It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: No back door draft?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
marg6043 the problem isnt that the USA and a few allies attacked Iraq . The problem is that Bush and his cronies made a mess of post war Iraq there was no plans for the occupation of Iraq.


That is exactly what I has said for months, thanks for bringing the point back.

Now people is starting to open their eyes after the glory of invasion and easy take over, the truth is that it all turn into ca ca, yeah it turn into dodo.

I happened to see all this earlier than most, and for that I was label by some many things, I stood by my believe and now look what is happening, I was right after all, the war in Iraq is a mess.




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by iksmodnad
Leave politics to politicans...


Yikes. Perhaps when you are over in Iraq, or Iran, or whatever country is being "liberated" by the time there is a need for the government to select you for voluntary military service, you should read the Constitution to understand how Democracy works. Americans are supposed to be involved in how the country is run, not subject to it.

The issue is that in some cases, there was no fine print on the contracts signed. In the instance of some individuals that signed up under the "Try One" National Reserves program--you sign up on a trial basis for one year and have the option of signing up for a full enlistment at the end of the term--there is no language referencing involuntary extension in the contract. Yet these trial members found themselves extended indefinitely under the stop-loss order. They are suing--this is a blatant case of false advertising. These people were specifically told that they had the option of ending their relationship with the Reserves after 12 months and there was no language in the contract that said otherwise, yet they now find themselves still in Iraq and their paystubs saying that their contracts end in the year 2031.

washingtontimes.com...

Kudos to those who are informed and prepared for military service, but not every 17 and 18 year old is mature enough to understand what they are getting in to. Recruiting tactics typically don't mention the fact that service can be indefinitely extended. Some of the contracts signed don't include this specific language-some only include reference to the military code (by number, no less) that outlines when a stop-loss will be invoked (and apparently some contracts don't even include any such language.)

Recruiters use high-pressure sales tactics to convince kids to join up--they emphasize the transferrable skills that will help them get a job when they get out and the money they will earn towards college. Apparently if they die during service or are in the army until they are a senior citizen, this becomes a moot point. Nothing is said about the the emotional and physical consequences of going to war, the potential to be in the military indefinitely, and the death factor.

It is not unusual to assume that young kids don't have the wisdom gained with experience to take a contract to an attorney before signing it--most of these kids don't even have the money to do such a thing and some of these kids probably wouldn't understand what they are signing on their own. Some people who enlist don't have parents that can help them with this decision either. They are relying on the recruiter to interpret the contract for them, and I am sure the negative points aren't mentioned. I have even heard of cases where recruiters have blatantly lied about contract terms. This is criminal as it can result in death--I don't know how these people sleep at night.

It is obvious that there needs to be an explicit disclosure made to candidates for military recruitment before the contract is signed. Perhaps this will result in fewer recruits, but it is only fair that those who enlist know exactly what they are getting in to.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
2 things here.

1) we do not live in a true demoracy.
2) I never said i was joining the military, I just said I am joining the selective service which is required by law.

I pretty much know what is coming so I am not posting in here again. I'll hold my self to it.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by iksmodnad]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iksmodnad
Drafts are a part of war, DEAL WITH IT. I am going to be 18 in a few months, Ill have to join the selective service. If I am called up you bet your backside I'll be ready to go over to Iraq and kick some terrorist butt.


wow. Totally original thought. So you are going to kick terrorist butt. You going to start with those in Washington or are you just going to kill Arab men that you are told are terrorists?

I think independent thought should be required before anyone is allowed to hold a weapon.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iksmodnad
Drafts are a part of war, DEAL WITH IT. I am going to be 18 in a few months, Ill have to join the selective service. If I am called up you bet your backside I'll be ready to go over to Iraq and kick some terrorist butt.


You're very young and passionate. That's nice, but I suggest you think about the more than 1200 of your countrymen and women who have died todate, the 9 who come back forever altered with disabilities for every one that dies, and of course the more than 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and more everyday. And why? Because of fabrications and exagerations of your prez and his cronies.

Were all these people terrorists? Remember, their life was supposed to be better after Saddam was captured...have you seen their living conditions improve since "mission accomplished?" I think not.


You have a lot to learn my friend...I suggest reading and watching something other than the mainstream media. Joining ATS was a good start too. If you are brave enough to look at the facts in the face, you may not be in such a hurry to go get yourself killed. Don't screw up your life for an unwinnable war. Stay in school, learn and deny ignorance. You'll do much more good for your country that way.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Excellent post. I couldn't have said it better myself. Really. I couldn't have.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Thanks, buddy. Hope it makes a dent. Most of the misery of this world is caused by war...but unnecessary war and the waste and loss of life that results from it makes me nuts.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
You're very young and passionate. That's nice, but I suggest you think about the more than 1200 of your countrymen and women who have died todate, the 9 who come back forever altered with disabilities for every one that dies, and of course the more than 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and more everyday. And why? Because of fabrications and exagerations of your prez and his cronies.

Were all these people terrorists? Remember, their life was supposed to be better after Saddam was captured...have you seen their living conditions improve since "mission accomplished?" I think not.


AlwaysLearning, let's see if you actually stand up by your username....

First of...and once more...what fabrications are you talking about?

Do you mean that president Bush and his administration made up that Iraq had wmd?..... Let's see if that is true...


The first excerpt is from a speech by former president Clinton in February 17, 1998.


Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.
........................................
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
.......................................
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
.......................................
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.


Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

The following is part of the speech of Hillary Clinton before Congress.


In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
.....................
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.


Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

Read well this part, is very interesting what she said here.


It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.


Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

Hillary Clinton saying that Saddam could alter and affect the American security?....
She is a liar....that Democrat....

The list is long, pretty much every democrat, including Kerry, agreed that something must be done with Iraq, including force if necessary..... Now....once more...what.......... lies and exagerations are you talking about that Bush and his administration made up?.......


You should take your own advice, and do some research instead of just visiting sites which have the propaganda of trying to throw president Bush from office.

If you look for unbiased information, and why did we have intelligence, along with many other countries, since the past two administrations that Saddam still had wmd and was seeking to get more, perhaps you will see one of the reasons why we are there now.

If he didn't why in the world did we find banned materials, banned rockets, tons of documents dealing with wmd programs?

Why was he playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors, not allowing them to visit sites, unless they were given a week of more of notice?....

Why did the amount of explosives which are used for detonating wmd dramatically increased by several tons since the last time that IAEA monitored and sealed them at the Al-Qaqaa facility?....

The list of evidence goes on, and it is a long list. If you do a search in these forums you will find a lot of that evidence.


[edit on 13-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Muad... I'm not sure that using Clinton as a model for integrity is the best way to make a point.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
When you are in the military counting down the days until you get out is a common practice. Imagine for every day you had a paper clip repesenting a day. Join all the paper clips together. As you get close to the day you leave the military your chain of paper clips become shorter. The shorter the better. Therefore, the common comment among soldiers is how short are you. Now imagine the government extending the time in theater or extending your active service obligation. You go from short to here forever. It is bad for current morale. It is bad for recruiting future soldiers. Basically it is a failed strategy in the long term. Who in their right mind would sign up for an unlimited time in the military and an unlimited time in a war zone?

But for some reason the government is not thinking in the long term. Why not? Do they know something we do not? In this new era whereby the war on terror will continue for decades if it ever ends, Soldiers will be needed more than just state of the art technology. Therefore, soldiers are at great risk of dying young and early.

In fact there is a term for soldiers who select to stay in the military and try to retire. It is LIFER, Lazy Ineffiecint Fockers Expecting Retirement. Today anyone in must consider themselves LIFERs. Not good for morale either. But I here a rummy is running the thing anyway.

God bless the people serving. Pray for them ofter. Don't forget to keep their families in your prayers as well!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
Thanks, buddy. Hope it makes a dent. Most of the misery of this world is caused by war...but unnecessary war and the waste and loss of life that results from it makes me nuts.


Most of this world, if not all, was forged through wars, including Republics.

War is hell, but war has made possible for many nations in the world to live in relative freedom.

Contrary to what you say, most of the misery in this world is caused by ignorance and the unwillingness of people to commit themselves to do something about what is happening in the world.

Take as an example the massacre that happened in Rwanda in 1999.

Bear with me as this shows exactly what happens when a nation like the US turns it's back to troubled nations.

It was a time when Clinton was in office, our forces were in Somalia as we were helping out in a relief mission to feed starving people, meanwhile there was a civil war in that area. Some of our soldiers were sent in helos to grab two warlords, but things went wrong and 18-19 of our men were killed, several injured.

The Somalian rebels, which were under the orders of warlords, took the body of one of our soldiers, tied his body to a vehicle, and proceeded to drive through the town.... That despicable act, and the fact that 18-19 american soldiers died, and many were injured, made the then president Clinton decide to take our troops from Somalia and not become involved in it, or in any other attrocities that were happening in south Africa.

What happened after that was the death of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. Even knowing that this was going on, Clinton decided not to do a thing, because of what happened in what is now known by many people as "Black Hawk Down."

Now, in Iraq pretty much the same thing was happening, but it was a more controlled massacre being carried out by Saddam and his loyal forces. It is estimated that Saddam killed from 500,000 - 1,000,000 Iraqis according to humanitarian groups and the Iraqi interim government.

The peaceful solution that Clinton and the UN decided to allow to continue was the sanctions on iraq which killed 560,000 iraqi children under the age of 5.

Would you prefer if we did not get involved at all, allowed Saddam to keep getting more wmd, which there were, and allow for more children and Iraqis to be killed by Saddam?....

Now take as an example the amount of Iraqis which are being reported to have been killed since the beginning of the war.... You should know that many Iraqis have been killed by the insurgents with their attacks, US soldiers have died protecting Iraqis from insurgent attacks, and more often than not Iraqis civilians die from road bombs and other insurgent attacks, including suicide bombers.

The US and coalition are not the only ones causing casualties, and you should also realize that many of those casualties are also terrorists/insurgents that crossed the border to fight against "the infidels."

You want the US and the world to stay away from all conflicts, and let these terrorists kill each other?...well, the thing is that these same terrorists have proven that they will attack the US and other countries, no matter what. Even before the war, and 9/11 we were attacked, the WTC was bombed in 1993 and tehre have been many other attacks. Do a search in these forums and you will see that Osama had said in interviews what their goals are. That they were already thinking on ways to attack the west whe we were helping them against the Russians in the 1980s, they were just waiting to get rid of the Russians and then they would start their war against the west.

This is something we cannot run from, Osama, his terrorist group and many others have one thing in mind. Either convert the world to islam, or destroy as many infidels as possible. Saddam was not only acquiring wmd, he was helping terrorists too, including Al Qaeda.


----edited to correct errors and add comments----

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Softwareman1 I coundnt have
sumed up the problem better myself.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Muad... I'm not sure that using Clinton as a model for integrity is the best way to make a point.


You want a list what most other democrats were saying up to before the war?

There is much information out there that points to the fact that most democrats that were in power before this administration were saying the same thing that president Bush and his administration were saying.

If we turn our back to the world, the problem is going to hit us sooner or later, you can't run or hide away from terrorism.


[edit on 13-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
When you people are going to understand that this president is nothing more and nothing less than a self proclaim war president and you, your family, friends and everybody else is paying and is going to pay for his pursue of glory.

Ironic, the glory has turn into Dodo.


I see the lines at the recruiting offices full of volunteers for his wars.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Muaddib and expert11 - I'm not ignorning you. My internet's been down all day. Its back up now, but I have to go out. I will get back to you l8tr
I have lots to say on the matter, and you're probably not going to like it. But our goal here is to deny ignorance, something sadly you two are not doing.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of...and once more...what fabrications are you talking about?

Do you mean that president Bush and his administration made up that Iraq had wmd?..... Let's see if that is true...


Well, I don't think you are living in a cave Muaddib, but I do think that the hot south Florida sun has addled your brain some!
I jus'love Sarasota!

Kidding aside, you must be one of those who believes in going to war as a FIRST resort, instead of an absolute LAST resort.

Am I saying that BushCo lied? HELL YES!

In August '02 Cheney told an audience of veterans "There’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and that he will use them] against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

Why did he say this when he didn't have absolute proof? Because selling the nuclear threat was imperative to justify to the American people the need for the invasion of Iraq.

BushCo fabricated a "rumour" that Saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger (for the fabrication of WMD). This rumour was completely refuted by one Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent to Niger to investigate:

www.commondreams.org...

But lo' and behold...the info appeared anyway in Bush's State of the Union address in January 03:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

www.whitehouse.gov...

NOT! But they didn't care that it wasn't true...they had to get the American people on board you see.... But...the allegation or information had to come from another country in order to make it credible to the people. Enter Tony Blair (another b**tard cut from the same cloth).

And it continued...in March 03 Cheney said: "we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Bottom line is, the inspectors, including Hans Blix, were there, they were doing their job...but guess what... they weren't finding the so called WMD. That's why the Security Council did not go forward with a resolution for war, despite BushCo's best efforts of making the case - with satellite photo imagery no less. (BTW, they did the same thing to justify the first Iraq invasion too).

Tell me why the U.S. couldn't wait until the inspectors finished their work? Because they knew what the result was going to be! They knew that they wouldn't get the support of the world community if there was no proof of WMD. And this invasion had been planned for a very long time, so they had to discredit Hans Blix:

truthout.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...

Listen, its neither here nor there if you believe me. All the information is out there, all you have to do is be open minded and look for yourself..

If you want to continue the discussion, fine, but ask yourself one question first: how did the invasion go from "finding and removing WMD" to "regime change"? Even though Tony Blair said it wasn't about regime change shortly before the invasion he was in on it from the get go. They all make me sick.

The proof is in the pudding -the Security Council and most of the world did not support the war, whereas if WMD had been found there would have been no question. Going to war when its absolutely necessary, yes. Going to a frivilous, careless war, with no thought to the aftermath is quite another matter. To anyone who really wants to look at it in the face - it was never about WMD. You draw your own conclusions.

Enough said: www.atsnn.com...















new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join