Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
let me second that
Or the Russians or the Israelis.
Cheyenne said:
Or the Russians or the Israelis.
war draft
- Thread starter HARDKOREBJ
- Start date
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Who knows if it will or if it won't. It's been done before. If it happens, then men between 18-34 are ripe for picking. Damned glass ceiling. I think we women should rush to the post office and register for selective service. Yep, if you're 18 and male, you'd better be registered, it's the law and it's the draft pool.
You may find this thread interesting:
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17427
You may find this thread interesting:
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17427
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
*shakes head*
I dunno why we're all getting upset over Bri's ignorance. She knows jack shit about the military over here. The Brit's aren't particularly the best at anything, military wise. The Mossad, which is Israel's, is the unqualified best at small group insertions for the purpose of extraction. They've been practicing this particular craft all over the world since the early 60s. I'm sure you can understand the negative political ramifications of Israel helping us do anything in regards to this war.
The US isn't too shabby at extraction or rescue operations either. You just never hear about them because they're classified. The people who do these operations either "don't exist, we don't know you" or don't talk about it because they don't want to go to jail for the rest of eternity.
In case you didn't notice, we didn't just declare war on the terrorist who did it, but on the nation who harbored them. Bush is already planning for a long, protracted war. It wouldn't do any good to merely extract Bin Laden. Anyway, Bush is intent on proving he did it before we mount any kind of operation, so let's not all jump the gun here.
You may also want to consider that Afghanistan recently came out of a lengthy war, about 12 years, where they successfully held off Mother Russia. They're battle hardened and tested. They won't be easy.
I dunno why we're all getting upset over Bri's ignorance. She knows jack shit about the military over here. The Brit's aren't particularly the best at anything, military wise. The Mossad, which is Israel's, is the unqualified best at small group insertions for the purpose of extraction. They've been practicing this particular craft all over the world since the early 60s. I'm sure you can understand the negative political ramifications of Israel helping us do anything in regards to this war.
The US isn't too shabby at extraction or rescue operations either. You just never hear about them because they're classified. The people who do these operations either "don't exist, we don't know you" or don't talk about it because they don't want to go to jail for the rest of eternity.
In case you didn't notice, we didn't just declare war on the terrorist who did it, but on the nation who harbored them. Bush is already planning for a long, protracted war. It wouldn't do any good to merely extract Bin Laden. Anyway, Bush is intent on proving he did it before we mount any kind of operation, so let's not all jump the gun here.
You may also want to consider that Afghanistan recently came out of a lengthy war, about 12 years, where they successfully held off Mother Russia. They're battle hardened and tested. They won't be easy.
Anubis1947
Virgin
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2001
- Posts
- 29
DarlingBri said:
The US military was NOT unprepared for Viet Nam. The primary problem in that conflict was that political forces in the US would not allow the military to persue the war in a manner which would assure victory.
Examples of political intervention: No bombing of Haiphong Harbor; no bombing of lines of supply for NVA and VC; no bombing of military targets in North Viet Nam; no sanctions against our supposed allies for trading with North Viet Nam.
You people who think that Bush is not smart amaze me. Please do not make the mistake of confusing charisma with either intelligence or the ability to lead.
Anubis1947
Virgin
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2001
- Posts
- 29
DarlingBri said:
The US military was NOT unprepared for Viet Nam. The primary problem in that conflict was that political forces in the US would not allow the military to persue the war in a manner which would assure victory.
Examples of political intervention: No bombing of Haiphong Harbor; no bombing of lines of supply for NVA and VC; no bombing of military targets in North Viet Nam; no sanctions against our supposed allies for trading with North Viet Nam.
You people who think that Bush is not smart amaze me. Please do not make the mistake of confusing charisma with either intelligence or the ability to lead.
Debbie
Persnickety slattern
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2001
- Posts
- 24,213
There may be a world war 111 on hand, something that saddens me so, my grandfather (who i deeply loved and respected, he passed away at Christmas), he was religious and I challenged him once as a child. He believed that if he fought in the war, taking arms against the enemy. Asking him, if he was religious, turning the other cheek,etc how could he have taken a gun and shot someone, the so called enemy,( he was a Baptist), he replied that he wanted his children and grandchildren to not have to be ruled by someone by Hitler and that the 2nd world war would be the last war fought.
I am a New Zealander, we are a small county but what we lack in number's we make up for in guts. "When we seem to be down it is when we get up and fight hard, pushing our opponent into a corner, unexpectedly fighting back, coming from the fore and winning with a triumphant blow."
I am a New Zealander, we are a small county but what we lack in number's we make up for in guts. "When we seem to be down it is when we get up and fight hard, pushing our opponent into a corner, unexpectedly fighting back, coming from the fore and winning with a triumphant blow."
DarlingBri
Brit Wit
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2001
- Posts
- 1,262
Let's assume the Brit's are not best suited for this job. That's fine, I don't care who gets sent in. My point was that this is a very perilous situation because of the cost of ongoing domestic terrorism.
Targeted attacks would be less politically flammable than a war declared on an Islamic nation. That is the war that should be waged. If that route is chosen, small cells with little direct contact and no actual listings of members are notoriously hard to indentify and infiltrate, as has been demonstrated around the world.
KM is absolutely right. I don't know very much about America's military except on a policy level. I don't know very much about Britain's, either. I do know a reasonable amount about history, and the success of the SAS in the Iranian Embassy and in Desert Storm would (for me) bolster their reputation as the elite forces for counter-terrorism.
But again, I don't care what country's forces get sent in as long as this is a targeted effort. DEVGRUs would be a fine choice, although the Delta Force has (acknowledged) experience in Panama and Desert Storm, so perhaps a better choice. It is my understanding that they're specifically trained as hostage rescue units, but if that is what is appropriate here, great.
It should come as no great shock to anyone on this board that I am not overly impressed with GWB as a president. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's unpatriotic. This is not a knee-jerk reaction on my part, it's a response to what he's saying. There are a lot of things he's said and done which are compassionate, and I especially applaud the aid package to the affected areas. This is finance that the affected cities and the victim's families desperately need. It was propsed and approved quickly, and I think that's admirable.
But nobody, even staunch Bush suppporters, ever claimed that foreign policy was his strong point. It is very easy to make declarations of war, and far more complicated to undestand and estimate the global and domestic ramifications of that. Dick Cheney, however, is very strong on foreign policy, so I am grateful for that.
Targeted attacks would be less politically flammable than a war declared on an Islamic nation. That is the war that should be waged. If that route is chosen, small cells with little direct contact and no actual listings of members are notoriously hard to indentify and infiltrate, as has been demonstrated around the world.
KM is absolutely right. I don't know very much about America's military except on a policy level. I don't know very much about Britain's, either. I do know a reasonable amount about history, and the success of the SAS in the Iranian Embassy and in Desert Storm would (for me) bolster their reputation as the elite forces for counter-terrorism.
But again, I don't care what country's forces get sent in as long as this is a targeted effort. DEVGRUs would be a fine choice, although the Delta Force has (acknowledged) experience in Panama and Desert Storm, so perhaps a better choice. It is my understanding that they're specifically trained as hostage rescue units, but if that is what is appropriate here, great.
It should come as no great shock to anyone on this board that I am not overly impressed with GWB as a president. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's unpatriotic. This is not a knee-jerk reaction on my part, it's a response to what he's saying. There are a lot of things he's said and done which are compassionate, and I especially applaud the aid package to the affected areas. This is finance that the affected cities and the victim's families desperately need. It was propsed and approved quickly, and I think that's admirable.
But nobody, even staunch Bush suppporters, ever claimed that foreign policy was his strong point. It is very easy to make declarations of war, and far more complicated to undestand and estimate the global and domestic ramifications of that. Dick Cheney, however, is very strong on foreign policy, so I am grateful for that.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
terrorism exists every where...just different tactics are used . as for a quick end ---well i cant see it happening --- look at sadam-- he is still alive ,planning more ,probally with the help of bin laden.
send in a sniper-- wait -- BANG--
cut off the head and the rest will slowly die
im from canada so most countries believe the us/can are one and the same. unfortunetly our goverment did not forsee the need for military strength after the 2nd w.w. therefor our boys are undergunned when it comes to battles.
our prime minister would rather give 3rd world countries tax free- forgivable loans then to seem to be a hard nation who would stand up to peoples opionion.
send in a sniper-- wait -- BANG--
cut off the head and the rest will slowly die
im from canada so most countries believe the us/can are one and the same. unfortunetly our goverment did not forsee the need for military strength after the 2nd w.w. therefor our boys are undergunned when it comes to battles.
our prime minister would rather give 3rd world countries tax free- forgivable loans then to seem to be a hard nation who would stand up to peoples opionion.
DarlingBri
Brit Wit
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2001
- Posts
- 1,262
As with all things in email, it's hard to be sure of the veracity of what you get, but I thought this was worth passing on:
Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread:
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan
back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that
this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with
this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage.
What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard
because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35
years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell
anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.
There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the
atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those
monsters.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not
even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant
psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political
criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think
Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan"
think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan
people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims
of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take
out the Taliban and clear out the rat's nest of international thugs holed
up in their country.
Some say, Why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the
Taliban?
The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt,
incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated
that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan, a country with no
economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying
these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines,
the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the
reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it
already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their
houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate
their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would
they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only
the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away
and hide.
Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they
don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over
Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals
who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause
with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping
all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now
speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go
in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do
what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to
kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms
about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand.
What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's
hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan.
Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would
have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by?
You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war
between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program.
That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches
and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat
the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the
world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers.
If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people
with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of
view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that
would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not
just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?
Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
Tamim Ansary
Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread:
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan
back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that
this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with
this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage.
What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard
because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35
years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell
anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.
There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the
atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those
monsters.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not
even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant
psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political
criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think
Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan"
think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan
people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims
of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take
out the Taliban and clear out the rat's nest of international thugs holed
up in their country.
Some say, Why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the
Taliban?
The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt,
incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated
that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan, a country with no
economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying
these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines,
the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the
reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it
already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their
houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate
their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would
they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only
the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away
and hide.
Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they
don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over
Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals
who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause
with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping
all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now
speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go
in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do
what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to
kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms
about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand.
What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's
hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan.
Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would
have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by?
You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war
between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program.
That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches
and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat
the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the
world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers.
If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people
with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of
view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that
would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not
just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?
Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
Tamim Ansary
G
Guest
Guest
DarlingBri said:
What you have here is the CEO type president, who has chosen the best people that he could find, and given them a cearly defined policy, together with resourses to acomplish it, and gets out of thier way. BTW you might want to look at Powell and Rumsfield as a few others in the team that are pretty good on foreign policy.
G
Guest
Guest
no it will be much worse becouse we still have some of these people in this country who will rise up and start fighting right here in america. if you think back we also had massive cut backs in military personel right after desert storm too I know the marine corps lost about 20,000 due to early out programs. so we might just need your sons and daughters as we have in the past to defend our rights to safety.Gilly Bean said:
G
Guest
Guest
that was me
