News: US militery draft is back (I'm not joking)

[shereads]

Re: Same thing in WWII

Do you think they are able to diffentiate which civilians were dead from American, German, or Allied warfare....no they just know people are dead....same thing in Iraq....a town is gone...there are bodies...
we cut this one open and found an Ak 47 shell...this one is an
M 16 oh wait this one is a knife he fell on..not sure which catagory to put him in...

.Morbidity and Mortality statistics are still out on Iraq

Once again, your point regarding the draft...?

Thank you, though, for explaining that when we target a town for several days of missile fire and then the Red Cross counts the bodies, we shouldn't assume that we killed them. Some of them might have killed themselves by pulling down their houses with a pulley system.

This is absurd. You're not trying to make a point, you're just watching yourself type.

 

[Blarneystoned]

Counting bodies

Do you really think you can find all the pieces of someone after a bombing?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Do you really think you can find all the pieces of someone after a bombing?

No, they only count the fingers, and then divide by ten.

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/finger/smilie_finger1.gif

 

[shereads]

No, they only count the fingers, and then divide by ten.

http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/finger/smilie_finger1.gif

Sad, isn't it? I wonder if he also thinks that we don't know how many people died at the World Trade Center. Or if he just thinks the Iraqis are too primitive to know how many family members and neighbors are missing after a building goes down.

 

[Guest]

I have a few questions and statements but first, I won't lie, I HAVE NOT gone through this entire posting and read every post so if I bring up stuff that's already been mentioned, I apologize in advance. I haven't been around for a few months and haven't kept up.

As to the questions and statements:

1) I saw a number of posts on the pages that I did look at, that said that President Bush and his administration LIED about the war in Iraq. I would like someone to tell me when and where.

If you claim he lied about the weapons of mass destruction, I just KNOW you have proof. Because there isn't any SOLID proof that he didn't. We KNOW Saddam had WMD! We KNOW IT! How? We sold them to him back during the cold war. As one senator put it just after the war started "We know he has or had the weapons. We've got the receipts." Now, we gave Saddam MORE THAN A YEAR to prove he had destroyed those weapons. He refused time and again. All he had to do was pull out the records of these weapons being destroyed. Produce a few witnesses. That's all!

He would stay in power and his people wouldn't suffer. Oh, he didn't care about his people. That's right. When the war started, he scurried underground like a RAT Running from the sunlight and let his military fight a war they couldn't POSSIBLY win.

BTW, there are rumors, and some say PROOF, that Saddam slipped all of those weapons out of Iraq and in to Syria. We are now asking Syria to return everything and everyone Saddam sent their way. Not to surprisingly, they're refusing. Weapons, scientists, maybe a few generals. Who knows, maybe Syria's next.

2) No matter what, no matter how good our technology gets, war will ALWAYS cause casulties. Some of those casualities WILL be innocent civilians. We don't like it and for this war and the war in Kuwait, the US did everything it could to LIMIT casualties. Unfortunatly, the US Military is run by HUMAN BEINGS, much like you and I. Mistakes can and will and have been made. Someone will eventually pay for those mistakes one way or another.

As for war, it is a neccessity sometimes. I dare anyone here to tell me that the war in Europe in WWII wasn't necessary. I dare anyone here to state that we should NOT have struck back at Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which by the way, happened BEFORE they officially declared war on us. By todays standards, it was a state supported, state planned, state funded, terrorist action!!!! Think about it.

War is necessary. Until the human race grows up, until all people learn to respect each other as equals, until all religions either die out or learn to live together, until all nations are equal in every way, war will be something we must live with.

If you want to end some of the need for war, ask yourself this; why hasn't there been a war in Western Europe for so many years? Why is there peace there NOW after they spent HUNDREDS of years fighting amongst themselves.

The reason I vote, is that all the dictators are gone. The English, the Spanish, The French, the Germans all moved towards democracy to varying degrees. Fewer and fewer wars are occuring in South America these days because MOST of these nations have moved to democracy. To varying degrees of success.

If you want to end the need for war, support the removal of ALL Dictators by whatever means necessary.

3) The recent death of Ronald Reagan brings up an interesting point. During his time as president, Reagan concentrated on one thing and one thing only. Everything else was secondary. Reagan's big concern was ending the tyranny of the Soviet Union. It worked. Soviet Union is gone. Nuclear war has been all but averted.

George W. Bush has been concentratiing on one thing and one thing only during his presidency. The end of Islamic backed terrorism in the US and around the world. Most people claim that Reagan was one of the greatest of our day. I wonder what they will say about GWB in twenty years if he wins his War!!!?!?!?!?!

I'm finished for now. Have a nice day.

=Jefferson

 

[cantdog]

Phooey.

 

[cantdog]

Sad, isn't it? I wonder if he also thinks that we don't know how many people died at the World Trade Center. Or if he just thinks the Iraqis are too primitive to know how many family members and neighbors are missing after a building goes down.

He did say he doubts they have something as modern as a census.

He must imagine they've gone downhill since the Sassanids.

And look at the fellow breezing in after a couple of months. Hasn't followed the news, either. Bush himself, months ago, said there were no WMDs, and the gist of the political mills for some time has been who made the shit up and who didn't check it, and what about Chalabi.

Everybody knows it was a lie, the question has been whose lie, and why didn't anyone verify. But no, not Doffy. He's been away, and he never noticed.

Bloody. Do we really have to hunt down all those articles again? Can't we just skip it, or refer him to some other thread? Isn't this the "draft" one?

 

[Guest]

Phooey me all you want Cantdog but Bush never said there were no weapons, he just said that we hadn't found them

As for the draft issue. It's never going to happen. Some DEMOCRAT put the proposition into congress to make the "HAWKS" as they are called, THINK About war before committing to it. The liberals wanted these conservative hawks to be worried that their own sons and daughters might be drafted and be forced to fight.

Personally, the idea is ridiculous considering most of these Hawks are millionaires and can afford to put their son's and daughters in private colleges and KEEP them there for as long as neccessary.

This country does NOT need the Military we have. Why would we want Or NEED a draft? The Joint Chiefs are all talking about SHRINKING the military. Better weapons, better training, better communications all make MORE soldiers unncecessary. They get plenty of volunteers! The war on terror actually BOOSTED the number of volunteers the military was getting. If they need more people, why do they still require a high school diploma? If they need more people why are they still turning down volunteers? The idea is ridiculous! It's liberal propaganda made up by someone who wants John Kerry to win the election so he can kiss the asses of the UN and our so called ALLIES like France.

 

[cantdog]

France and Canada both were very courteous and civilized about it when they told us to take a more sensible tack. France has been our finest ally for two hundred years. Without them we wouldn't have managed to revolt from Britain as quickly as we did.

Britain never stopped or gave it up for the first century, either. They came very close to supporting the Confederacy, and would, I believe, have done it, leaving us with two countries here instead of one, had it not been for the slavery issue. France told them to piss up a rope.

The only attack of a foreign power on our soil was the British, and they burnt Washington. We had French naval assistance on that one, too.

The Great White Fleet shut them up, only a hundred years ago, and it was largely Churchill and his party who fought the uphill battle to see the Yanks as brother "English-speaking peoples." He had to turn around a century of rancor, prejudice, and hard feelings to get it to happen, even when Britain needed our help.

When France, very gently to my mind, told us that the unilateral swaggering approach wasn't going to have the support of the civilized world, and that the Iraq venture in particular, since we undertook it almost solely to injure French and Italian interests, wouldn't have their support, there was a wave of France-bashing. They are waiting Bush out, now.

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

As to the draft issue, have it your way.

We don't need a draft.

 

[shereads]

Personally, the idea is ridiculous considering most of these Hawks are millionaires and can afford to put their son's and daughters in private colleges and KEEP them there for as long as neccessary.

No college deferment this time around. That's what the chicken hawks find worrisome.

The Joint Chiefs are all talking about SHRINKING the military. Better weapons, better training, better communications all make MORE soldiers unncecessary.

That was the theory. Then we got stuck in this quagmire, and started extending tours of duty indefinitely.

They get plenty of volunteers! The war on terror actually BOOSTED the number of volunteers the military was getting.

They got plenty of volunteers. Has anyone checked to see how recruitment is doing lately?

If they need more people, why do they still require a high school diploma?

So they can read the directions on the MREs.

It's liberal propaganda made up by someone who wants John Kerry to win the election so he can kiss the asses of the UN and our so called ALLIES like France.

I take it you're not in favor of an international coalition to relieve our troops.

 

[shereads]

He did say he doubts they have something as modern as a census.

True. And when these primitives report that a family of seven was in that house over there when it collapsed, can we believe them? If Saddam didn't trust them, why should the Red Cross? Also: why is it the Red cross. Communist organization?

Bush himself, months ago, said there were no WMDs,

No, honey, Bush doesn't admit to mistakes. You can misunderestimate him, but don't misquote him. There are enough real quotes to cover almost any situation except this one. He even said we had found them at one point, during a speech in Poland right after Shock & Awe. I'll have to post "'Hello,' he lied" again soon. Just in case our new friend missed it...Cantdog, you don't suspect Chalabi, do you? Mr. Cheney's friend? He seems so sincere. I'd buy a used car from him in a heartbeat. I'd send people war on his say-so, too. You're too cynical by far.

Everybody knows it was a lie, the question has been whose lie, and why didn't anyone verify. But no, not Doffy. He's been away, and he never noticed.

All those books claiming the White House didn't believe its own information about a link between Saddam and 9/11? Those were written by half a dozen disgruntled ex-employees and a disgruntled former ambassador. This kind of thing happens all the time...Well, no, actually it doesn't. I don't think there's ever been a presidency that disgruntled so many people all at once, to the extent that they published a massive collection of smoothly coordinated lies, and published them while the president was still in office. As for that Paul O'Neill, he should be ashamed of himself for publishing confidential White House documents. Forget that they prove his point; that's irrelevent.

Bloody. Do we really have to hunt down all those articles again? Can't we just skip it, or refer him to some other thread?

That would assume he wants to read things that don't support his beliefs. Haven't the others taught you anything?

 

[Blarneystoned]

Counting fingers and dividing by ten

Yeah that was my point...I want the data on these dead civilians...when you find it get back to me in a decade ..that is how long it took to figure out how many we lost in WWII....

I think you all need an education on mortality and morbidity...would you like to come on rounds with me...

Easy to talk about...despite all your 1960s style whining..the only real numbers we have are the number of soldiers dead...and that is the bottom line...and you seem to care more about the dead Iraquis than you do our boys...

Blaneystoned

 

[shereads]

Re: Counting fingers and dividing by ten

Yeah that was my point...I want the data on these dead civilians...when you find it get back to me in a decade ..that is how long it took to figure out how many we lost in WWII....

I think you all need an education on mortality and morbidity...would you like to come on rounds with me...

Easy to talk about...despite all your 1960s style whining..the only real numbers we have are the number of soldiers dead...and that is the bottom line...and you seem to care more about the dead Iraquis than you do our boys...

Blaneystoned

For purposes of clarity: The rest of us are not in favor of "our boys" dying in Iraq, and you are.

That you somehow have twisted that into the petulant bit of nonsense above is typical of your style, which is negligible.

As to the correct number of dead Iraqi civilians, how many are enough?

Whether there's one dead civilian or one hundred thousand, the waste of life is as grievous and painful for the people who loved them as anything you will ever experience. They're just people, and until you empowered Bush, Cheney and Chalabi to rain down democracy on their heads like God's own vengeance, they were alive. Now they're dead.

Without Bush: alive.
With Bush: dead.

Is that a difficult concept when applied to people living in a "third world bathhouse?"

I played with you for the sake of our lurkers, at least one of whom has been pushed a bit farther to the left than you may have intended. You served your purpose, as I knew you would.

And, just like Amicus when his buttons were pushed, you've finally revealed yourself to be what your politics hinted at from the moment you appeared: a self-worshipping, quasi-informed, goosestepping bigot. Thanks to your temper-fit at the other thread, you've been outed as a rascist. Nobody but another bigot will take you seriously now, unless you apologize to the people you offended. That would require you to know who you've offended, and how, with that bathhouse comment. Too much to ask?

Meanwhile, I've earned the right to ignore you in earnest. I've done what I needed to do.

Enjoy your career as a Bush-league Republican. He's about as complicated a president as you can handle right now. Someday, you'll grow up and lose your unmerited disdain for races, cultures and philosophies that aren't Made in the USA. You have the potential to become someone worth knowing. Until then, you can be friends with Literotica's other bigot, Amicus.

A note of caution: he says he wants to overthrow the government, so don't exchange home addresses right away.

"Our boys." As if you give a damn.

 

[shereads]

1) I saw a number of posts on the pages that I did look at, that said that President Bush and his administration LIED about the war in Iraq. I would like someone to tell me when and where.

Okay.

Consider this: If there had been a credible link between Saddam and 9/ll, there would have been no need for any WMD evidence, would there? Here's the evidence that was available before Clark, Wilson, O'Neill and Woodward others published books that dispute the White House's version. Short of a signed confession, I don't see how you could ask for more.

"Hello," he lied.

BEFORE:

We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney
Meet The Press
3/16/2003

AFTER:

You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003

BEFORE:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002

AFTER:

I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003

BEFORE:

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

AFTER:

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush
12/16/2003



BEFORE:

It {Iraq} actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

AFTER:

A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003

BEFORE:

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003

AFTER:

The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003

BEFORE:

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003

AFTER:

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003

No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003

BEFORE:

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

AFTER:

I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NBC, Today Show
6/26/2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003

BEFORE:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003

AFTER:

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Joseph C. Wilson IV,Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003

SIMULTANEOUSLY:

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003

BUT AT LEAST:

One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003

BTW, there are rumors, and some say PROOF, that Saddam slipped all of those weapons out of Iraq and in to Syria.

Jefferson, is there anything these people wouldn't say at this point? They have to save face somehow, no matter how many people die in the process.

Someone will eventually pay for those mistakes one way or another.

They have. 800 men and women who trusted their commander in chief, and 30,000 Iraqi men, women and children, have paid. A few MPs will pay for doing what they were told to do to prisoners...George W. Bush used to say his administration was "ushering in a new era of accountability. People have to take responsibility for their actions." When?