| Author |
Message |
    
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 487
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:57 pm: | 
|
Will John Kerry be the one to sponsor a Bill in the Senate to reinstate the Draft? Remember that was what was being said Bush would do, that He would reinstate the Draft.
Or do we wait for another shameless Democrat, Charlie Rangle to do so again in the House? Anyone willing to admit this was just another scare tactic used during the election?
Thank God Kerry isn't being inaugurated. Could you imagine the money Hollywood alone would waste? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Troll......
 |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 2340
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 1:01 am: |
|
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Face,
I hope your ready to be called all kinds of things worse than troll. Everyone knows that was a scare tactic and won't happen. That was just empty rhetoric from an empty candidate. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Powell Says Troop Pullout From Iraq Will Start This Year
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP
WASHINGTON (Jan. 12) - American troops will begin leaving Iraq this year as the Iraqi army, national guard and police force take on a larger security role, says Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"But I cannot give you a timeline when they will all be home," Powell told National Public Radio in an interview released Wednesday by the State Department.
There are some 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, many of them under fire, and casualties have been mounting.
Wanna bet? Sounds like a lame duck trying to get out of town with some positive spin on his side. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7215
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Well, we are thinking about sending death squads into Syria to kill Iraqi insurgent leaders who have taken shelter there, at least according to the newspapers. What if the Syrian's decide to invade Iraq to support their Baathist brothers or because they feel they are next on the list now that we have Iraq under control? Do we have enough troops to fight the Syrian army, which hasn't been weakened by sanctions, and the insurgents?
The one thing that is always certain is that war isn't certain. Ask Truman and MacArthur if they expected the Chinese to join their North Korean comrades during the Korean war.  |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 297
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
What if the Syrian's decide to invade Iraq to support their Baathist brothers or because they feel they are next on the list now that we have Iraq under control? Do we have enough troops to fight the Syrian army, which hasn't been weakened by sanctions, and the insurgents?
You can add IRAN to the list 
|
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 298
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Face,
As in the words of your counterpart…
BORING |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4265
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Hardly boring, A good question actually. Why did Kerry and the Dems spend half of their time screaming about a draft and Bush's National Guard Service?
Why did they spend the rest of the time screaming about a war both of their candidates supported and voted for?
Why did the Democratic Party attempt to further split the nation with lame threats that clearly targeted the elderly such as their Social Security being checks being eliminated?
How can any decent Democrat not step up and simply say "sorry" for the shame their party put this nation through?
And how about apologizing to President Bush? For a man who has spent his entire adult life with one woman, raised two decent if fun loving children be cast as some type of Gary hart freak show.
The man hasn't had a drop to drink since entering politics, but again for some reason the Dems tried to make him out to be some type of Ted Kennedy. The good thing here was of course the Dems biggest mouth (besides Moore) wasn't able to jump on this bandwagon since he's actually an alcoholic who kills people when he's drunk.
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
DUMBYA's wife kills people when she's sober.
I KNOW, I KNOW-Low Blow because it was SO LONG AGO.
I'll be the first Dem to step up and say, "sorry" for the shame this administration is putting our country through. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3224
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Didn't Laura Bush kill someone?
Isn't Georgie an alcoholic? Drink or no drink, once an alkie always an alkie.
Straw- the undying praise for this man by you is KILLING me! THere are no perfect people in this world! Even in politics! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5124
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
To put it succinctly:
Our current level of commitment seems unsustainable, making a draft a certainty by mere arithmetic. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Never happen. Public support for the war is fragile as it is. If the administration tried to reinstate the draft, massive numbers of moderate to conservative parents would turn against the war.
This is why the upcoming Iraqi elections are critical: so we can declare "Mission Accomplished" as start pulling out.
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Fair questions. Rangel's action was a protest move, not really a "scare tactic".
"The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices." "
Some jackass on this site wrote not long ago that he couldn't go to Iraq and fight for the cause he believes so passionately in because he is too much of an "earner". His logic being that it is easier for the poor to make sacrifices than the affluent. Imagine if George Washington or Paul Revere had said that?
As for the Nat'l Guard policy, it really is pretty unfair. People are talking about it.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/207506_reserve12.html
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Strawberry wrote,"Why did the Democratic Party attempt to further split the nation with lame threats that clearly targeted the elderly such as their Social Security being checks being eliminated?
How can any decent Democrat not step up and simply say "sorry" for the shame their party put this nation through?" How about the adminstration's threats that the U.S. was in immediate danger from the WMD in Iraq? Where's apology for that blunder? Where's the shame?
The Dems are guilty of political stumbling. The White House lead us into an unnecessary war. There is no comparison.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 961
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
quote:How can any decent Democrat not step up and simply say "sorry" for the shame their party put this nation through?
They'll apologize when George WMD Bush apologizes for any of his multitude of grievous errors. Or when hell freezes over. Whichever comes first. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4267
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Bush finished what Clinton said needed to be done..
libs are so dumb.
DEC. 16, 1998
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Really stupid questions, Strawberry. But you get top marks for consistency.
At least half of Iraq is unsecured with this so-called "vote" looming. We are failing to protect anybody whom we can convince to take a role in Iraqi government, let alone a huge amount of the population. The likelihood of a draft was used by Kerry because there is no way we can do the job properly without a draft, unless other countries supply troops to fill the gap, and that ain't happening.
I suppose we should fault Kerry for not realizing that Bush had no intentions of doing the job properly to begin with. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5130
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/13thur1.html
Editorial: Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found
January 13, 2005
The world little noted, but at some point late last year
the American search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
ended.
We will, however, long remember the doomsday warnings from
the Bush administration about mushroom clouds and sinister
aluminum tubes; the breathless reports from TV
correspondents when the invasion began, speculating on when
the "smoking gun" would be unearthed; our own failures to
deconstruct all the spin and faulty intelligence.
The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may have
been one of the greatest nonevents of the early 21st
century, right up there with the failure of the world's
computers to crash at the end of the last millennium. That
Y2K scare at least brought us an updated Internet. Fear of
the nonexistent W.M.D. brought us a war.
Even after most of the sites were searched, the places that
had been identified in spy photos as sinister
weapons-production sites had been shown to be chicken
coops, and the scary reports about nuclear weapons ready to
be detonated proved to be the fantasies of feckless
intelligence analysts, die-hard supporters of the invasion
insisted that something would turn up. This proves once
again the difficulties of debunking hard-held convictions:
Mr. Bush did such a good job selling the weapons-hunting
nostrum that 40 percent of Americans recently said the
weapons were there.
The fact that nothing was found does not absolutely,
positively prove that there wasn't something there once,
something that was disassembled and trucked over the border
to Syria or buried in yet another Iraqi rose garden. But
it's not the sort of possibility you'd want to fight a war
over. What all our loss and pain and expense in the Iraqi
invasion has actually proved is that the weapons
inspections worked, that international sanctions - deeply,
deeply messy as they turned out to be - worked, and that in
the case of Saddam Hussein, the United Nations worked.
Whatever the Hussein regime once had is gone because the
international community insisted. It was all destroyed a
decade ago, under world pressure.
This is not a lesson that many people in power in
Washington are prepared to carry away, but it is what the
national adventure in the reckless doctrine of preventive
warfare has to teach us.
The findings issued last fall by the Iraq Survey Group,
which concluded that the W.M.D. threat did not exist in
Iraq when Mr. Bush decided to go to war, will apparently
stand as its final conclusions. The Washington Post
reported that the leader of the search team, Charles
Duelfer, is working on some additions that will be included
when the report is published in book form, but quoted an
intelligence official as saying there was "no particular
news" in the extra material. The 1,200 military men and
women who were assigned to his search team are now fighting
Iraqi insurgents. We hope they succeed. If they do not,
large swaths of Iraq could become a no man's land, where
terrorists will be free to work on W.M.D. projects and
United Nations weapons inspectors cannot go to thwart them.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 962
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
hey -
where in that '98 article did Clinton say anything about a full-scale military invasion and OCCUPATION of Iraq?
is it there, but in some strange code decipherable only by sycophantic Republicans? Or, did he NOT endorse the path taken by George WMD Bush?
I question, you decide. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4268
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
avoid the NY Times editorial page to prove a point. Not a wise decision. |
mjh
Citizen
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Tom,
I thought it was a thoughtful and intelligent editorial too. Thanks for posting it.
Mary Jo |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 299
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hardly boring, A good question actually. Why did Kerry and the Dems spend half of their time screaming about a draft and Bush's National Guard Service?
Why did they spend the rest of the time screaming about a war both of their candidates supported and voted for?
Why did the Democratic Party attempt to further split the nation with lame threats that clearly targeted the elderly such as their Social Security being checks being eliminated?
How can any decent Democrat not step up and simply say "sorry" for the shame their party put this nation through?
And how about apologizing to President Bush? For a man who has spent his entire adult life with one woman, raised two decent if fun loving children be cast as some type of Gary hart freak show.
The man hasn't had a drop to drink since entering politics, but again for some reason the Dems tried to make him out to be some type of Ted Kennedy. The good thing here was of course the Dems biggest mouth (besides Moore) wasn't able to jump on this bandwagon since he's actually an alcoholic who kills people when he's drunk.
BORING |
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
notehead,
nice self portrait!
What did you use?
A fun house mirror? |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 435
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Time is an interesting thing. What Clinton did years before Bush came into office is a poor measurement for the judgement of this administration. Because Clinton thought that Saddam had weaponry, doesn't mean that Bush shouldn't have tried his utmost to actually prove it. Nor does it excuse him from crafting pretenses for an attack.
Note that in the last article you cited, the word 'REbuild' is used twice. Clinton seemed to think that Saddam didn't have the capability anymore. And George W. Bush NEVER proved that he did.
I find the double standard regarding Clinton interesting. It's Clinton's military, it's Clinton's deficit, it's Clinton's C.I.A., it's Clinton's hubris. But when it comes to weapons in Iraq, suddenly it's Clinton said this and that. What reason have you to trust Clinton after screaming about how he ruined the military and the national intellegence services? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Jerkyboy, hush. The grownups are talking. |
berry festival
Citizen
Username: Berry_festival
Post Number: 111
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
LOL!! |
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:13 pm: |
|
notehead,
No.
I am an adult.
You seem to have no sense of humor.
Too bad.
Your points of view are hilarious! |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 150
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Strawberry wrote,"Bush finished what Clinton said needed to be done..
libs are so dumb." Bush hasn't finished anything, although he once announced "Mission Accomplished".
And Clinton, lib that he is, wasn't dumb enough to send 150,000 American troops to Iraq.
I'm surprised Bush fans want to argue this anymore. There's no way any of this spins positive for Bush, especially with the WMD news this week.
|
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Bottomline,
There will NOT be a draft.
.... and that's the bottom line. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 151
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Jerk,
I agree. That's what I said quite clearly in my post around 11:00 AM this morning, about 15 posts above here.
Do you read the other posts on the thread or only your own?
|
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
bottomline
BUSH finished kerry AND edwards.
clinton did not have the balls to do anything.
The Sudanese wanted hand us bin ladin and clinton balked at the opportunity.
clinton lied and fled while Bush won and led.
...and that's the bottomline.... |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Oh man... does anybody here have the time or energy to educate the new kid? |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
I think someone already did but it involved spiked Kool-Aid and a lot of jumping up and down. |
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
OK if I am the "new kid."
Can you be the "old fart?"
And man do I love Kool-Aid!
Delicious!
I'll tell you what, I'll drink the Kool-Aid if the two of you eat some crow.
ok? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 590
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:12 am: |
|
I was wondering what happened to NAILS. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 437
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Repeat of previous question: Why do you trust Clinton on only this issue? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page