Well, the rumors are flying! Will the US reinstate a military draft? What do you think?

I brought this topic up because I wanted to. You didnt have to read it, correct?

Tentmaker,
I am usually a "live and let live" person. But I must say, you are a bitter,deluded,twisted,racist,egomaniacal utilitarian bioethicist. You are a legend in your own mind and quite possibly clinically insane.
For all your bloated ego and overrated intelligence , you resort to little more in these forums than floods of long , boring, long winded drivel, temper tantrums, self worship and name calling when someone disagrees with you.
You are so intolerant I can only imagine that every day is a living hell for you.
You should buy a remote island, where you can live out your dream of being a new age Hitler. You can find other bigots like you and start your own race of physically and mentally perfect heterosexual white drones.
I don't know what happened to you during your life to make you so unhappy, but it has apparently left you a horrible empty shell of a human(?).
You need therapy.
Sincerely,
Alessa a.k.a. "scum sucking liberal"

Originally posted by Alessa
Tentmaker,
I am usually a "live and let live" person. But I must say, you are a bitter,deluded,twisted,racist,egomaniacal utilitarian bioethicist. You are a legend in your own mind and quite possibly clinically insane.
For all your bloated ego and overrated intelligence , you resort to little more in these forums than floods of long , boring, long winded drivel, temper tantrums, self worship and name calling when someone disagrees with you.
You are so intolerant I can only imagine that every day is a living hell for you.
You should buy a remote island, where you can live out your dream of being a new age Hitler. You can find other bigots like you and start your own race of physically and mentally perfect heterosexual white drones.
I don't know what happened to you during your life to make you so unhappy, but it has apparently left you a horrible empty shell of a human(?).
You need therapy.
Sincerely,
Alessa a.k.a. "scum sucking liberal" Awww......Tentboy is just bored. Im sure its tough not having anyone on the same brainwave. (excluding, of course, the mentally deranged) Its obvious by the amount of time he dedicates to this forum that he has no life outside of his computer. So try to have a little pity for him Alessa. He is in dire need of some

Personnally I finally choosed to put him on "ignore" in my user preferences. Saves me a lot of time reading his crap.

Im not sure the US will bring back the draft. I hope there won't be a need for it.

I have a question Tent.
What type of person do you like?
Only rich white people with high IQ's?

Tent:

You have to admit, Alessa had a point with her first paragraph. A point that I agree with.

However, you are stereotyping (again). I am a "scum-sucking liberal" and I agree with points 2-4 of your post (Well...only somewhat with #4. The government should have some role in people's lives, but not much). Welfare programs only waste money and cause people to be lazy. Believe me, I know exactly of the state of the welfare system. My own mother has worked for 4 years with the Florida DCF, and she is not shy about talking about her job and the $#!^ she deals with every day.

But let's get back on topic. The war should never happen in the first place, so you can imagine how I feel about the draft rumors. We're already giving up much to the government (taxes) and I don't think that the gov't should have the right to say "You, you, and you, go die for us." And all only because Bush Jr. has a score to settle for Daddy.

That is exactly why talk of a military draft angers me. I don't agree with this possible war and don't want to lose any more lives for something I (and many Americans) don't believe in.. I think this is just a Bush vendetta, like you said Borg, he's doing this for "daddy". I have seen programs and news footage of other countries kidnapping men and boys to fight in the military, in my opinion, a draft is just a more organized , government supported kidnapping.

I fully support the idea of the draft. It is the duty of every (male & female) able bodied citizen to give something back to this great country they reside in. If there is some compelling reason why that individual cannot serve in the military, then an equal amount of service could be provided to other agencies. Those agencies might be similar to the WPA or CCC organizations founded during the 1930s. The military presently is a volunteer force, yet vast amounts of our tax dollars are spent recruiting.

And taxes don't count as giving something back?

No, taxes do not count. This is a higher calling.

I stand by my statement, and it is not idiotic propoganda, regardless of your opinion. There is much to be gained in serving the country. An individual can grow beyond what is seen outside the window, gain an increased sense of community, both locally and on a planet wide basis. Take on new challenges, new experiences. Be willing to give back to this great nation that has given countless millions vast opportunites to excel.
Had you ever served, the question ".....to what is one duty-bound..." would not arise. Where is your sense of patriotism? You could always reside elsewhere.

Frankly, Tent, that puzzles me too. Just because we live in a country it's our duty to risk our lives for it? In that case, the only way you'd be able to not risk your life would be to live either on a boat in neutral waters, or live on Antarctica, both of which seem risky to me, one for the drowning, the other for the cold. What follows from that is simply by living you are expected to (possibly) give up living for your local government. Not entirely a happy thought...

It's bad enough to be forced to fight if you do not wish too, but being forced to fight for something you dont agree with is especially troubling. The Gulf War was justified (for lack of a better term) by the invasion of Kuwait, but there is really no concrete reason to go to war right now.

you don't like it, then leave.

Do you really want an army comprised of people who don't support the war? If I were a commander of the armed forces, I know what my answer would be.

Yall look like cowards to me. Is there anything other than your own puny interests that you're willing to defend if necessary? No sense of patriotism, not a shred of honor.
Conscripts have fought in, and won other battles.

When we went to war with Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait I fully supported our troops. But there is not enough evidence right now to warrant war with Iraq, even our allies are not convinced. I do not want any more lives lost, American , allied or Iraqi because they "might" have weapons of mass destruction. If not wanting human lives lost needlessly is unpatriotic to you , well I guess you are entitled to your opinion. If the UN inspectors find solid and indisputible reasons for war I will support the decision.

Oh and by the way es347fan, my loved ones lives are not "puny interests" to me. You should not make wild assumptions.

A funny thought occured to me. What would happen to all the people who hate the idea of defending this great country, if the soldiers in our military was wiped out? Do you think that because you side with them that you would be spared their wrath? Think again!! The whole Islamic world hates us. Not just some, or even part of us, it's all Americans. Liberals are tring to impose their views that the Islamic world is peaceful. Sorry, I can't buy that T-shirt. I served during GW I (Gulf War I) in the Air Force. There are somethings the media didn't want to let the whole world know about. For instance, did you know that they still practice slavery there? Many of my Black American friends were appalled that slavery still exsists. Also, many children are either raped or tortured in front of their parents because the parents talked to American reporters. Remember, we are the only country in the world where our freedom of speech is protected. Well sorry about the ranting. As for the Draft question: There will not be a draft until all of these conditions are met. When the Active Duty level of casualties exceeds a certain number, then the Reserves are called to Active Duty. Then if those numbers start falling , then the Inactive Reserves are called to Active Duty. And finally, if those numbers fall then there will be a general draft of the entire nation. This should settle the draft issue.

es347fan-

I have plenty of patriotism. One of the reasons I'm patriotic is the fact that I don't have to support war if I don't agree with it. Another reason is that United States has always been a country that never hits first, even though we have the best fighting capability. These are "honor"able reasons in my opinion.


a_c5_crewchief-

I won't fight the point that Iraq is full of atrocities and that most of the Muslim world doesn't like us. My question is: Do you think killing another 100K+ Iraqis and annhilating every piece of equipment they have is going to solve these problems? I really think not. Either way, it's not the position of the United States to solve these problems. That's the duty of the U.N. You get the U.N. to agree: I'm okay with the war.

Sadam had over 12 years to comply with the U.N. resolutions that were imposed on his country. That has been 12 years of him thumbing his nose at the U.N.. Please think about this. America doesn't have any problems with the Iraqi people, only their government. I don't want us to kill any innocent people but if you live next to a bomb factory, be it here or anywhere in the world, you run the risk of dying. Some people just want to focus only on one reason why we are doing this. OIL. Oil is what our economy is based on. By stabilizing the oil situation, we in turn help our economy. But that's not all in the deciding force either. We are trying to help an oppressed nation and protecting our country from future nuclear blackmail. What kind of solution do you think we should do? If we give the inspectors more time, how much time do we give them? And after the time frame has been met, then what? Do we go in then or do we wait some more? Under what terms and conditions do you think we should go in?

Originally posted by a_c5_crewchief
1- What would happen to all the people who hate the idea of defending this great country, if the soldiers in our military was wiped out?
(…)
2-The whole Islamic world hates us. Not just some, or even part of us, it's all Americans. (…)

3-Remember, we are the only country in the world where our freedom of speech is protected. (…)


1- It seems to me that people who oppose this war against Iraq are not less patriotic than you. They do not hate the idea of defending their country. They just do not believe that this war is necessary and that the survival of the USa is at stake.
2- This is a totally biased way of looking at the islamic world. But it is certain that this war would not make it better. In fact, if we follow your poit of view, the USA should attack all the muslim countries, not only Iraq.
3- Take a world atlas and start learning before writing such nonsense. This is precisely the kind of bullshit that makes many europeans feel that SOME americans (not ALL, OK ?) are not aware of the reality of the world.

Astrapol2, I see that you are located in France. Say, didn’t America help your country out in WW II? Pretend that Iraq was France and Sadam was Hitler. Still have any doubts.
You still didn’t answer any of my questions on what to do with Iraq and the inspections.

Originally posted by a_c5_crewchief
Astrapol2, I see that you are located in France. Say, didn’t America help your country out in WW II? Pretend that Iraq was France and Sadam was Hitler. Still have any doubts.
You still didn’t answer any of my questions on what to do with Iraq and the inspections. The reason why he doesnt answer you is simple. He doesnt have one. It seems the French would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing can go wrong.

AC5 and Havok

Yes, the USA liberated France 50 years ago. I do not forget it and am grateful for this. But this war has nothing in common with WW2. The question here is not being french or american. Many american people are opposed to war. My opposition to the war has nothing to do with the USA. If it was Russia or China that supported this war, I would be against the war in the same way.

Like the american, the french have been struck by terrorist attacks in the past. I want to fight terrorism as much as you do. And I do not support Saddam in any way. He's a bloody tyrant. But this is not enough to make war to his country. Or we can start making war to most countries on earth.

Now the two questions I raise are :
1- Is a war against Iraq the best thing to do now, considering the geopolitical situation ? Is it the best way to disarm Iraq and replace Saddam by a democratic govt ?
2- Would this war be legitimate ? Does Iraq reprsent a real threat to the peace in the world and specially to the USA ?
To these questions my answer is : no.

I am in favour of more diplomatic pressure and inspections. The inspectors had been able to destroy a tremendous amount of weapons before 98.

Originally posted by astrapol2
AC5 and Havok

Yes, the USA liberated France 50 years ago. I do not forget it and am grateful for this. But this war has nothing in common with WW2. The question here is not being french or american. Many american people are opposed to war. My opposition to the war has nothing to do with the USA. If it was Russia or China that supported this war, I would be against the war in the same way.

Like the american, the french have been struck by terrorist attacks in the past. I want to fight terrorism as much as you do. And I do not support Saddam in any way. He's a bloody tyrant. But this is not enough to make war to his country. Or we can start making war to most countries on earth.

Now the two questions I raise are :
1- Is a war against Iraq the best thing to do now, considering the geopolitical situation ? Is it the best way to disarm Iraq and replace Saddam by a democratic govt ?
2- Would this war be legitimate ? Does Iraq reprsent a real threat to the peace in the world and specially to the USA ?
To these questions my answer is : no.

I am in favour of more diplomatic pressure and inspections. The inspectors had been able to destroy a tremendous amount of weapons before 98. Thank you for finally giving an opinion. While i do not agree with them, i can respect you for giving intelligent examples. That is a first on these forums.....most times you have someone ranting and raving and hurling personal insults, instead of an answer.

I must agree with HaVoK, if someone agrees or disagrees, that they should post why. Astrapol2, don't think I was trying to pick on France or you. All I wanted was a question answered. Even though I disagree with you on the Iraq situation I appreciate you had the guts to answer.

Any Americans trying to lay a guilt trip on France from our help during WWII are way out of line. Do you hear the French giving us sh*t for their help during the Revolutionary War or War of 1812? It's just a ridiculous notion to expect the French to help us out in every venture since WWII because of our help. Attaching strings to our nation's good deeds taints those good deeds and is just plain tasteless.

I didn't forget about those Wars. They helped Americans fight for their freedom, so what has changed over the pass 100+ years? Doesn't Iraq need help too?

The French have long marched to the beat of their own drummers, somewhat out of step with many of their close allies. One would think that in a relationship that has lasted centuries, they wouln't be quite so loud in their announcing they would not fall in line behind the US.

We make war that we may live in peace.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Aristotle/31

We've been living in peace w/ Iraq for 12 years and there's no indication that this was going to change.

More like having your head stuck in the sand. The US never officially declared peace with Iraq. We only agreed to stop the bombing if he agreed to the UN resolutions. We really have been at war with Iraq for sometime now. Unless you are prior military, you wouldn't even have a clue to what I'm talking about. Anyway, Iraq has about 2 weeks before the bombs start falling again. The New Moon is on the 3rd of March and we command the night. So with or with out the UN, the US is going to go to war. Like it or not.

nuke them till they glow, shoot them in the dark

a_c5-

If you call the current relations between Iraq and the U.S. "war," you have a skewed idea of what "war" is. Hell, by your definition, the U.S. has been at "war" for about 50 years. Your light usage of the word is indicative of your pro-war viewpoints.

Originally posted by Leper
[B]a_c5-

If you call the current relations between Iraq and the U.S. "war," you have a skewed idea of what "war" is. Hell, by your definition, the U.S. has been at "war" for about 50 years. Your light usage of the word is indicative of your pro-war viewpoints. [ /B] If you want to be technical, the United States of America HAS been at war for the last 50 years or better. We have gone from WWII to the Korean War, t o Vietnam, to the Cold War, to Iraq, to AlQueada and all of terrorism. So we are never truly at peace. We cannot be if we want to live as peaceful a life as we try. And i am not pro-war, only pro-american. If it takes war to ensure the safety of millions then it is a neccessary evil.

The word "war" loses all meaning if you're going to try to say we've been at war for fifty years and there's really no point talking to you.

What are the rules of engagement? Don't fire until fired upon. IRAQ HAS NOT FIRED UPON US. A good person doesn't go around chopping off people's heads for something those people MIGHT do.

Double post.

Has anyone here actually seen combat first hand? At times necessary, never pretty.

Good point, es347fan. I haven't seen anything like war, but I've seen violence. The little I've seen is more than enough to make me hesitant to jump into a massacre. Do you get the feeling these guys think they're going out to play some video games? Who knows. Maybe that's what it's like from the American perspective. I'd like to hear what they'd say if THEY were the ones getting bombed.

Originally posted by Leper
Good point, es347fan. I haven't seen anything like war, but I've seen violence. The little I've seen is more than enough to make me hesitant to jump into a massacre. Do you get the feeling these guys think they're going out to play some video games? Who knows. Maybe that's what it's like from the American perspective. I'd like to hear what they'd say if THEY were the ones getting bombed. Hey Leper....are you daft? America was bombed.....how quick some people forget. And while i have not seen combat...one of my best friends went to Vietnam and saw too much of it. I know the difference between reality and "some video game". Where was your bleeding heart when Saddaam was exterminating the Kurds?

I spent my 19th, 20th, & 21st birthdays in Viet Nam. Pleiku, AnKhe, and Bearcat.

Havok-

I must be daft, because I seem to recall people completely unrelated to Sadam were the ones that attacked the U.S. I guess you think ALL Arabs deserve to die because of the coordinated efforts of a few hundred fanatics?

And, unlike you, I don't pretend to care about the Kurds. I might feel a little more sympathy if our help was wanted, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case in Turkey(with their large population of Kurds), now does it? In fact, we have to pay more billions of dollars to "help" them.

Where were YOU when a MILLION Rwandans were killed a few years ago. I sure don't hear a whole lot of sympathy from you about that situation.

Originally posted by Leper
Havok-

I must be daft, because I seem to recall people completely unrelated to Sadam were the ones that attacked the U.S. I guess you think ALL Arabs deserve to die because of the coordinated efforts of a few hundred fanatics?

And, unlike you, I don't pretend to care about the Kurds. I might feel a little more sympathy if our help was wanted, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case in Turkey(with their large population of Kurds), now does it? In fact, we have to pay more billions of dollars to "help" them.

Where were YOU when a MILLION Rwandans were killed a few years ago. I sure don't hear a whole lot of sympathy from you about that situation. There has been plenty of evidence brought to light that shows connections between Iraq and terrorist groups. And i dont think all arabs deserve to die. To be honest i couldnt care less what they do. All i care about is the FACT that 3000+ innocent Americans lost their lives. Sadaam is only the beginning of the war on terrorism. Honestly speaking, would you rather our armed forces leave Iraq alone, so that they may make weapons of mass destruction? Then give these same to their terrorist associates? So that next time they want to bomb one of our buildings we not only have the explosions to deal with, but chemical or biological agents as well?

Hav-

Ha! What "evidence" has linked Al Quaida (Sp?) to the Iraqi government? Now you're just making stuff up. Even Washington will admit Bin Laden and Saddam oppose each other. The only thing they have in common is hating the U.S. Is it possible the two could use each other to fight the U.S. because of this common hatred? Possibly. But that's not enough. You don't declare war based on possibilities. That isn't American. What's American is that people (or governements) aren't guilty of a crime until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly speaking, yes, I would rather see us leave Iraq alone. First off, Iraq probably wouldn't be so concerened with us if we weren't talking about destroying their government all the friggin time. Second, I don't believe in addressing problems until one actually exists or you're certain one will exist. Yes, sometimes that means you have to take the brunt of a suprise attack, like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. But the alternative means a lot of innocent people will suffer in a terrorist witch hunt. I don't know about you, but I'd rather take my chances of being a victim than certainly becoming a victimizer.

Remember. Innocent until Proven Guilty: THAT is the American way.

Originally posted by Leper
Hav-

Ha! What "evidence" has linked Al Quaida (Sp?) to the Iraqi government? Now you're just making stuff up. Even Washington will admit Bin Laden and Saddam oppose each other. The only thing they have in common is hating the U.S. Is it possible the two could use each other to fight the U.S. because of this common hatred? Possibly. But that's not enough. You don't declare war based on possibilities. That isn't American. What's American is that people (or governements) aren't guilty of a crime until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly speaking, yes, I would rather see us leave Iraq alone. First off, Iraq probably wouldn't be so concerened with us if we weren't talking about destroying their government all the friggin time. Second, I don't believe in addressing problems until one actually exists or you're certain one will exist. Yes, sometimes that means you have to take the brunt of a suprise attack, like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. But the alternative means a lot of innocent people will suffer in a terrorist witch hunt. I don't know about you, but I'd rather take my chances of being a victim than certainly becoming a victimizer.

Remember. Innocent until Proven Guilty: THAT is the American way. If you will read my previous post. I did not infer that Iraq had ties with Al Queda, i merely stated Iraq had ties with terrorist organizations. But this is all a mute point. We have been in a continual war with Iraq for 12 years now. We had simply declared a "cease-fire under condition of terms". And Iraq has not kept up their end of the bargain. And innocent until proven guilty is not the american way. Its the american JUDICIAL way. We are not trying Iraq or Saddamm in a court of law. And i respect your feelings for other people.....you obviously have a very kind heart. But, in all honesty, I myself do not feel that the good ole US of A should have to take the brunt of any attack. And i feel you have misplaced loyalty if you would rather see innocent Americans die than innocent Iraqi's.......(Please forgive me if my assumption that you are American is wrong)

While the American Way proclaims to be "innocent until proven guilty" that is only a proclimation for those deemed to be covered under American Courts. I am not sure that same quality applies to other nations on the planet. I, for one, don't need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, as might be the case if I were serving jury duty. Schwarzkoph not having Saddam's head on a platter in 1991 will go down as another American half step......similar to Patton not being allowed into Berlin & then on to Moscow in 1945, and Mac Arthur not being permitted to march on Peking in 1951, Look to our world history. The answers are there.

This is gonna be my last post on this thread because you people are depressing me. The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is being dismissed casually as some notion of the American Justice System that has no meaning outside a courtroom. I cannot identify with this sentiment.

The reason such an idea exists in the first place is due to a fundamental belief that it is better to let many guilty people go than condemn one innocent peson. I think it's a mistake to abandon such a concept to the courtroom. In your quests to find a few guilty individuals, you have no concern about innocent lives you may trample on in the process.

A witch hunt. I alluded to it in my last post, and now it seems more analagous than ever. The U.S. is frustrated because no one (or very few people) has been held answerable for 9/11. As a result, Americans are ready to lash out at the shadiest suspects, with or without proof. First on the list: Iraq. Nevermind the millions of people who are going to have to live in the aftermath of their country's demolition. Already you hear politicians of all countries using the word "terrorist" like Salem used "witch." An accusation is all that's necessary. No proof. And who shall we burn at the stake after Iraq? Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Libya, North Korea? They all seem pretty supicious and doubtlessly have some fanatics among them. If you support that approach, be careful; When you stop relying on concrete evidence, you never know who'll be the next "witch."

"Depressing", indeed. However, in the eye of the Right Wing Fundamentalists (now called Bush-ites), one is a sinner if one is not saved by their Lord (Jesus The Pathetic Bastard Child Of A Jewish Whore). These godly Wingers don't recognize the legal convention of "innocent till proven guilty".

Originally posted by Leper
This is gonna be my last post on this thread because you people are depressing me. The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is being dismissed casually as some notion of the American Justice System that has no meaning outside a courtroom. I cannot identify with this sentiment.

The reason such an idea exists in the first place is due to a fundamental belief that it is better to let many guilty people go than condemn one innocent peson. I think it's a mistake to abandon such a concept to the courtroom. In your quests to find a few guilty individuals, you have no concern about innocent lives you may trample on in the process.

A witch hunt. I alluded to it in my last post, and now it seems more analagous than ever. The U.S. is frustrated because no one (or very few people) has been held answerable for 9/11. As a result, Americans are ready to lash out at the shadiest suspects, with or without proof. First on the list: Iraq. Nevermind the millions of people who are going to have to live in the aftermath of their country's demolition. Already you hear politicians of all countries using the word "terrorist" like Salem used "witch." An accusation is all that's necessary. No proof. And who shall we burn at the stake after Iraq? Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Libya, North Korea? They all seem pretty supicious and doubtlessly have some fanatics among them. If you support that approach, be careful; When you stop relying on concrete evidence, you never know who'll be the next "witch." In this country you are guilty until proven innocent. Lets face facts.....When the police charge you with somethin....the burden is on you to defend yourself and show that you didnt do it. So, if you want to extend this to the Iraqi's then so be it. Let Saddaam PROVE he has no weapons of mass destruction.....let him PROVE he hasnt murdered thousands of men, women, and children.....let Saddamm PROVE he has no connections to terrorist organizations.........He has had 12 years to prove all the above wrong. Has he? So i guess your bleeding heart believes if he is only given "one more chance", it will all turn out different? Get real man. Pull your cranium out of your anal cavity.

Havok
It is possible to prove that one country has mass destruction weapons, simply by showing evidence of such weapons existence.
But how can a country prove that it DOESN't have such weapons ? It is just impossible. It can prove it had some weapons and it destroyed them, but that won't prove that they have not been hiding other weapons. So if we follow your (and Bush's) idea, Iraq will always be "guilty", whetever it does.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Havok
It is possible to prove that one country has mass destruction weapons, simply by showing evidence of such weapons existence.
But how can a country prove that it DOESN't have such weapons ? It is just impossible. It can prove it had some weapons and it destroyed them, but that won't prove that they have not been hiding other weapons. So if we follow your (and Bush's) idea, Iraq will always be "guilty", whetever it does. I was being sarcastic with those remarks Astro.......i guess maybe that didnt convey well through this medium.....The inference being that i agree to have him charged like we do in our country because there is NO way Iraq could ever PROVE they have no weapons of mass destruction.