Also FYI, he tried to do this a year or so ago and I don't think he got even one vote for the bill, Rangle himself didn't even vote for it.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
True, but I doubt the distinction would be made with Republicans either, point being without the support of their own party the bill is doomed to fail. But yes, 1 person is introducing the bill, and he's a Democrat.
Yeah Right, Rumor has it their gathering inner tubes as we speak.
They don't need inner tubes. History has shown that they will just fly our planes over.
Seriously though, there is a good chance that many of them are already here and waiting for the right time to attack. Also the attacks will not likely be open and blatant (ie. armies lining up to do battle with other armies) but instead will be hit and run attacks from behind. It is what they are doing in Israel as we speak.
IP: Logged
11:09 AM
fieroluv Member
Posts: 1951 From: Ft Wayne, IN USA Registered: Jul 2002
How does the draft work for prior service members. Say someone served their 6 year commitment plus the 2 year inactive duty service. Would they still be eligible for the draft?
IP: Logged
11:09 AM
Wolfhound Member
Posts: 5317 From: Opelika , Alabama, USA Registered: Oct 1999
How does the draft work for prior service members. Say someone served their 6 year commitment plus the 2 year inactive duty service. Would they still be eligible for the draft?
No, However Those who failed to show up for Texas Air National Guard Duty should go first.
Chump, The airplanes as missiles idea was only good for three out of four planes "one day only". No one now would set there waiting to hit a target. That only worked when the victims had no idea what was happening.
[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 11-20-2006).]
People forget how expensive the draft is. An all volunteer Army is a motivated and skilled Army. Draftees are not easy to train and are generally less effective combat soldiers than volunteers. The ONLY reason for a draft is to oppose a global conflict or a direct invasion.
If Rangle really wants to help why no propose legislation making it illegal to kick ROTC programs or military recuiters off campus's?
Ooops, I'm sorry, that would make too much sense.
IP: Logged
11:56 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
You guys forget. These guys are Leftist Democrats. As far as they are concerned, your ass belongs to the state already. They will tell you to jump, and we all know what most of you will reply with.
They could allow immigrants to join the military. After 8 years of service, they automatically get citizenship.
That's a thought. Stop em at the boarder and givem a choice 4 years jail or 8 years military service with honorable discharge and deport for the dishonorable.
IP: Logged
02:36 PM
PFF
System Bot
84fierotrevor Member
Posts: 4998 From: puyallup washington Registered: Oct 2001
They could allow immigrants to join the military. After 8 years of service, they automatically get citizenship.
That sounds like a good idea, except I would think, they wouldn't really be motivated or have the pride for there country like most do when they sign up. or atleast they should when they sign up. I wanna serve my country and do the best damn job i can do. give 110% I would think most of the mexicans would do the minumum they have to to get by and get citizian ship. then again I could be wrong. those mexicans down the street from me in the strawberry fields work really hard out there in the sun. just to make a tiny amount of money.
IP: Logged
02:49 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
the draft, eh? well - step #1 - first to be drafted are to be friends & family of government employees. and then, the government employees themselves. might as well draft people who agree with the fight, right? less desertion, better performance, right?
IP: Logged
03:42 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
They could allow immigrants to join the military. After 8 years of service, they automatically get citizenship.
my brother, who has never been a citizen, served in the US army he is now deported, and living in Canada.... Germany doesnt allow dual citizenships, so he remained German citizen
IP: Logged
03:43 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
my brother, who has never been a citizen, served in the US army he is now deported, and living in Canada.... Germany doesnt allow dual citizenships, so he remained German citizen
That leads me to believe he chose not to become a U.S. citizen?
IP: Logged
05:36 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
That sounds like a good idea, except I would think, they wouldn't really be motivated or have the pride for there country like most do when they sign up. or atleast they should when they sign up. I wanna serve my country and do the best damn job i can do. give 110% I would think most of the mexicans would do the minumum they have to to get by and get citizian ship. then again I could be wrong. those mexicans down the street from me in the strawberry fields work really hard out there in the sun. just to make a tiny amount of money.
Well, you offer it as a path to citizenship, not as a means to punish illegal immigrants. Illegals would still be deported, but if you wanted to come into the country, you could do so by enlisting for 8 years. I say 8 years because that's a major comittment. You want to weed out those who are looking for the easiest way to the U.S. and embrace those who genuinely want to come here to become a part of our society.
If they are dishonorably discharged, they get deported. Honorable discharges come with an offer of citizenship. If they slack off and don't perform - the military will weed them out just like any other substandard recruit.
IP: Logged
05:39 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
Also FYI, he tried to do this a year or so ago and I don't think he got even one vote for the bill, Rangle himself didn't even vote for it.
John Stricker
John, I'm REALLY surprised at that response. Methinks youre "pulling the cats tail" this time. NO ONE seriously wants to reinstate the draft. You must be aware of that. Not the democrats. Not the military. The Vietnam war proved that conscripts make less than dedicated soldiers, for the most part.
In our increasingly specialized, high tech military, mere "warm bodies in uniform" just can't cut it anymore. The draft issue, for those who weren't around the LAST TIME we discussed this, and for the slow learners on the forum, is being raised as A DEBATING TOOL. It forces a debate on the greater issues, IE: Should the USA be the worlds policeman (to put it politely)? SHOULD we force our will on soverign nations that pose no immediate threat to us just because we can? That is the real question. I would like to hear some real TRUTHFUL answers from the liars who took us into this war. MY two questions would be: 1) WHY did you invade Iraq, when there was NO real demonstrable threat to the western democracies from former US ally Saddam Hussein? 2) Once you sold us the lie and decided to invade, why didn't you fight to win? We owe our military that, IMO.
The current administration fears an honest debate on these issues because they would only look like the liars and fools they are for what they have done in the name of America.
MY two questions would be: 1) WHY did you invade Iraq, when there was NO real demonstrable threat to the western democracies from former US ally Saddam Hussein? 2) Once you sold us the lie and decided to invade, why didn't you fight to win? We owe our military that, IMO.
I agree those questions need to be answered, but before that we need to answer a more important one:
1. We're here. Now what?
I'm not suggesting we forget responsibility for how we got here. I'm just saying lets not spend so much time and energy placing blame on how we got into this situation that we don't deal with the situation at hand.
IP: Logged
10:32 PM
Spoon Member
Posts: 3762 From: Sadsburyville, PA. 19369 / USA Registered: May 2004
We all wanted war. We all were lied to. We all now know the truth. We all know that anything inflexable will break when put under too much stress. In other words to "stay the course" is not the wisest of decissions. Just ask Captain John Smith.
The people of Iraq have had several years to rally around their new government.. If they cant now then they never will.
IP: Logged
10:52 PM
Wolfhound Member
Posts: 5317 From: Opelika , Alabama, USA Registered: Oct 1999
There's no reason not to believe it. History has shown us that terrorists who want to strike at the U.S. will do so however they can. They will strike at our bases overseas, and also on our own soil.
I think the main reason we haven't had any real attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 isn't because of security measures, it's becasue our presence in the Middle East is a magnet and an easy target. Why travel to the U.S. when you can kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Once we pull out (regardless of how that is done) there will be attacks on our foreign bases and embassies, and I'll wager another attack on U.S. soil before too long.
It's not a matter of if, but when. That's what most people don't understand. No amount of security is going to prevent there ever being another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. It will happen eventually. Just accept that fact knowing the odds of you being injured in the attack are pretty microscopic and go about your life.
IP: Logged
02:30 PM
tutnkmn Member
Posts: 3426 From: York, England, U.K. Living in Ohio Registered: May 2006
They could allow immigrants to join the military. After 8 years of service, they automatically get citizenship.
Actually this worked quite well for ancient Rome. Everyone wanted to be a Roman citizen back then and enjoy the good life. An easy way was to join the Legions. After a period of service in the Army the Gaul or Israelite or Egyptian or whatever became a Roman citizen with full rights under the law. Even slaves could enlist and eventually become citizens with the right to (gasp) even own slaves. It would solve a lot of our "illegal" imigration problems and create a larger and more motivated military. Motivated because the immigrants who joined would be the honest ones who believe that they should earn their citizenship through service. Those deadbeats who wanted the good life for no effort would be easily weeded out.
The point of this legislation (other than getting people pissed at Democrats), is to force people to rethink supporting wars simply because the government wants one. Charlie Rangel thinks that a draft would make people with no connection to the military or a war's consequences think a lot harder about whether or not to support bringing our country to war. This guy knows there is no way it would pass the house or the senate. He's making unpopular suggestions, to make a political point.
I think it's stupid because now people will twist it around to paint the Dem's as wanting to send YOUR kids to war. When he is actually trying to STOP the war. Politics, that's all it is.
IP: Logged
03:41 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
MY two questions would be: 1) WHY did you invade Iraq, when there was NO real demonstrable threat to the western democracies from former US ally Saddam Hussein? 2) Once you sold us the lie and decided to invade, why didn't you fight to win? We owe our military that, IMO.
1) "you" is "we", congratulations on becoming an American Citizen. Don't think so? I'll airlift you to Al Qaeda's camp in Iraq and you can tell them it wasn't "your" idea. 100-1 you don't come back alive. The enemy is a common one whether you have brains enough to admit it or not.
2) Newsflash, Bush Didn't Lie. It was in all the papers. Can you read? As for the "fighting to win", I actually agree with you there. We should have put MORE troops in the ground with one goal; destroy everything with a gun, ask no questions, take no prisoners. Kill it and move to securing the border to keep the Iranians and Syrians out. Neither has happened to any degree of success.
Oh well, you partial credit for asking PART of a serious question.
What Al Qaeda camp would have been under the jurisdiction of Saddam?
None?
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
1) "you" is "we", congratulations on becoming an American Citizen. Don't think so? I'll airlift you to Al Qaeda's camp in Iraq and you can tell them it wasn't "your" idea. 100-1 you don't come back alive. The enemy is a common one whether you have brains enough to admit it or not.
2) Newsflash, Bush Didn't Lie. It was in all the papers. Can you read? As for the "fighting to win", I actually agree with you there. We should have put MORE troops in the ground with one goal; destroy everything with a gun, ask no questions, take no prisoners. Kill it and move to securing the border to keep the Iranians and Syrians out. Neither has happened to any degree of success.
Oh well, you partial credit for asking PART of a serious question.
The point of this legislation (other than getting people pissed at Democrats), is to force people to rethink supporting wars simply because the government wants one. Charlie Rangel thinks that a draft would make people with no connection to the military or a war's consequences think a lot harder about whether or not to support bringing our country to war. This guy knows there is no way it would pass the house or the senate. He's making unpopular suggestions, to make a political point.
I think it's stupid because now people will twist it around to paint the Dem's as wanting to send YOUR kids to war. When he is actually trying to STOP the war. Politics, that's all it is.
OK...so suppose Congressman Charles Rangel believes there is a possibility of an extremist setting off a d_rty b_mb in a US city potentially k_lling 50-100k+....or suppose something like this (or even just a plot uncovered and in the media) happened before a vote on such legislation....would you still think is just a ploy and no chance of getting past in Congress? Understand I am not suggesting a draft would protect us against such terrorism...just how politics can go wrong and/or how there maybe much more to this than simply political posturing.
So food for thought....one large deterance to the US ever being attacked in a ground war is the knowledge that our constitution allows for each citizen the right to bear arms...(with exception of convicted felons) which creates at the least the illusion that a few hundred million folks could become the force an oppressor might encounter. Not that different to the message put forth by Switzerland, Isreal even China. That and of course Hollywood with it's versions of how the west was won....war movies....and of course our secret weapons such as the Terminator...Robocop...Star Wars.... Of course all of this may be what is also driving some of this extremist holy war, particularly when you see how they are now very effectively also using the media to gain ground in thier conquest.
So what part of this draft proposal is trully " to make a political point" or "actually trying to STOP the war"....I would suggest the strategy is much more than " Politics, that's all it is.".....but just as your's is pure opinion...such is mine.
Peace and Happy Holidays to ALL.... BBTs
[This message has been edited by BigBoyToys (edited 11-22-2006).]
IP: Logged
12:32 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
What Al Qaeda camp would have been under the jurisdiction of Saddam?
None?
Nope. That would be the 3 terror training camps in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak. According to Iraqi Government documents some 2,000 Al Qeada, Sudanese Militia, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.
But I wasn't referring to these camps in any event. The current base camp for Al Qaeda in Iraq is outside of Tikrit in the heart of the Sunni Triangle.
Nope. That would be the 3 terror training camps in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak. According to Iraqi Government documents some 2,000 Al Qeada, Sudanese Militia, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.
But I wasn't referring to these camps in any event. The current base camp for Al Qaeda in Iraq is outside of Tikrit in the heart of the Sunni Triangle.
Out of those three training camps. Which one was Al Queda?
And which one was involved in terrorism against the United States?
Hmmm?? Forgot that part did you?
IP: Logged
03:14 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Out of those three training camps. Which one was Al Queda?
And which one was involved in terrorism against the United States?
Hmmm?? Forgot that part did you?
The question was "What Al Qaeda camp would have been under the jurisdiction of Saddam?"
I answered that. These THREE (not one) Al Qaeda camps were under the jurisdiction of Saddam. He had others but these were the ones that Al Qaeda members trained at according to Iraqi Intelligence.
As for your second question, they all were involved in terrorism against the United States since ANY terrorism against ANYONE is a crime against humanity under international law which the United States is treaty bound to uphold.
Glad to see you boys are finally asking questions instead of just blabbering MoveOn.org rhetoric.
A conservative rag notorious for it's blatant bias and information twisting. Did you ever notice Bill Kristol the notorious NEO CON is the editor of this paper?
Let's look around a little at what others have to say. For balance.
"In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war. "
RE: Some of those earlier reports about bio and chem weapons training in Iraq...
"In a detailed account, the London Times described how the defector had trained with Al Qaeda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at secret camps in Iraq, how the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and how the defector was given a new identity and relocated. A month later, however, a team of C.I.A. agents went to interview the man with their own interpreter. “He says, ‘No, that’s not what I said,’ ” the former intelligence official told me. “He said, ‘I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn’t Al Qaeda.’ He never saw any chemical or biological training.” Afterward, the former official said, “the C.I.A. sent out a piece of paper saying that this information was incorrect. They put it in writing.” But the C.I.A. rebuttal, like the original report, was classified. “I remember wondering whether this one would leak and correct the earlier, invalid leak. Of course, it didn’t.”
The former intelligence official went on, “One of the reasons I left was my sense that they were using the intelligence from the C.I.A. and other agencies only when it fit their agenda. They didn’t like the intelligence they were getting, and so they brought in people to write the stuff. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with—to the point of being bizarre. Dogmatic, as if they were on a mission from God.” He added, “If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”
Todd, you know as well as I that this stuff has all been sorted out and settled. There was no Al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, at least not any under Iraq's control, and even if we wanted to broaden your argument to include ANY terrorism against the West or the USA specifically you STILL can't come up with anything tangible. Sure you can find old outdated articles and biased Republican reports, but most of that has been rebutted and disproved. This debate has ended, and it ended with a thud when your party lost the argument in front of the entire world. November 7th settled that for us. You can carry the torch of denial if you like, but it just makes you look pathetic.
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 11-22-2006).]
IP: Logged
05:06 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
You denegrate Bill Krystol, one of the most respected journalists in the country and the only pundit to predict EVERY election correctly for the last 20 years? He is about as totally credible as it gets. And then you have the NERVE to post a link to the NEW YORKER "Entertainment" magazine as a news worthy source of data?
What's wrong, couldn't you find an article that backed up your delusion in Rolling Stone?
And what exactly do they say in this story!? A terrorist is captured and spills his guts about terror training camps then a month later when his lawyer tells him he may be charged with war crimes and hung ALL OF A SUDDEN he changes his story and it wasn't a terror training camp it was for "national defense".
Are you really that gullable?
Well, here is what he (Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak) ACTUALLY said on October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world....Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.”
He continued: “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.”
So much for your INTENSIVE JOURNALISTIC MASTERPIECE by the New Yorker.
Also, we KNOW Saddam had WMD, it is in every UNSCOM report known to man....WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM?
Answer that Conn. Even the Democrats agree he had WMD and despite their chest pounding about not finding any during an election year we are STILL asking where they went. They didn't just vanish Conn, they went somewhere.
If you want to remain in denial about the real threat that Iraq represented and continues to represent if Saddam didn't destroy the WMD and Al Qaeda is allowed to find them before we do, go ahead. But get off your high horse of arrogant stupidity for the love of God.
That's what I figured. You used old debunked stories to bolster your old debunked argument. 2002, 2003, might as well use something from the 80's to try and prove your case. Wait, you DID. We know they had WMD. Yeah because the USA, The UK, and the French SOLD Saddam those weapons to use against Iran because we wanted Iraq to win. We even fired on Iranian ships during the war. So of course we know he HAD WMD.
But then again, we also forced him to DESTROY those weapons after the Gulf war, when we decided we didn't want Saddam controlling Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields. Sure he had them, but then he destroyed them.
Everybody thought he may have had some left, there were some unaccounted for weapons. Turns out these weapons have been popping up here and there in munitions dumps. Old unuseable shells with chemicals that are barely potent any more. We claimed Iraq had WMD not because of the small number of old munitions, but on trumped up intelligence claiming Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs, and more importantly that he was making a nuclear weapon. Which turned out to both be false.
Now don't pretend Bill Kristol is some boy scout journalist, he is a bonified neo conservative war hawk that helped create the PNAC. He has a direct stake in the outcome of the Iraq policy. He is no neutral journalist, so don't try to claim he is. He is an active particpant and a tainted source.
No Al Queda training camps bub, no terrorism against the west coming from Iraq. You and your band of retarded followers are just about the only people left on Earth that belive this garbage. Do yourself a favor and take a nap.
Oh and BTW, I have a job A$$hole, actually it's called a career. So you can quit it with the get a job crap you have been saying in other threads.
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 11-22-2006).]
