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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Citing a copy of the draft strategic framework agreement dated March 7 that it obtained, the newspaper said that the document is designed to replace the current United Nations mandate, which expires at the end of the year.
According to The Guardian, the agreement allows the United States to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without including a time limit.
It also does not put any limits on the number of American forces allowed in Iraq, the weapons they can use, the legal status of US troops in Iraq or the powers they hold over Iraqi citizens.
Originally posted by Leviatano
where are they going to get the funds from?
Originally posted by Bunch
I would add to your comments that not only the American people loses in this venture, but all people of all the countries involved.
Originally posted by Leviatano
It also makes me wonder about our voting procedurs and whatever else we do in this country. Will it ultimately make a difference?
Originally posted by Leviatano
Boy I can't wait until someone slips and lets out a free alternative to energy like using the oxygen or water or something to run our cars.
That Other Military Draft
The Department of Defense reports that sailors and Air Force members are carrying out many different missions in Iraq, from traditional duties in the air and sea to construction jobs, medical operations, civil affairs, customs inspection, security, and detention operations. Most are promised non-combat roles in Iraq, but many have found themselves to be in harm's way once they arrive.
"Technically, these combat-related assignments do not violate service members' contracts," said Lawrence Korb, who handled manpower as assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. "But many … are not volunteering for these jobs – they're being told to do them."
www.antiwar.com...
So ask yourself this: What sense would it make to piss off millions of gun owners to prevent revolution, only to turn around and draft those same pissed off gun owners and arm them with bigger, stronger, more accurate weapons? Aren't you just asking for a revolution?
Originally posted by Leviatano
Could that be seen as draft those people, equip them and get them out of the nation to get a better hold on the nation?