "Passonate Track Star",
Drafting people isnt the answer. If it brings one person to their death through being drafted there is blood on our hands for letting it happen. Sure, it would bring support against the war, but there are much less bloody ways. :boxing:

P.S. Monday work for you?

[NeverMind]

Well I think it could stop the war fast enough just with the THREAT of the draft that no lives would be lost and no blood on our hands. Laa laa!

P.S. Monday I be at Summer Camp we must be band practice before Father's Day.

[pnklphnts]

yea but what if we dont? Besides WWGD (what would gandhi do), that would be unfair to use peoples fear to minupulate their thoughts. The ends doesnt justify the meands.
P.S. Saterday it is, damn u and ur summer camp

[NeverMind]

Well it is kind of a long shot. If it doesnt work, people will die. Big deal. Life isn't that great anyway. Ghandi supported the WWI in India! Don't gimme that! I watched the movie too!

Saturday. We gotta get a drummer.

[pnklphnts]

Gandhi supported WWI because he thought it unfair to ask for protection from an empire and not fight for it. WWI was also a much diffrent war. Later in his life Gandhi opposed all war, and having an army, suggesting that instead if we get taken over just to civily disobey till they backed off.

Nate must get esticales drumset

[NeverMind]

Gandhi pimps hoes. Thats all there is to it. I didnt really pay attention to the reasons behind Ghandi's supporting the war. But that sounds about right. Hey guess what? Africans wanted their freedom after WWII! Wheee! Cuz the African colonial nations of France and Britain fought in WWII and saw FREEDOM! They were treated like heroes in europe but 2nd class citizens back in their native lands.

nate needs das drums

[zygoat]

you two are freakin morons!!

[zygoat]

no brains and pinky,
they ought to bring back the draft so punkA$$ fools like you realize that freedom isn't free and that many good men and women died of their own free will so that you two goof balls can act like buffoons

[NeverMind]

what were those men defending in Vietnam? certainly not OUR freedoms! We can't go around being the world's police! OUR freedoms were won in the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War! Fighting communism in southeast asia is not defending OUR freedoms. Fighting "terrorism" in Iraq is not defending our freedoms. They are giving their lives volutarily in Iraq and Afghanistan! That is their JOB! They WANT to fight there. I do not. That's why I'm here and they are there.

[slayer]

Simpleton,

The men and women of the armed forces defend the American way of life. Part of this includes our freedom, but it's not all about the freedoms you enjoy here in the safety of your apartment.

America's way of life is threatened not just on American soil. This is why, for example, it was called the Cuban Missile CRISIS. It was a crisis because, although in Cuba, the missiles threatened us. But democray, part of our American way of life, is threatened when communism and Muslim fanaticism is alluring and spreads to other nations, because America doesn't live in a vaccum. This is why the Cold War was so important. The world is a lot smallter than your little mind can fathom. If a country or peoples were only threated on their own soil, then the terrorists wouldn't hate us so much in the first place, dumb ass. They hate us because they're affected by America. This means that we threaten them beyond our own borders, and not militarily only. How can anyone fail to recognize this? Oh wait, you can.

So, you're simply deluded if you don't think that Iraq is a threat. You're deluded if you don't think Germany was a threat. Of course it's easy to see why Hitler was such a threat to other countries, having conquered much of Europe, and was attempting to invade England (you know, a country distinct from Germany -- hence, not in Germany). Wow, England's security was threatened by an entity outside of English soil?! Whudda thunk it! Moron!

The reason why you're here and not in Iraq or Afghanistan is because you don't appreciate the type of life America offers you, nor what it takes to secure that type of life. Don't belittle the great cost that those who do understand this and serve pay, and pay on your behalf regardless of whether they know you.

No military person wants to fight, but they will always fight willingly when told to do so. Their JOB is to do as their government sees fit for them to do. They recognize that not everyone can take your gay-ass attitude and simply say, "I'm not fighting, let someone else." So they forfeit their right not to fight, in order to address a real life problem, the problem that others will do things that threaten our way of life. War is a constant in the world, so they make decisions accordingly. What they don't do is what all these gaybob liberal quimbies do, and that's simply to protest and say that war is wrong. Okay, war is wrong, now what are we to do with those who threaten us!?

So it's not that you don't want to fight, it's that you don't want to fight while others do your fighting for you. You're not even grateful, you jackass. Go to college and learn about America so you can appreciate what you've got. Better yet, at least don't belittle what these marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen are doing for their country. Hence, what they're doing for you.

So stop rationalizing why you're not fighting. You're not fighting because you're ignorant and because you'd rather let someone else do that fighting for you.

your conscience,

slayer

[pnklphnts]

If you went to college, then you might ad hominem have no place in a serious disscusion.
Aside from that, we know much more then your giving us credit for.

Iraq was a minimal threat if a threat. They had no WWMD's, and no links to al quedia (please ignore misspellings.). The only area in Iraq linked to terrorist actions is a northern area which Saddam Hussien didnt control. Why would Saddam help terrorists? If he gives them the weapons then he is no longer the person in power. He may have been a ruthless tyrant, but not an idioit. Look at North Korea, they have Nuclear Weapons and are very angry with the US, but they dont have that black watery substance we Americans depend on.
You mentioned the Cuban Missile crisis, was there any fighting in the Cuban Missile crisis, no. (a little off subject but i'd thought i'd point that off)
We are engaged in a war against terrorism. Do you think invading a country will help at all? In order commit genocide all a terrorist needs is soem house hold chemicals proberly mixed. That is impossible to stop, so we must attempt to reason with them. Invading a country just pisses them off more.
Even if you believe in the Monroe Doctrone, and think we should be over there insuring liberty, this war is unjust. 40% (from a poll taken after our invasion) are angry with us for attacking their country. We are not giving people what they want, we are playing god.
The problem is we put our welfare above other countrys welfare, 10,000 iraqi civillians died from this war because we thought they might have weapons. Where are the weapons?
I respect the millitary for what they think they are doing, but they anger me with their ignorance. They are shooting up a country, modern age imperilism at its finest.
Every one in this world is equal, Americans are not special.
The reason these people hate us so much is because we try to rule everything, our westernization. Thats why their killing. You can not fight violance with violance without encourging more violance.
You mentioned WWII, Germany was a superpower, how many superpowers do we have now? The answer is 1, the USA. An invasion of another country would prove something, however a mean dictator proves nothing. We have dozens of those. We are a member of the UN (which we treat like SHIT, if anyone else broke that many rules theyd be kicked out). The UN says if a country is invaded the whole alliance will strike back. That protects us.
Do not call people things when you dont know the whole story. Or all of the facts, are you omnicent? No, so stop calling us ignorant, *******s, jackass's and insutling our intellegence. I may be 15 but I'll bet you I know more about this situation then you do.

[NeverMind]

Dear angry elephant,

i can understand how the U.S. acting in the cuban missile crisis defended our freedoms, etc. But if we cannot prop up democratic government in countries where they do not work. We supported Chiang Kai-Shek in China, even after the communist revolution, with the support of the Chinese people, had taken over the government there. How are we helping by supplying a nationalist dictator? Every time we blow up an apartment building or hotel we think a terrorist is hiding, we make more terrorists. Every time a terrorist dies, we make two or three to take his place. I recently watched "the Sword of Islam" a documentary on Islamic extremism. This documentary showed the reasons terrorists had become that way. They want a Muslim state! Jews have Israel to themselves, but the main Islamic extremists (in Lebanon) are being ruled by a capitalist minority. They are terrorists because they have no hope, they are being oppressed. American business is partially responsible, but waging wars where we do not belong makes more enemies than friends.

Hitler was a definite threat. I'm not trying to say he was not. Hitler bombed the British for years during WWII. And the United States was right getting into that war, we had been attacked by Japan, an axis power. Britain was drawn into the war because of treaties and because they were directly threatened. I'm not saying a foreign threat is not a threat, I'm saying there is no present threat. We don't need to attack any country that dislikes us. There are angry little countries out there. I know. Iraq was in no way a threat. Pres. Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before 9-11. To make up for daddy's failures and finally finish the job. They did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. I know they did have chemical warfare, i'm not denying that. Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quada. Think about it, Al-Quada is a fanatic muslim terrorist group, Saddam Hussein is an atheist militaristic dictator. Osama Bin Laden openly criticized Hussein and his regime. They did not get along and had different goals. Al-Quada was responsible for 9-11. Iraq hadn't done a thing towards the U.S. and had no plans to. The war in Iraq was a war for oil. Sure, we toppled an evil regime but those are pretty common.

If there was a legitimate threat, I would sign up. I would go over and fight. But there isn't and the men and women over there sacrificing for us are doing so on their own will. War is NOT a constant in the world. What war were we fighting in 1997? or 1904?

No military person wants to fight? My friend PJ enlisted in the United States Navy a few weeks ago. I talked to him about it. He is eager to fight. So is my friend Chris in the Air Force. i think you're missing something. War is wrong. War is violent. When the U.S. is threatened, we should fight. But when there is no threat, we need not. Are you fighting? Are you in the United States Military? Or are you back here, in your momma's basement telling me I should go while you sit back and think about the hipocrisy of your words.

The Revolutionary War was a war for our rights. The War of 1812 was a war against a threat. The Civil War was a war for the Constitution. WWI was a war we were dragged into. WWII was a war we were threatened in. Korea was a war against communism. Vietnam was a war supporting imperialism and propping up an unpopular democratic government. The First Gulf was was defending our Oil. This was is doing the same. We're in an energy crisis, so what do we do? We go steal some country's oil and give them our constitution.

Your momma,
NeverMind

[slayer]

Let me respond to both of you simpletons. I found it amusing how you both figured out that I was referring to each of you, though I said "Simpleton" (singular). Nice.

Pink Panties,

I did go to college. I also have a ba in philosophy. What! And if you weren't so ignorant, not only would you know how to spell, but you'd know that an attack on someone's character isn't always a logical fallacy. For instance, judging by your post, I'd call you an illiterate dumbass. Well, since your misspellings back up the illterate part and your comments back up the dumbass part, then I have a good argument.

They had no WMD's? You mean they didn't dismantle any? You mean because we haven't found any yet it means that there never were any, or are any? Does it mean that they didn't have all the materials to them but didn't quite get to it? Please tell me which of these poor conclusions you're arguing for.

Why would Saddam help an a group or goups out to harm the United States? Hmmmm, I wonder. Wow, that's a tough one, genius. How about retaliation for Desert Storm? How about because he hates America? How about because we're the infidels in his eyes? How about because he's a megalomaniac who makes it a habit of showing how he can defy America?
How about for a million other reasons!

No, nimrod, the reason why we're not in North Korea is because we have no legal authority preventing them from building nuclear weapons. They didn't sign that thingy we call a nuclear armament treaty -- you know, the way Iraq did. And North Korea hasn't violated UN sanctions for 10 years -- you know, the way Iraq did. No wait! We must be in Iraq for the sand -- after all, North Korea doesn't have that much sand, so therefore that must explain why we're in Iraq! You're truly a moron.

There was no fighiting in the Missile Cuban Crisis because we threatened to use force. The point of bringing up the Crisis was to show threats aren't restricted to what's going on on American soil.

And you're wrong, there has been intelligence reports, not just gathered by the US, that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda. But since you point out that there is no country called TerroistLand, it makes perfect sense to go after the countries and regimes that aid terrorist organizations, because these groups need to train somewhere, and also need funding from somebody, in many cases. Going after scattered and unknown terrorists would be a difficult thing, so the best thing to do is to first cut off their metaphorical legs, and then hunt them down later.

This country, like every country in world history, should and does put its welfare ahead of every other country. That's not saying anything.

No, we're not over there just because we thought they had WMD's. We're over there because Hussein tyrranized his people, flouted UN sanctions, supported Al-Qaeda, and was getting richer by using the stupid UN's moronic Food-For-Oil program.

Oh, because there are dozens of tyrranical dictators therefore we should remove none of them. Good thinking, Buddha. I know, because there are hundreds of rapists, we should incarcerrate none of them. I see the logic now. Wait, because there are thousands of ants crawling on me, I should not kill any of them. Okay, let me stop misjudging your intelligence.

No, 15 year old boy, you do not know more about this situation than I do. You lack reasoning abilities, which is why you can't properly piece together the facts you do have. Stop rebelling against authority and learn to think for yourself. If you ever manage this feat, which I doubt, you'll soon realize that those conservatives you hate so much were right all along.


No Mind,

[Nevermind] But if we cannot prop up democratic government in countries where they do not work.

I agree. It's irrelevant, but I agree.

[Nevermind] They are terrorists because they have no hope, they are being oppressed. American business is partially responsible, but waging wars where we do not belong makes more enemies than friends.

No, they are terrorists because they perform terrorist activities. Stop looking for the root causes, liberal.

Spare me your sophomoric rhetoric: "wars where we do not belong."

Our whole debate is about whether we do or don't belong there, so stop begging the question.

[Nevermind] We don't need to attack any country that dislikes us.

I agree. It's irrelevant, but I agree.

[Nevermind] I know. Iraq was in no way a threat. Pres. Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before 9-11. To make up for daddy's failures and finally finish the job.

Really now,...where are these plans? Fax me a copy, okay? Oh,...to make up for Daddy's failures! I see. Now, tell me where I can find this admission by Bush Jr.? Oh that's right, I can't because it doesn't exist -- it's just your poor speculation into Bush's mental state. Wow, mind reader boy, I bet you can read my mind right now and figure out how intelligent I think you are.

[Nevermind] They did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.

Pretty emphatic. Yeah, I concede, it's starting to lool like they don't have any. That's not exactly the same as 'they did not have any' though. But again, what if they had all the materials to build them already? as suggested by our intelligence reports. What if the whole war doesn't rest on WMD's, as Bush has said and I have been arguing? Hmm, what then? Take a year to formulate a response.

[Nevermind] Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quada.

Well, one things is for sure, either you or Pink Panties is wrong. Lo and behold, you're both wrong. Not just our intelligence reports say that Iraq (Hussein) was involved with Al-Qaeda, aiding them. So unless you have other intelligence, -- you know, some that the only superpower in the world hasn't managed to attain, but you sleuths have, then I'm guessing your information isn't as reliable.

[Nevermind] Think about it, Al-Quada is a fanatic muslim terrorist group, Saddam Hussein is an atheist militaristic dictator. Osama Bin Laden openly criticized Hussein and his regime. They did not get along and had different goals.

I am thinking about it. I come up with this unheard of phenomenon: two enemies (which I only grant you here to make my point even stronger) temporarily unite to defeat a common more hated enemy. Wow! See what happens when you actually think? Different goals? Hmmm, that's right, they're both for America. Nice!

[Nevermnd] War is wrong. War is violent.

Why is war wrong? War is indeed violent. Bravo for saying one right thing.

It is only your ignorance of world affairs and history that doesn't allow you to feel the threat. And I'm not fighting, but I have served. Nine years, in fact. So, sorry, kid, I'm not living in my Momma's basement. The hypocrisy accusation was a nice touch though. Wrong, but nice.

The Revolutionary War was fought for our independence. Uhm, Desert Storm was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait. And yet all of this is irrelevant, because the point is that Iraq is a threat, a threat which you cannot see but does exist.

Stop offering possible reasons for why we're in Iraq. Yes, we could be there for their oil, for Bush's trying to atone for his Daddy's unfinished business, etc., etc., -- it's all bullshit speculation unless you provide a decent argument or proof. You have neither.

If your friend wants to kill for the sake of killing, then he's messed up. If he wants to kill the enemy because that's what good for America, then that's not incompatible with what I said. But the typical serviceman is not a psychopath like your friend, he's someone who doesn't want to go to war, but willingly goes to war when he's told to go. After nine years in the marine corps, I know the mentality of which you only guess at through acquaintance.

Vanilla good, chocolate bad -- this is what all your peace and war opinions amount to.

your hero,

slayer

[NeverMind]

When has Saddam Hussein ever attacked the US. Has he ever openly expressed hatred for the US? Al-Quada and Hussein were not linked. I just saw the head of the CIA say so at a press conference on CNN last week and a couple weeks ago at the 9-11 commission hearings thingy. They were not linked.

I am glad we can agree on some things.

On the "simpleton" remark, it seems me and him were typing our messages at the same time. I read yours and typed my reply and then when i posted it there was another message in between. I assumed you were referring to me since I had been the one arguing most adamently.

Also, I would like it if YOU would give more evidence for your arguments. You criticized us for giving too few facts and too much speculation, but it seems you were doing the same.

Damn, if you havn't been the the armed forces that would have been such a good argument.

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon


well you got me there. But seriously... why do they commit acts of terrorism? Don't you think we could be one of the causes? Or do you think they just blindly hate America. I really think it would be a good learning experience if you watched "the Sword of Islam" you mind find it left-wing and stuff but most of the speculation done in it is from historians and experts on the Middle East. I enjoyed it.
I didn't say they (and I did say there were two of them) wanted to kill. They wanted to go into Iraq or whatever to fight. They aren't sick like that. But they were excited to go in and serve overseas. And I congratulate them for that commitment and i shoock their hands. But they ARE going over there on their own volition. And I'm not. Not because I'm some pansy that doesn't want to get hurt or whatever. But because I don't think Iraq is worth fighting for.
And what about Afghanistan? What's going on there? Why havn't we heard anything about the situation there? Well it's because the democracy we set up there isn't working. Becuase we made too many enemies blowing up their country and now they're killing all who accepted the United States and our government. It's chaos over there. Just more proof that a) violence breeds violence and B) democracy doesn't always work. A nation that's had a monarchy for hundreds of years cannot suddenly become free without chaos. Like Britain, you need to ease into it.

[pnklphnts]

You sir, are an ass, not because of what you believe, not because you are a republican because you countinue insulting us rather then engage in intellegent debate. Please knock off the "im so smart with my college degree and my nationalistic ways, and these kids dont know **** they are just rebeling against authority" mantality. I will not respond to any more of these if you dont knock it off. Do you think you will ever change someones mind if you do not treat them as an equal?

How does the fact I cannot spell perfectly effect my thoughts ligitamcy at all?

If they have them or the things nessicary, then why havent we found them? We've been there plenty long to find them.
Why would Saddam help an a group or goups out to harm the United States?
Your answer COMPLETLY ignored my point, like nevermind said our own goverment has admitted there are no links, so maybe you should relieze there arent. I said that Saddam would never give over power to a terrorist by giving them weapons hes not stupid, like you said he's a meglomaniac.
And North Korea hasn't violated UN sanctions
Hahahahahhaahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha hahahhahahahahha, this makes me laugh. If this was a reason to start a war the US would have been bombed YEARS ago. We violate them so often its become a useless organization because we trot all over.
And you're wrong, there has been intelligence reports, not just gathered by the US, that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda. But since you point out that there is no country called TerroistLand, it makes perfect sense to go after the countries and regimes that aid terrorist organizations, because these groups need to train somewhere, and also need funding from somebody, in many cases. Going after scattered and unknown terrorists would be a difficult thing, so the best thing to do is to first cut off their metaphorical legs, and then hunt them down later.

Then why has Bin Laden denoced Sadam and vise versa? I already addressed these documents, did you even read what I wrote? Or consider trying in the least bit to be impartial?
These groups could train in the US or any other country. They don't have to say they are terrorists. They can create bombs with household chemicals, very cheap, very deadly. All your plan does is create more people hating the US which equals more terrorists.

This country, like every country in world history, should and does put its welfare ahead of every other country. That's not saying anything.
That is just selfish, we are part of this world, countries seperate us as a world people. This is a whole differnt issue, I understand you think were better then everyone, you have fun with that.

No, we're not over there just because we thought they had WMD's. We're over there because Hussein tyrranized his people, flouted UN sanctions, supported Al-Qaeda, and was getting richer by using the stupid UN's moronic Food-For-Oil program.
If our goverment, who it would not benefit at all, says there is no Al-Qaeda link maybe you should believe them. As stated before a CNN poll said that 40% were angered the US invaded, their culture is different, we are ruining it. These issues only came up after it was clear they didnt have WMD's, the only one before was WMD's and our nations saftey. There are so many opressed people, BTW the North Korea HAS violated US code many times inculding withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and refusing to let weapons inspectors in, this was in january of 2003. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107686.html) Maybe you should know the facts before you state something.

Oh, because there are dozens of tyrranical dictators therefore we should remove none of them. Good thinking, Buddha. I know, because there are hundreds of rapists, we should incarcerrate none of them. I see the logic now. Wait, because there are thousands of ants crawling on me, I should not kill any of them. Okay, let me stop misjudging your intelligence. ]
That is not what I was saying at all, I was saying why Iraq? Sadam isnt near the worst dictator. Their culture seems wierd, but its how their life is. Yes, infact, there are diffrent people in the world. We are not the world police, if they truley want freedom they should use civil disobedence.

No, 15 year old boy, you do not know more about this situation than I do. You lack reasoning abilities, which is why you can't properly piece together the facts you do have. Stop rebelling against authority and learn to think for yourself. If you ever manage this feat, which I doubt, you'll soon realize that those conservatives you hate so much were right all along.
"stop rebeling against authority and think for your self", WHAT? yes cause submiting to authority is thinking for yourself complelty, how can you think truley for yourself when you have an obligation to an authority. If conservatives were right american people would have jobs, and people would be able to get health care. 15 is an age not a label, your older and obviously more brainwashed, come on now nothing you've said so far has made remote sense, you sulk back on your insults, people with the truth on their hands need not insult, truth will speak for itself. (I couldnt resist but to sink to your level for one comment)
I am thinking about it. I come up with this unheard of phenomenon: two enemies (which I only grant you here to make my point even stronger) temporarily unite to defeat a common more hated enemy. Wow! See what happens when you actually think? Different goals? Hmmm, that's right, they're both for America. Nice!
Why would you give your enemy any power? How do you know he wont point those weapons at you?
Stop offering possible reasons for why we're in Iraq. Yes, we could be there for their oil, for Bush's trying to atone for his Daddy's unfinished business, etc., etc., -- it's all bullshit speculation unless you provide a decent argument or proof. You have neither.
How about this, Bush invaded because he is the corperations whore.
Fact: Bush signed away the rights for rebuilding to his vice presidents company.
Fact: Bush's plans for invasion involved taking control of the Oil plants first.

[NeverMind]

I am watching the Daily Show (i know) right now and they're doing a segement on the lack of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quada. The CIA dude at the 9-11 commission said it, Dick Cheney said there was no link, and the president said "we never suspected there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quada, we did, however: believe there were contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quada." supposedly Osama requested help from Hussein while in Afghanistan and Saddam denied his requests.

[sahyo]

slayer dear

perhaps if weren't so intently trying slaying,
u might listen sharing instead of imagining people
saying which not saying

u cannot hide paining's angering fear,
as though behind, trying flaunting
education and
seeming logic


:hug:

[NeverMind]

lehish, i think i love you. :D ;)

[zygoat]

nevermind,
your friends are honorable for wanting to serve OUR country,thank GOD for them,there are connections between al quaida and Iraq,just not 9/11,radical islamists will kill you whether you are a democrat or a republican,guitarist,drummer ,philosopher,junkie,fag,straight,christian or jew,that is the true enemy!!!
you and pinky are making arguments that reflect your age,nobody should want war,but it is now and always has been a part of life,sorry,but thems the facts,just like having to go out and get a job.
I wish nothing but the best for you and pink,but there are realities out there that you need to explore with open eyes,God bless you both and I hope that you will in time,see that now is the time to ask....
not,what can my country do for me,but what can I do for my country!!!

[a random hack]

zygoat,
what can your country do for me? :D

[sonrisa]

Random, what gets me is that Zygoat is quoting JFK- :goodlaugh:
out of context of course

JFK did not utter those famous sound bytes as a call to war, but as a call to peace & international progress. To read the full text of his Inaugural Address click here (http://www.jfklancer.com/Address.html)

war is a waste of time & lives & $. It is the very anti-thesis to progress. JFK understood that.

[a random hack]

:D

[zygoat]

ARH,
you should ask YOUR country what you cand for IT!!

SONRISA,
No time is a bad time,to use that quote!!

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need,--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you --ask what you can do for your country

[NeverMind]

your June 27th post had so many commas in it i could not comprehend it. could you please re-word it for us "simpletons"
JFK should NEVER be compared to BUSH! JFK RULED! (even though he didn't do that much)

[a random hack]

seems your country (assuming you live in the usa) is quite interested in what i can do for it :D

[sonrisa]

thanx Zygoat, for putting that quote in its proper context. Seriously. :)

so Random, exactly what can you do for my country?

[vicente]

A degree in Philosophy? I find it hard to believe you got past Critical Thinking 101.

Wow, that's a tough one, genius. How about retaliation for Desert Storm? How about because he hates America? How about because we're the infidels in his eyes? How about because he's a megalomaniac who makes it a habit of showing how he can defy America?

American's are not infidels in Saddam's eyes,...he is a Sectarian who "had" a sectarian government.

Although 87% of Americans have felt that George Bush has the right to dictate how people on the other side of the planet should live? Does he?

Most rational people (about 13% of Americans) understand Bush's faith-based self-interests in emotionally demonizing Saddam is propaganda, ie., in September 1988, the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds. Nor did Saddam have anything to do with 9-11 or the terrorist Bin Laden. However, to get America behind a war, even though there has been no proof of WMD's, lies had to be propagandized.
So, is there another side to the Saddam story?

The Iraqis under Saddam didn't pay any direct taxes, have minimum restrictions on starting businesses, free medical care from cradle to grave, no property taxes, no sales taxes, minimal zoning and planning laws, free college education with daily meals provided in the campus cafeteria. Iraqi's are encouraged to own guns, have virtually no crime, no homeless, (The Bedouin choose their nomadic lifestyle) Iraqis are free to travel, write, create, make art and worship their God of their choice, even Christianity.

But things not wonderful may now take place in the New Iraq. There will be a takeover of civil society by the elements sidelined over four decades of Baath rule. Therefore, along with democracy, fundamentalism and terrorism will rear their heads. And the women of Iraq, as has already been seen, have experienced a reversal of many of the privileges which Saddam ensured for them.

A non-American view of Saddam:

BANGALORE, India, April 6 (UPI) -- Why should the Iraqi people feel any gratitude or loyalty to President Saddam Hussein. You would not know it from anything that has been written in the U.S. or British media, but there are very good reasons.

I was commercial counselor and deputy chief of mission at the Indian Embassy in Baghdad from 1976 to 1978. During the interregnum between two ambassadors, I was also for a while the Indian charge d'affaires. This explains why I had more than one occasion to stare into Saddam's expressionless grey-green eyes -- straight out of "The Day of the Jackal" -- while shaking his hand at various official banquets and other ceremonial occasions.

Saddam ran a dictatorship. That, however, caused no concern to the hordes of Western businessmen who descended in droves on Iraq to siphon what they could of Iraq's newfound oil wealth through lucrative contracts for everything. Everything -- from eggs to nuclear plants. Because technologically, from the end of the Turkish Empire over Iraq in 1919 through the British mandate, which lasted till 1932, and the effete monarchy masterminded by Anthony Eden's buddy, Nuri es-Said, right up to the Baath Party coup of 1968, there was virtually no progress at all.

Iraqi latifundia -- the vast country house estates of the tiny privileged elite -- gave large parties for visiting Western guests, including Agatha Christie's archaeologist husband who did most of his digging in Nineveh, now known worldwide to TV viewers as Mosul, while the puppet ruling establishment gave away Iraq's most precious asset, oil, for a song. Iraq's major export was -- hold your Patriot missile -- dates, the fruit of the Arab desert eaten by pious Muslims to break their daylight fast during the Muslim Lent -- Ramadan. India was Iraq's largest buyer.

It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education, including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was ended by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.

I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.

The liberation of women -- that is half the population of Iraq, as for any other country -- has been the most dramatic achievement of Saddam's regime. To understand how dramatic just look across the Iraqi border at America's once-favorite Arab satrap, Saudi Arabia.

The chief engineer at the State Organization for Industrial Housing, the driving force behind the massive housing program, which turned Baghdad in the first decade of Baath rule from a dirty shantytown into a pulsating modern metropolis that provided a roof over the head of every family in the city, was a woman. I kick myself for having forgotten her name. But I remember her well. She was so much like Mama in "Chicago". Across the road from SOIH was SOI -- State Organization for Industry where my diplomatic fate obliged me to cross swords with another tough-as-they-come lady, the head of the Legal Division, without whose OK no bills were paid. This was the position of women in Iraq under Saddam a quarter century ago. One had to keep reminding oneself that this was the Middle East.

My second daughter, Yamini, was born in Medical City, Baghdad, symbol of the astonishing revolution wrought by the Baath Party in health care. My child's cradle is now a coffin, a purgatory that holds the mangled remains of Iraqi babies killed by a rain of terror to end a reign of terror. If I, who lived in Baghdad but two years, and that too as a foreigner and so many decades ago, feel violated in my deepest sensitivities at what is being done to my memories of the ordinary Iraqi men, women and children I knew, consider the feelings of those who have lived all their lives in Iraq, all those below 40 years of age who have known no Iraq other than the Iraq of Saddam, and now find everything they have seen grow around them going up in smoke - for their "liberation!"

Iraq is home to some of the holiest Muslim shrines, fertile ground for religious fundamentalism. Saddam would have none of it. Clerics were put firmly in their place -- that is, the mosque and the madrasa -- and the Iraqi believer liberated from the thralldom of the priesthood. The ethos was completely secular: we interacted every day with Iraqis of numerous religious persuasions in every position of responsibility.

Few know even now that one of Iraq's longest lasting Baath leaders, companion-in-arms to Saddam for the last four decades, is Tariq Aziz, a practicing Christian notwithstanding his name. For Indians, there is a special place in our regard for Saddam who has treated with reverence a sacred spot in Baghdad where, legend has it, Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith in the 16th century, meditated on his way back to India from Mecca on the imperative of synthesizing Hindu and Muslim beliefs.

Iraq under Saddam had everything going for it -- except democracy. And it was, of course, the absence of democracy that accounted for Saddam brushing aside all vested interests: his instant liberation of women, his instant dismantling of feudalism, his instant caging of the priesthood, and, therefore, his instant -- and, yes, brutal -- exclusion from Iraq of all forms of religious fundamentalism and religion-based terrorism. Which is, one thing at least that Osama bin Laden and Bush III share: they hate Saddam equally.


Mani Shankar Aiyar is a member of the Indian parliament representing the Congress Party.

[sahyo]

The Iraqis under Saddam didn't pay any direct taxes, have minimum restrictions on starting businesses, free medical care from cradle to grave, no property taxes, no sales taxes, minimal zoning and planning laws, free college education with daily meals provided in the campus cafeteria. Iraqi's are encouraged to own guns, have virtually no crime, no homeless, (The Bedouin choose their nomadic lifestyle) Iraqis are free to travel, write, create, make art and worship their God of their choice, even Christianity.



It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education, including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was ended by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.



The liberation of women -- that is half the population of Iraq, as for any other country -- has been the most dramatic achievement of Saddam's regime.



thanking

[sahyo]

not saying agreeing dictating,

but does reveal using word democracy
doesn't hide that in someways usa is dictated
in ways that iraq wasn't,

and that saddam not which most usa people
would like to imagine for rationalizing usa terrorizing
which is being called liberating


:)

[sahyo]

i think i love you. :D ;)



:D ;)

[NeverMind]

so Saddam wasnt that bad after all?
Well didn't he gas a bunch of his people?
What's going on?
I knew they weren't completely oppressed but I'm not saying he was Abe Lincoln or something. Wasn't he pretty much a bad man?

I don't care what kind of person he was in the grand scheme of things, I'm thinking the Iraqis must not have care a helluva lot, or they would have done what all great nations do, revolt!

Iraqi kids a couple hundred years from now are gonna be like "iraq sucks" when they're learning how they won their freedom from Saddam. THe book will be like "and then a big angry country came in and took our king and made us democratic! Whee!" well maybe no whee. But you get the point. If they really wanted freedom, they woulda got it.

[sahyo]

so Saddam wasnt that bad after all?

not whether saddam was good or bad
...just not like most people usa would like to imagine
as though bad

[zygoat]

asheera,
raping,torturing
slashing hands,
beating backs,
blood blooding,
gassing,choking,dying,
BAD,BAD,BAD.
I think that is your preferred language,languaging,speak speaking!!

[a random hack]

agent orange (http://www.vetshome.com/Agent_Orange.htm)
daisy cutter (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm)
FAEs (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-72.htm)
napalm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-72.htm)
cluster bomb (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-24.htm)

the rest of the world (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html)

have a nice day :lol:
and don't forget to thank good ole uncle sam :twoguns:

[zygoat]

a random hack,
it seems that you aren't willing to do anything for your country or mine,except bitch and moan!! <_<

[sahyo]

trying accusing hack doesn't change:

agent orange
daisy cutter
FAEs
napalm
cluster bomb

[a random hack]

agent orange
daisy cutter
FAEs
napalm
cluster bomb

the rest of the world

have a nice day
and don't forget to thank good ole uncle sam

did this for you and your country :lol:

[mahrooq]

I am firmly of the belief that it is not okay to go into someone else's country and blow everything up and kill everyone. Even if the guy in charge of that country is someone you don't like.

[a random hack]

mahrooq,
what about your own country?
how many countries do you own anyway?

[todd]

Wars used to be about greed, power, revenge, love…. Iraq is just the favorite toy for u.s presidents in the electoral campaign..

[sonrisa]

yeah, well this war's about oil.` Plain & simple

be nice Random, Mahrooq's on our side

[todd]

Not even oil, les jeux sont faits in that matter..

[NeverMind]

Watch, as the election draws closer oil prices will drop significantly and the credit will go to President Bush. Of course, he will be behind these drops, using his ties to the Saudi Arabian oil companies to help his political career and further his extremist agenda. :blink:

[thirst4sun]

[QUOTE]Should we bring the draft back?


:grumble: Absolutly Not!!! People should have the choice and not be forced into fighting.

[NeverMind]

:grumble:
im lovin it

[sonrisa]

I think that if there is a draft it should go to age 62, all citizens, no exceptions, no loopholes. The we'll see how anxious Congress is to start a war. I also think wars should be conducted like they were in the Middle Ages, with the leader of the country leading his troops into glorious battle....
course our leader will probably join the National Guard & go AWOL......

[a random hack]

:lol:

or, why not make it FROM the age of 62? :D

[todd]

New Caspian oil interests fuel US war drive against Iraq

By Barry Grey
16 November 1998

Iraq's decision to allow the resumption of UN weapons inspections has temporarily forestalled a US attack. But the crisis is by no means resolved. It will intensify in the coming days and weeks, under conditions in which the Clinton administration has openly linked its preparations for an air war to the goal of destabilizing and removing the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Powerful geo-political interests are fueling the American war drive. In many respects US policy in the Persian Gulf is driven today by the same considerations that led it to invade Iraq nearly eight years ago. As a "senior American official"--most likely Secretary of State James Baker--told the New York Times within days of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in August of 1990: "We are talking about oil. Got it? Oil, vital American interests."

The Bush administration exploited Iraq's move against its southern neighbor to demonstrate US military supremacy and strengthen its position in a region rich in oil and strategically located at the crossroads of the Middle East, southeastern Europe, northern Africa and Central Asia. The gulf war was intended as a warning to American imperialism's major international rivals, above all Germany and Japan, both of which were heavily dependent on oil imports from the region. In the midst of the war Bush hinted as much in a speech to the New York Economic Club. In trade talks with Germany and Japan, he said, "We will have some--I wouldn't say leverage on them--but persuasiveness."

There have, however, been major changes since 1991, above all, the breakup of the Soviet Union. This gigantic fact has altered geo-political relations in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, and, if anything, exacerbated American dissatisfaction with the status quo in Iraq.

The transformation of former Soviet republics in the region into independent states--politically unstable but endowed in some cases with enormous deposits of oil and other mineral wealth--has led to an increasingly intense involvement of the US in Central Asia. The lure of enormous oil reserves in the Caspian Sea has made Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan the focus of fierce competition between the great powers of the world for domination of this part of the globe.

This struggle recalls the protracted conflict between Britain and Russia at the end of the nineteenth century for hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia that became known as the Great Game. Germany made its own thrust into the region with its decision to build the Berlin to Baghdad railroad. The resulting tensions played a major role in the growth of European militarism that erupted in World War I.

This time American imperialism is the major protagonist. Over the past several years, the battle for dominance in the region has come to center on one question: where to build a pipeline to move oil from the Azeri capital of Baku to the West.



Within the next several months the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan and international companies including British Petroleum and four US firms, Amoco, Unocal, Exxon and Pennzoil, will announce a decision on pipeline construction that Washington considers to be of immense importance to the strategic position of the United States in the twenty-first century. French, Japanese, Russian and Chinese firms are also heavily involved in projects for drilling and shipping oil from the Caspian.

The Clinton administration has given the highest priority to this issue. Bill Richardson, who as American ambassador to the UN was the point man for Washington in the last US confrontation with Iraq in the winter of 1997-98, has been appointed Secretary of Energy. He has been assigned the lead role in convincing AIOC to build its pipeline along an east-west route preferred by American policymakers.

Washington wants the pipeline to pass from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, emptying out at the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. Oil executives have inclined to a more direct, shorter and cheaper route that would flow south through Iran to the Persian Gulf. A third alternative would move the oil from Baku northwest through Russia, ending at the Black Sea port of Novorossisk.

A US State Department report from April of last year indicates the importance which the Clinton administration attaches to the geo-politics of Caspian oil:

"The Caspian region could become the most important new player in world oil markets over the next decade. The US has critical foreign policy issues at stake--the increase and diversification of world energy supplies, the independence and sovereignty of the NIS [Newly Independent States] and isolation of Iran."

A series of unusually frank articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other more specialized organs of American bourgeois opinion and policy have placed the battle over the pipeline decision within the context of a struggle for world domination in the next century.

Last month the Times ran a front-page article warning that the US pipeline plan was on the brink of defeat. The article said:

"The Caspian region has emerged as the world's newest stage for big power politics. It not only offers oil companies the prospect of great wealth, but provides a stage for high-stakes competition among world powers.... Much depends on the outcome, because these pipelines will not simply carry oil but will also define new corridors of trade and power. The nation or alliance that controls pipeline routes could hold sway over the Caspian region for decades to come."

The Times quoted Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) lamenting that US leverage had been weakened because Clinton had "lost the power of moral persuasion" as a result of the scandals surrounding his administration.

Since then the Clinton administration has intensified its lobbying efforts, and the AIOC has put off announcing its decision on the pipeline route. Indicative of Washington's high-level efforts, the Times ran another major article on November 8, which spoke of the pipeline decision in even more apocalyptic terms:

"At stake is far more than the fate of the complex Caspian region itself. Rivalries being played out here will have a decisive impact in shaping the post-Communist world, and in determining how much influence the United States will have over its development."

The article quoted Richardson, who hinted broadly at the determination of Washington to prevent the pipeline from running through either Iran or Russia, so as to limit the political influence of both in the region:

"This is about America's energy security, which depends on diversifying our sources of oil and gas worldwide. It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the discovery of huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian have led to a certain evolution in US policy toward Iraq. As long as the issue of strategic concern was only the Persian Gulf, the focus of American concern was to Iraq's south. Washington concluded that a military occupation of Iraq and possible fracturing of the country posed too great a risk of destabilizing the region. It decided at the end of the gulf war to leave Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard intact and allow him to remain in power.

America's intensified interest in the lands to Iraq's north has altered US military and economic priorities. For a thrust into the Caspian, a more direct military and political presence in Iraq is necessary.

Iraq occupies a strategic position in the geography of the region in general, and the geo-politics of the pipeline dispute in particular. The nation that controlled the north of Iraq would be in a position, for example, to protect a pipeline through southern Turkey, or launch military strikes against a pipeline through Iran.

The US would like to turn northern Iraq into a new base for American military operations. This is politically unfeasible as long as the present Iraqi regime is in power. US policy over the past seven years has made a normalization of relations with Saddam Hussein impossible, for both domestic and international reasons. He has become an increasingly intolerable obstacle to American aims. He must be eliminated and replaced by a US client regime.

It is more than just a coincidence that Washington stepped up its military preparations against Iraq at the very point that its efforts to impose its choice of a pipeline route for Caspian oil seemed headed for defeat. A large-scale strike against Iraq would send a clear message to Russia, France, Iran and other rivals that the US retains military supremacy and is prepared to use it. It would demonstrate to each and all that American imperialism is the top gun not only in the Persian Gulf, but in Central Asia as well.

On a wider international arena, conflicts between the US and its imperialist rivals in Europe and Asia are intensifying over a host of economic and political issues. Just in the last few days Clinton has threatened trade war measures against Japan over steel and the European Union over bananas. This provides an added incentive for using Iraq as a convenient target to remind the world of America's capacity for military destruction.



1998... some vision, huh?

[sonrisa]

doesn't surprise me- I've said it before, I'll say it again, this country has an oil jones the size of the Milky Way.

[NeverMind]

Jones soda. Mmmmmmmmm