Creating this thead for the sole purpose of allowing certain individuals to post their opinions about the Iraqi War even if they have already posted them many, many, many times before. Maybe even *gasp* moderation can move the posts about the Iraq War that de-railed the threads on other topics to this thread!!!!

I'll go first to set an example:

Saddam had WMD before the Iraqi War.

LIAR!!!!!!

Proof that he had the weapons?

Prove he didnt.

The UN Reports showed that he had no weapons...

I think they are liars. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I think they are liars. Prove me wrong.

We haven't found any.

lol, you think that then. If you think they are liars...then that's your opinion. But it's one I cannot change, even though you are going against UN Reports that are official. They searched, and found no weapons...but I guess it's easy to call them liars and then blindly believe that Saddam did have weapons. Of course, that wouldn't be very smart of you...but then again, most Republicans aren't smart. Just call them liars, and then you can go about thinking the invasion was correct. Good job!!

How do you know? Are you privy to all internal military knowledge?



We haven't found any.

Yes, the republicans and the military would hide the weapons. Yeah, good luck with that one...

You're just laughable.

Originally posted by Overdose
lol, you think that then. If you think they are liars...then that's your opinion. But it's one I cannot change, even though you are going against UN Reports that are official. They searched, and found no weapons...but I guess it's easy to call them liars and then blindly believe that Saddam did have weapons. Of course, that wouldn't be very smart of you...but then again, most Republicans aren't smart. Just call them liars, and then you can go about thinking the invasion was correct. Good job!! Can you prove they searched and found no weapons? I propose they did find weapons and helped to cover them up. Prove me wrong.

We haven't found the weapons they "tried to cover up"...

You are just bringing in conspiracy theories, that have no point (or proof to back them up with). You are asking pointless questions. If you want to launch WAR based on the fact that they "covered them up" (even though you have no proof they did) Then you are honestly, insane. Have fun asking stupid, irrational questions. I'm not going to play your stupid games.

If wepons were found uncle shrub would have announced it to the world. "See I was right - nya, nya, nya".

Originally posted by Overdose
We haven't found the weapons they "tried to cover up"...

You are just bringing in conspiracy theories, that have no point (or proof to back them up with). You are asking pointless questions. If you want to launch WAR based on the fact that they "covered them up" (even though you have no proof they did) Then you are honestly, insane. Have fun asking stupid, irrational questions. I'm not going to play your stupid games. I guess now you have an idea how other people feel when you post the same stupid shit every time you reply to a post you dont agree with. Hope I didnt ruin this thread for you. :D

A little overdose of Redneck Pride, Havok. Don't you think?:D

I was with sniper team 3 @bn 7th Marines attached to 1/8. We guarded Al-Tuwaitha while US contracted engineers trucked out 40 tons of UFC6. The plant had been bombed but the machinery was in well-kept conmdition, no rust, sand and good lubrication, except for the centrfuge bearings.
Anyone who has read the DCI report and the 9/11 Comm report will know that Saddam DID get rid of WMD, BUT was vague about it to not expose his weakness to Iran. He prentended to have
WMD to keep Iran and the US from attacking.
He maintined his infrastructure to begin reconstitution once sanctions were lifted. In fact UNsanctions were so far eroded that Saddam was openly importing ballistic missle parts prohibited by the sanctions and paying off the border inspectors of Contecna.
The removal of sanctions was Saddam's primary goal, after that, WMD reconstruction.

Originally posted by Tony31841
I was with sniper team 3 @bn 7th Marines attached to 1/8. We guarded Al-Tuwaitha while US contracted engineers trucked out 40 tons of UFC6. The plant had been bombed but the machinery was in well-kept conmdition, no rust, sand and good lubrication, except for the centrfuge bearings.
Anyone who has read the DCI report and the 9/11 Comm report will know that Saddam DID get rid of WMD, BUT was vague about it to not expose his weakness to Iran. He prentended to have
WMD to keep Iran and the US from attacking.
He maintined his infrastructure to begin reconstitution once sanctions were lifted. In fact UNsanctions were so far eroded that Saddam was openly importing ballistic missle parts prohibited by the sanctions and paying off the border inspectors of Contecna.
The removal of sanctions was Saddam's primary goal, after that, WMD reconstruction.

Nice post Tony, welcome to Allforums. :)

It sounds like you know what you're talking about, and your explanation makes a great deal of sense. I would be curious to hear your opinion as to why the Bush administration isn't saying this to the media. It seems to me that statements like this would go a long way towards silencing the critics of his Iraq policies.

BTW, what is UFC6?

Bush, Powell and Blair claimed they had solid proof that saddam had wmd's, the delivery vehicles and could deliver in 45 minutes and we can't even find a firecracker.

Only the hardest of hard core wingnuts could even remotely consider believing such a line of crap.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

Originally posted by Decka
With OD's outrageous claim that Saddam didnt have WMD's since 1992.....even though Kerry and edwards have been quoted THIS YEAR saying he did, it doesnt all add up.

Outrageous? I posted a thread on the new report that said he didn’t have weapons past 1991, excuse me, I was off a year. Here is what I posted in that thread…

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6023159

Saddam Hussein did not have weapons…when we launched war in Iraq. The last time he “had” these weapons was in 1991 (or so the new report says) This was the main reason why we attacked Iraq. It has been proven and deemed false. Saddam was no threat to the American people, and he wasn’t past 1991.

Saddam had “weak, and little” ties to Al Queda (according to the 9/11 Panel). The second major reason the Bush Administration gave for the Iraq war has been proven and deemed false. The Iraq War does not fit under fighting terrorism, which is what this war was suppose to be about.

The new reason (after the first two main reasons have been proven false) is that we are giving the Iraqis a Democracy. But how can this be, when Iraq is chaos? We are putting major military bases in Iraq (funny if we are letting them control their own land) US soldiers are dying at a higher rate each month. The Iraqis are suffering in a world of chaos. We have drawn terrorists to Iraq. Hospitals are not up to standard conditions. Children are dying of deformities, and over 10,000 Iraqis have died at our hands.

We were told the Iraqis would “greet us with flowers and as liberators” and that has not happened. We were told we knew exactly where the weapons were, and we didn’t, for Saddam never had the weapons.

While Iran and North Korea are producing weapons, we are in a country that was no threat to us. We needed three times the amount of troops to stabilize Iraq, yet the Bush Administration paints a wonderful picture in Iraq. Yet, all sources point we have no way to give the Iraqis a free society, because we did not bring enough troops.

Osama Bin Laden is running free, because we diverted attention away from Afghanistan to go into Iraq. Osama was a threat, and we left him. Saddam wasn’t a threat, and we went after him.

We have lowered our world reputation, by the Prisoner Abuse we struck in Iraq. We have a horrible reputation because of this Administration.

This Administration Ok’d acting just like the “evil terrorists”

All the reasons Bush gave are false. He was no threat. And the new reasons (giving them a democracy) are not possible, because we didn’t bring enough troops.

Originally posted by Decka
OD is so intent on trying to say that "Bush hated the middle east and went to war because he likes it".
I’m confused on what why Bush went to war with Iraq. Please, since you support Mr. Bush, you should know why we went into Iraq.

Originally posted by Decka
I never hear him talk about allllll the delaying, all the games, all the BS saddam put out there BEFORE he even let weapons inspectors in. That alone sets off an alarm that SOMETHING is wrong. If he had nothing to hide, why would he do that OD?
Firstly, if you are going to launch war based on the fact that he “might have weapons”…then you really don’t understand what war really means. Not to say I know from experience, but I believe we only should launch war, if we are 100% sure we are in grave danger.

Secondly, yes I’m sure Saddam was a threat to the United States. I’m not saying he was a good guy. But the fact is, we had much larger threats to deal with before moving into Iraq. Now we are stuck in Iraq, and these larger threats are only growing.


Originally posted by Decka
And then OD wants me to believe UN weapons inspectors, the very same UN which i believe to be corrupt and made millions off saddam. Yea, i bet THEY would blow the whistle and sacrafice their cash flow on behalf of the U.S.
Many of the UN Inspectors were from the Untied States and had no ties to the “UN cash flow” The United States inspectors also say Saddam didn’t have weapons. Your point is meaningless.

Originally posted by Decka
And then OD wants me to just wipe the slate clean of his previous boys. IF IRAQ DIDNT HAVE WMD'S...THAN WHY DID CLINTON SAY THEY DID? If you rip on bush for "not knowing"...than what do you have to say about your former president? Are Kerry, edwards, gore and clinton all idiots too??? If you admit that, then i have no problem.
1. They were manipulated by Bush in Congress to believe Iraq had weapons.

2. Clinton didn’t have the most recent reports of the UN inspectors (which happened after Clinton left office)

Wow... OD admits that Saddam was a threat. Never thought I'd see that day.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Wow... OD admits that Saddam was a threat. Never thought I'd see that day.

He wasn’t an imminent threat. He wasn’t the most harmful threat, nor was he one we needed to deal with right now. We have/had much larger priorities to deal with.

The reasons Bush gave were false, and clearly not true. In the future Saddam could have posed a threat, but in 2003, he wasn’t a threat we needed to deal with. Now the large threats that we needed to take care of, are only stronger and larger. That is a failed policy of the Bush Administration.

Still surprised you said it.

Any person with half a brain knows that Saddam wasn’t a good person, and that he was a person that needed to be taken care of eventually. But, this wasn’t the time to be doing it, nor the way we should be doing it.

I’m confused on what why Bush went to war with Iraq. Please, since you support Mr. Bush, you should know why we went into Iraq.


ive listed the list many times.....perhaps ill go back and find it when i feel motivated to sort through all the iraq war threads.


Firstly, if you are going to launch war based on the fact that he “might have weapons”…then you really don’t understand what war really means. Not to say I know from experience, but I believe we only should launch war, if we are 100% sure we are in grave danger.


No...the thing is Saddam wasn't complying, and even violated the UN weapons embargo...funny how the UN didnt give a damn about that because they ALL made money off saddam. And yea maybe Saddam did FINALLY come around....hid or moved all the skeletons in his closet, and THEN let inspectors in.


Secondly, yes I’m sure Saddam was a threat to the United States. I’m not saying he was a good guy. But the fact is, we had much larger threats to deal with before moving into Iraq. Now we are stuck in Iraq, and these larger threats are only growing.


well since you seem to know where all these terrorists are, maybe you can do a better job then all the people who have years of training in this sort of field. Iraq=Al Quaida? no Iraq harboring terrorists? yes


Many of the UN Inspectors were from the Untied States and had no ties to the “UN cash flow” The United States inspectors also say Saddam didn’t have weapons. Your point is meaningless.


well....they seem to go against the popular beleif of most politicians of the past 10 years. funny how ONLY bush is the man who got it wrong.


1. They were manipulated by Bush in Congress to believe Iraq had weapons.

2. Clinton didn’t have the most recent reports of the UN inspectors (which happened after Clinton left office)


So you are saying Clinton just sat back and didnt give a damn, and didnt get ANY intelligence? A. Clinton did get intelligence, and it obviously was enough for him to say Saddam was a threat and is a nuclear threat. B. Your manipulation theory is a conspiracy theory, funny how Kerry saw almost ALL the same intelligence that Bush did, and came to the same conclusion UNTIL it was convenient for him to switch sides again...and again...and again...

OD should have been on Kerry's campaign, cause apparently they had no idea that it had been proven PRIOR to the war that Saddam had no WMDs.

Looks like they're gonna be coming for the 18-34 year olds in the very near future ...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1119/p03s01-usmi.html

One piece of advise ... listen to willy

Mama don't let yer babies grow up to be Bushbots

ROTF

Dop

listening to dop and echo drone on and on about fundies and evil americans and wild conspiracy theorys is about as tedious a thing as you will find on the internet.

Yeah trav -- we'll see how wild my conspiracies are when you're recalled to go to Iraq -- be sure to send a post card.

ROTF

Dop

Originally posted by Decka

ive listed the list many times.....perhaps ill go back and find it when i feel motivated to sort through all the iraq war threads.
Sorry, but you have no reasons. WMD's? Nope. Terrorist ties? Nope. That equals no reason for the invasion.

Originally posted by Decka
No...the thing is Saddam wasn't complying, and even violated the UN weapons embargo...funny how the UN didnt give a damn about that because they ALL made money off saddam. And yea maybe Saddam did FINALLY come around....hid or moved all the skeletons in his closet, and THEN let inspectors in.
You are assuming that he moved the weapons (you have no proof).

If you want to launch war on assumptions that he "could, maybe, someday, possibly" make weapons, then you don't truly understand what "war" is. How reckless republicans are with our military is just amazing.

Originally posted by Decka
well since you seem to know where all these terrorists are, maybe you can do a better job then all the people who have years of training in this sort of field. Iraq=Al Quaida? no Iraq harboring terrorists? yes
The 9/11 Panel said Paktistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia were all more involved with terrorirsts. That they were the countries that had terrorist ties. They were the counties that were harboring terrorists. They were the countires we should have dealt with, if any, before Iraq.

And as for Iraq and Saddam? They had slim ties to terrorism. In terms of everything, harboring terrorists and Al Queda. Sorry, he didn't need to be attacked. Not when we had much larger threats to deal with.

Originally posted by Decka
well....they seem to go against the popular beleif of most politicians of the past 10 years. funny how ONLY bush is the man who got it wrong.
Bush is the only one that launched war, Decka. That is the difference, and that is why we attack him for this war...because, he is the Commnader in cheif and decided to launch war. Clinton did launch war...

Originally posted by Decka
A. Clinton did get intelligence, and it obviously was enough for him to say Saddam was a threat and is a nuclear threat.
Clinton obviously didn't have enough compelling evidence to launch war against Saddam.

Originally posted by Decka
B. Your manipulation theory is a conspiracy theory, funny how Kerry saw almost ALL the same intelligence that Bush did
Wrong. I've shown you the links about Chalabi and intelligence. You just refuse to recall that, or believe it. That’s not my issue...you just hate facts.

ya dop, and counting all your other predictions that never came true, I will take this one with a grain of salt as well.

and overdose, stop lecturing us on war and the military, your a 15 year old homosexual from Portland who listens to madonna for crying out loud. stick to what you know.

and overdose, stop lecturing us on war and the military, your a 15 year old homosexual from Portland who listens to madonna for crying out loud. stick to what you know.

ooo... you're gonna get it for that one, trav.

Originally posted by Travh20

and overdose, stop lecturing us on war and the military, your a 15 year old homosexual from Portland who listens to madonna for crying out loud. stick to what you know.
I know that this Iraq War is incorrect and we had no reason to invade Iraq.

The sad thing with you Trav, is that you don’t debate the issues, you just attack the person because that’s all you have. You’re just a sad little man in California, who is mad that a liberal, Madonna listening, 15year old-homosexual, kid can beat you in a debate on the Iraq War. It’s sad, but it’s the truth.

I hope you have fun living in your world of fantasy. Decka, also hasn’t been in the military and him and I are debating this. You are partisan, and don’t attack him…but only attack me. Your bias is showing.

Either debate the issues, or shut up. Now, I must be off to school! Have a fun day living in liberal Cali!!!

talk about a hissy fit

*smiles*

you still here? off to school little boy, or you may get a tardy slip.

If another country invaded the United States, overwhelmed and disbanded our military, overthrew our government, captured bush and attempted to set up a puppet government for us; I think most of us would join an undergroud movement and fight back. Even though half the country hates bush and hates what he stands for and hates what he is doing to our people and our country, we all would still fight for our independence. I would have no problem setting off car bombs and doing anything and everything to keep the invaders on the defense. Up to and including cutting off the heads of people I felt were on their side. I would hope that every American would fight to the death to save our country from a foriegn invader. would I be a terrorist? A patriot? An insurgent.

Originally posted by Echo2
If another country invaded the United States, overwhelmed and disbanded our military, overthrew our government, captured bush and attempted to set up a puppet government for us; I think most of us would join an undergroud movement and fight back. Even though half the country hates bush and hates what he stands for and hates what he is doing to our people and our country, we all would still fight for our independence. I would have no problem setting off car bombs and doing anything and everything to keep the invaders on the defense. Up to and including cutting off the heads of people I felt were on their side. I would hope that every American would fight to the death to save our country from a foriegn invader. would I be a terrorist? A patriot? An insurgent. I dont believe you for a second Echo. IMO, you would be nothing but a rat. You would tell on anyone you felt was responsible for our country being attacked. You would blame every republican in the known universe and you would point them out to the invaders and feel justified doing so. You're a zealot.

theres a big difference echo, one that everyone who uses the argument you use forget to mention. If someone ivaded us and removed our government it would be to install a worse governemt then we already HAve. no one could invade the US, take it over by force and install a better government. That is not true in iraq. the saddam government was as bad as a government can get. He controlled through fear and intimidation. If you werre an iraqi would you fight to restore the old regime? would you fight to install an islamic theocracy? a better way to look at it is like this. if we got invaded, how many people would join the invaders to help oust the bush administration?

If I were Iraqi, I would not fight to restore the old regime. But I would fight for Iraqs independance; to get rid of the invaders and keep them from setting up a puppet government of their choice.

Just as I would not fight to put bush back in power, I would fight to maintain Americas independence and keep the invaders from setting up a puppet government of their choice here.

Try for a moment to feel what the average Iraq citizen is feeling. Yes, they hated Sadam, but the idea of America setting up a government for them and having Iraq be a puppet to Americas idea of what type of government should be is just as horrific. Yes, they wanted Sadam out of power. But they also don't want America setting up it's idea of how their country should be run.

If I were an Iraqi citezen I would be fighting the invading army.

THE AVERAGE IRAQI IS NOT BLOWING UP CARS AND CUTTING OFF HEADS. IF THAT WHAT YOU THINK THE AVERAGE IRAQIS ARE DOING NO WONDER YOUR VIEWS ARE SO TWISTED.

a small percentage of iraqis is fighting us, and they are augmented by a contingnet of foreign terrorists who have set up shop to try and drive us out and installa taliban type regime. you better check yourself before you go running your mouth again pyscho

There is no need to get nasty just because you don't hold the same beliefs as I do. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't make you a psycho. When will you hard righters get that just because someone disagrees with your interpetatin of the facts doesn't make them a psycho.

if what you do s simply disagree I would hate to see what your like when you dont like someone

Originally posted by Travh20
if what you do s simply disagree I would hate to see what your like when you dont like someone

LOL - I think you and I suffer from the same malady. We both feel so strongly about our convictions that we find it hard to understand why others can't understand them. We get frustrated with what we consider to be others stupididty or stubornness and we let that frustration enter into our debates.

I may adamantly disagree with your political views but that doesn't meen I dislike you. I do however get frustrated with people who hold views such as yours because it is hard for me to underdstand how they are blind to what I feel is right before their eyes. I'll bet you have the same thoughts about people with my viewpioints.

It's not personal. We just feel each other is wrong and have a hard time comprehending why the other person can't see their mistakes when we point them out.

viva le dif'erance. This baord would be boring as hell if it were all of the same mind.

It sounds like you know what you're talking about, and your explanation makes a great deal of sense. I would be curious to hear your opinion as to why the Bush administration isn't saying this to the media. It seems to me that statements like this would go a long way towards silencing the critics of his Iraq policies.

Well the reports are public for all to see. The media has read them, and all they got out of its 966 pages is "No WMD".
The Bush Admin is well aware of the media bias and when I mention it to liberal friends, they scoff at the reports, AND my own accounts as lies and Bush brainwashing. Now if it were the same reports under a Democrat Admin, they'd be gospel truth.

UFC6 is a processed form of Yellowcake. It's heated to a gas form and piped under pressure to high speed centrifuges. UFC6 is less than .2% U235 and 99.8% U238. Now it's the U235 atoms you're seeking for fissible material. The U238 atoms are heavier than the U235 atoms, so in the centrifuge, the U238 moves closest to the wall and the U235 remains closer to the axis of rotation. The gas is pressured out, now slightly enriched in U235 to a fresh centrifuge and the process begins again and is repeated thousands of times. This is reffered to as cascading and requires a minimun 10,000 centrifuges to be minimally effective. This is the easiest and cheapest way to enrich but is also the slowest. 36% enrichment is required for weapons grade, though the US uses a faster process and enriches to 92%.
Al-Tuwaitha was in well-kept condition, just waiting for the lifting of UN sanctions.
Now the funny things is, that the UN said there were no WMD's, then Mr. ElBaradei ( who the US has been moving to get fired because of dropping the ball in DPRK and Iran) makes a statement to the media:

Missing Iraqi nuke equipment worries IAEA
Senior Iraqi adviser blames U.S. for not securing equipment
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 10:50 PM EDT (0250 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, playing down the International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns, said U.S.-led coalition forces "did move quickly" to secure the so-called dual-use equipment after invading Iraq in March 2003.
"I think we share the general concern that some material might have gotten out [during the mass looting that took place] immediately after the war, but it has been brought under control," Boucher told reporters in Washington.
According to an October 1 letter from IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to the U.N. Security Council, satellite imagery showed that not only was dual-use equipment missing, but buildings that once housed it had been dismantled. (Full story)
"The imagery shows in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high precision equipment ... formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials (such as high-strength aluminum) from open storage areas," ElBaradei's letter said.
ElBaradei said that although some radioactive equipment taken from Iraq after the war began has shown up in other countries, none of the missing dual-use equipment or materials have been found.
IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky, speaking from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria, said locating the dual-use equipment was a priority.
"The kind of equipment we're talking about ... is the sort of thing that has a multitude of industrial applications," Gwozdecky said.
"In the wrong hands, it could be turned to use in a nuclear weapons program," he said. "Until we establish that this material is in responsible hands, we have to treat it as a serious proliferation concern."

But the UN STILL claims Iraq had no WMD.

Looks like they're gonna be coming for the 18-34 year olds in the very near future ...
One piece of advise ... listen to willy
Mama don't let yer babies grow up to be Bushbots
ROTF Dop

Dop,
Keep in mind in January of 2003, it was the Democrats, lead by Charles Rangle of New York, that proposed the draft. The Bush Admin has never proposed a draft.

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
HR 163 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. National service obligation.
Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.
Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.
Sec. 5. Induction.
Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.
Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.
Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.
Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.
(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--
(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.
(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.
(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--
(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and
(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.
(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.
(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--
(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or
(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.
(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:
(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.
(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve
on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.
(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.
SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.
(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:
(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.
(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.
(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.
(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.
(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.
(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.
(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.
(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.
SEC. 5. INDUCTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.
(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.
(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.
SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.
(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--
(1) obtains a high school diploma;
(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or
(3) attains the age of 20.
(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--
(1) extreme hardship; or
(2) physical or mental disability.
(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.
(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.
SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.
(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.
(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--
(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or
(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.
SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.
(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.
(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.
SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this Act.
(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.
SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;
(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and
(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.
SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.
(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.
SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.
(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.
(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

Tony

I'm glad I can speed read ... LOL

Of course Rangel penned one of the dfaft billls. He felt that by making it a 'no escape' bill it would make the republicans realize their kids may get drafted and therefore lessen their support for the Iraq crusade.

Regardless of motive, the fact remains that my premise is still valid ... they're coming for the 18-34 year olds.

They only have 2 choices with both of them being distasteful to the public ... a draft or an amnesty for illegals from Mexico if they do their time on the front line.

So we either draft or we all learn Spanish ... it's your call.

BTW: Thanks for the PM.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Tony

Of course Rangel penned one of the dfaft billls. He felt that by making it a 'no escape' bill it would make the republicans realize their kids may get drafted and therefore lessen their support for the Iraq crusade.

Dop

I could believe that if the bill stated..."rich Republican males"...But in fact, it states this...

"To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

Notice the clear inclusion of women. If this bill is just a gag on the part of the Mr. Rangel, it would seem a waste of taxpayer dollars in my view. Mr. Rangle needs to stop playing games and get on to important issues. Beyond that, the fact still remains, Democrats have gone so far as to introduce a draft bill in congress. The Republicans have made no efforts to, or claims of a draft. The record is clear, it's Democrats taking the necessary steps towards a draft.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

BTW: Thanks for the PM.

Dop [/B]

BTW, How is Hermosa Beach? Probably fogged in at this time of night. I'm originally from Lake Elsinore.

LOL Tony ... yeah fog would be setting in just about now and so would the Pelicans ... many of sleepless nights listening to that foghorn on the Hermosa pier.

I'm currently padding down in San Diego due to a temporary transfer to help out with a program that's beginning to waver off the predicted path.

Lake Elsinore -- great lake, great mountain views, great recreation and that makes you one of the good guys and I take back everything I said about you ... wait a minute ... I haven't said anything bad yet ... give me time and I will ... ROTF

BTW: the corridor from LA to Riverside is now successfully homeginzed as you well know and in a few years the corridor from San Diego to your old digs will also be a sea of people ... San Diego to Temecula to Hemet through the valley and on to Beaumont while it blankets RIverside.

No I'm not a visionary. LOL.

Dop

Posted in here, so I don't get reported again for thread-jacking.

Originally posted by SecretAgentMan

The guy (Saddam) is a fucking monster, and the world is better off without him in power.

So, we should attack every person in this world that is a "monster"...? That is a valid reason for launching war? Because I know many countries that have evil leaders...but we didn't attack them. Why did we pick Iraq...?

Also, this is a war on terrorism, not taking care of "monsters"...Secret Agent Man. Saddam had no ties to terrorism, or weapons. He wasn't a threat, and we had more harmful "monsters" to attend to, before we took care of Saddam.

And if you think the Iraqis are better off, you don't pay attention. Iraq is in chaos, and they are not doing well. I suggest you pay more attention to current events.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Lake Elsinore -- great lake, great mountain views, great recreation and that makes you one of the good guys and I take back everything I said about you ... wait a minute ... I haven't said anything bad yet ... give me time and I will ... ROTF

:) My feelings dont hurt that easy, just be sure to have good sources of info and facts because I WILL challenge. :)

BTW: the corridor from LA to Riverside is now successfully homeginzed as you well know and in a few years the corridor from San Diego to your old digs will also be a sea of people ... San Diego to Temecula to Hemet through the valley and on to Beaumont while it blankets RIverside.

Dop [/B]

Go to SkydiveElsinore.com, drive up there and spend $20 to see the view from 14,000 feet. Then you'll see where the building is happening :). I left there last July to come here and get my FAA Commercial certificate and Instrument and Multi-Engine ratings.
Tony

MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA FINANCIAL NETWORK
US Official: Iraq's economy beginning to thrive

(MENAFN) An official from the US Treasury Department was quoted by AFP as saying the Iraqi government was starting to thrive with oil revenues up and street markets alive.
The official said oil exports should bring in $13.5 billion in 2004 - up $1.5 billion from previous estimates. Iraq's oil would bring in a total of $69 billion over 2004 - 2007, the official added.
Since the war, Iraq had imported an estimated one million cars, and at least half a million satellite dishes. Production of cement, asphalt was doing 'quite well', the official commented.
Several foreign banks have been given licenses to operate in the country, and the new Iraqi dinar had been launched successfully. The new trade bank had already issued more than $200 million in letters of credit so far.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Iraq's gross domestic product is expected to reach $22 billion in 2004 - up 19 percent from a year earlier.
E

Tony

I live in AZ part time (as well as LA and SF) and get over there quite often.

I remember 25-30 years ago when people were saying Phoenix was going to be the next LA and I'd look around and say 'no way' they didn't even have left turn signals yet nor did they have storm drains. A half hour rain would shut down the entire city. LOL. Strictly a one-horse town.

Man was I wrong -- that town is simply exploding with growth and the LA look is quickly becoming reality.

Dop

Originally posted by Overdose
Posted in here, so I don't get reported again for thread-jacking.



So, we should attack every person in this world that is a "monster"...? That is a valid reason for launching war? Because I know many countries that have evil leaders...but we didn't attack them. Why did we pick Iraq...?

Also, this is a war on terrorism, not taking care of "monsters"...Secret Agent Man. Saddam had no ties to terrorism, or weapons. He wasn't a threat, and we had more harmful "monsters" to attend to, before we took care of Saddam.

And if you think the Iraqis are better off, you don't pay attention. Iraq is in chaos, and they are not doing well. I suggest you pay more attention to current events.


Califronia is in chaos! there are a dozen murders a day in LA! oh the horror! we are not doing so well, help koffi!!!!


I suggest you shut the hell up with your tired old crap

Originally posted by Travh20
Califronia is in chaos! there are a dozen murders a day in LA! oh the horror! we are not doing so well, help koffi!!!!


I suggest you shut the hell up with your tired old crap

Do you not pay attention to the news, Trav. Violence just erupted today in Iraq…this has been (I believe) the month of the most US Soldiers dead. Think again…. it’s not tired old crap. It’s reality that you cannot grasp.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Ok Dop, here's the non-existant UAV's :)

Well now, what else is buried around these parts?

New pictures emerging from embedded press in Falllujah.
This one is of Russian-made Sarin Nerve Gas vials.

For starters the embedded reporters in Iraq are hand-picked by the admin -- they're entertainment and propoganda at best and no serious journalist would ever call them reporters.

Second, I'll take your pics as satire or sarcasm or irony but certainly not fact that points to wmds.

IIRC, powell, bush and pootey-poot guaranteed the public that saddam had chemical weapons in the range of 450,000 pounds (or gallons or acre feet or however they measure that stuff) with launch vehicles and a readiness solution of 45 minutes.

I think they even mentioned nuclear warheads .... ROTF ... when I see those pics then I'll believe we had a reason to invade Iraq but not a reason to kill 100K innocent civilians.

Dop

When I see the pictures of 100,000 innocent civilians killed, then I'll believe that 100,000 innocent civilians were killed.

Tony

So you have a pic of a propane tank for a barbeque and some meds that were thrown away. That's it?

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
So you have a pic of a propane tank for a barbeque and some meds that were thrown away. That's it?

Dop

Well that may be YOUR assesment of the items, but the ISG experts saw them as precursors intentionally buried to hide them from UN inspectors.

Tony

Tony

How does any of these pics backup the wild claims made by the admin? I'm just not getting all nervous looking at rusted out 12-year old munitions that the UN inspectors probably tagged-off years ago and actually all combined add up to no more than a good July 4th celebration?

I want to see proof that if we had not invaded Iraq, they would attack both the united states and israel -- as was advertised by the bushbots.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Tony

How does any of these pics backup the wild claims made by the admin? I'm just not getting all nervous looking at rusted out 12-year old munitions that the UN inspectors probably tagged-off years ago and actually all combined add up to no more than a good July 4th celebration?

I want to see proof that if we had not invaded Iraq, they would attack both the united states and israel -- as was advertised by the bushbots.

Dop

If Orders were issued to the Iraqi forces to bury 43 MIG-25 jets, items allowed under UN sanctions, what else was buried and how much of it? Certainly, if there were 450,000 tons of WMD, it couldn't have crossed the border that easy. Saddam had 4 un-inspected years to hide whatever it wanted to hide. We know he had them, where are they?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/86/complaint.html

McCain says we need 50,000 more troops in Iraq -- feeling drafty in here?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20041121/pl_afp/us_iraq_troops_041121220623

ROTF

Dop

shit dop, kerry was the one saying he was going to raise 2 more light infantry divisions and double the amount of troops in iraq, how did he plan on doing that without a draft, or was he going to spring a draft on us after his inaguration (*shudders at the thought*)? do you not even attempt to take into consideration what you and your party has said, or is that time past and the time for hysterical accusations and theories the order of the day?

and dop, if saddam didnt have WMD, why did he dick around with us and the UN for so long? he didnt act like a man with nothing to hide, even you have to admit that. And given his history, was it really all that wrong to take the way he was acting as him trying to hide something? you leftys always want to hang your hat on hindsight, well thats pure BS and you know it. Forcing Iraqis agents to tag along with the inspectors and tell them where they could and could not go was a joke, so was making the inspectors call ahead of time before one of their "suprise" inspections. I dont have much faith in Saddam or the UN, not as much as you did. Saddam tried to bluff and got called, end of story.

Your kerry/draft point is taken trav but I just want to be the first to call bush a *LIAR* if he comes up with a draft after campaining on no draft.

Saddam -- sure he had some stuff but it was just that ... stuff. He certainly didn' have the goods that were advertised ...

paraphrasing to the best of my memory ... "we can envision drones flying over our country dropping nuclear bombs on our cities" ... whoa daddy ... that's a far cry from having a few viles of sarin and a rusty old mig buried in the dessert.

Dop

if anyone is to blame for saddam's getting removed from power it is Sadaam. His refusal to comply was all the justifcation needed to remove him from power. I have yet to see any liberals place any blame on him for this war. Its as if he is the victim to bush the evil one. Its pretty fucking sad if you look at it.

and I tell you this, if I find a rusty mig buried in my dessert I will be sending it back and never visiting that restaurant again!

BWAhahahah ... good spelling ding trav ... now I owe you one.

Dop

Granny goes to war

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3937634/detail.html

Time for some Jan and Dean lyrics ...
==========================

And everybody's sayin' that there's nobody meaner
Than the little old lady from Pasadena
She drives real fast and she drives real hard
She's the terror of Colorado Boulevard

It's the little old lady from Pasadena

Go, Granny, go, Granny, go Granny go
Go, Granny, go, Granny, go Granny go

Dop

If the anit-Iraq war folks were to actually read Deulfers report to the DCI, as I've been cut and pasting with my posts, they'd see that Saddams and his generals felt overwhelmingly convinced that WMD saved them in The Iran war, but also prevented the US forces from moving on Baghdad in the first gulf war. Saddam held out as long as he could with the sanctions, but didn't expect them to be as harsh on the Iraq economy as they were. He then realized his only way out was to destroy his stockpiles of WMD, while hiding some of it. BUT...he was careful to leave the infrastructure in place for rapid production once sanctions were lifted. The scientists with the knowledge were prevented from leaving, and put in other fields of work. Because of his concern for Iran, he played to the international community as though he still maintained his WMD, they're what saved Iraq in that war.
He HAD to maintain this bluff to keep his enemies from attacking him. With the severe cuts in CIA budgets during the Clinton admin ( and I challenge everyone to go see the budgets for themselves so I dont have to cut and paste them, you all being adults and all ) the human intell in Iraq was non-existant. We had no other sources other than Iraq internationl moves and sattelite imagry.
I actually feel shameful as an American that I have to go and cut and paste PUBLIC information that everyone in this forum has open access to but refuses to do the footwork. Instead, everyone watches TV news and runs with it as gospel truth. Those persons that dont investigate ALL available sources should be embarrased to be adult registered American voters.
I work full-time and am a full time student pilot, yet I found the time to read every page of the DCI report, the 911 Commision Report, every presidential budget from 1990 on.
I know when a person has NOT done any investigation, that person will ALWAYS turn to name-calling and put-downs, because that person has no ground to stand on. Thats in political chat. I haven't gotten that in this forum, just quiet, no response. That
tells me that at least I'm dealing with people that think more maturely than yr average liberal.....I appreciate that, and so I keep coming back here. Does that mean I support everything Bush does?...... of course not, he's made some boneheaded decisions in his tenure, but I've also seen the keen maneuvering by the Bush admin in Iraq, and I am very impressed!
After serving 20 Years in the Marines, drug interdiction in the late 80's, 18 months in Iraq, and keeping good sources, I'm well armed with knowledge and reputable sources. I expect every other adult who argues their side to do the same. It's not that difficult in today's world to find the FACTS. One good source to begin with is GlobalSecurity.org. Start there, and listen to yr troops coming back!!! They've seen Iraq firsthand, they know whats going on.