The Draft

[jaguar]

He's still a racist idiot.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Friends, please. I'm sure that Mr. denBeste is referring to the last half-century.

"All of the discussion above refers to the current culture of the region, and the people living there now."

[DanaC]

It almost doesnt matter when the writer is referring to. Its vile.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Its vile

vile
adj. vil·er, vil·est
Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather.

But is it true? Untrue? Somewhere in between?
It seems since the Moors got kicked out of Spain, the moslems/muslims have retreated into their own world. Oil gave them clout and Isreal gave them a cause. Charismatic leaders don't seem to make much of a mark unless they are despots like Saddam or terrorists like Osama and Arafat (and Sharon). Clerics seem to rule the roost(s) and they are only interested in subservience from their flocks.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It seems since the Moors got kicked out of Spain, the moslems/muslims have retreated into their own world.

Not completely.

--Ottoman Empire
--Kemal Atatürk
--Turkey joining NATO and trying to join the EU

[Torrere]

Originally posted by richlevy


Someone should ask this moron if he wants to protest and do his taxes in Roman numerals. If it weren't for 'arabic' numbers and the invention of the zero, we would still be inventing letters for every decimal place and half decimal.

MMIV

Either that, or we could ask the Indians how to add large numbers together.

[elSicomoro]

Whether it be current, the last 50 years or forever, I stand by my original statement on item I.A.3.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Undertoad
real reasons behind the war

Having thought about this at some length, I think UT's right. Denbeste has clearly outlined the reasons for the war. Calling him a moron or racist is shooting the messenger. Is it so hard for you to believe that the linked site, clearly outlines the thinking of the Bush administration?

[Undertoad]

I don't know how closely it tracks the Bush adminstration thinking, it's just one guy writing from his house in San Diego.

[DanaC]

Really one only has to read the Project for the New American Century to get a handle on how the Bush administration thinks. Amazing how many of the people who quite happily came up with such a plan are now in positions of power from Washington to Baghdad.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I don't know how closely it tracks the Bush adminstration thinking, it's just one guy writing from his house in San Diego.

OK, but that doesn't mean he's doesn't have a handle on how the Bush brigade thinks.

[Radar]

Throughout this whole business since 9/11, Americans have not been asked to make any kind of sacrifice. (Unless you count going out and shopping as a sacrifice.)

Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the draft isn’t asking anyone to do anything, it’s forcibly enslaving someone and making them fight in a war they might not otherwise support and possibly even sending them to their death.

A draft isn't all bad. There is a silver lining.

No, it’s all bad. It’s slavery. You assume that those who don’t vote are apathetic which is mainly false. People see that when they vote for the major two parties they get the same thing. So why should they vote? The problem is they don’t realize that if they did vote for Libertarians, they would actually get change in the right direction.

So where are they going to get all the soldiers they need?

They already have more than they need spread out all over the world. They should close all foreign military bases move the troops home or to where they are needed. The fact that retention rates are down, desertions are up, and less people are signing up is only a sign that the government is getting into wars that they shouldn’t be getting into and those wars are not supported by the public (the boss).

If a war is worth fighting, people will sign up.

There are more police serving the city of London ...( a peaceful city whose residents generally are too busy being ordinary to get into much trouble and where very few people own anything more lethal than a swiss army knife).... than there are soldiers serving in Iraq, a place where a significant portion of the population are unhappy with this situation and unlike the happy londoners are often armed in the region's usual fashion with ak's and rpgs.

That’s a good thing considering we have no business in Iraq in the first place. And for the record, London is ANYTHING BUT a peaceful city where few people own anything more lethal than a swiss army knife. London and England in general have a higher rate of violent crime than America. Why? Because good people are prevented from owning guns to defend themselves against thugs and because thugs (who still have guns) know they can easily victimize those who aren’t armed.

And didn't you see the rape rooms? I did. Did you see the other torture videos? Did you see the guy getting his tongue cut out with pliers and diagonal cutters? Maybe your sources aren't really paying attention

Whether or not they had “rape rooms” or tortured people is completely irrelevant and does not justify violating the U.S. Constitution to send soldiers into Iraq. Nor would it be justification if Iraq had 10,000 nukes being built with rockets that could deliver them right into our backyards. Simply having weapons does not make them an eminent threat. Iraq should have had nukes because if they did, America wouldn’t have invaded them without provocation.

Yeeeeahhh... I guess in my world, what a dictator actually does is part of the equation, and how deeply you respect his sovereignty as a result is part of the equation, and the nature of the people and their desires, all part of the equation. To throw all those considerations out seems inhuman.

To use those “considerations” as an excuse to invade another country is insane. America is not here to force other countries to be democracies, or to treat their people the way the president thinks they should be treated. America has NO AUTHORITY beyond our own borders.
The war had NOTHING to do with “enforcing UN resolutions” and those who claim it does know less than nothing. The U.S. Government is limited to doing ONLY those things that are specifically listed in the Constitution and nothing else!!! That means “enforcing UN resolutions” is NOT allowed by the US Government. The U.S. government gets authority from the Constitution and not from the UN.

Tell that to your president who just helped Israel flip the bird at all the UN resolutions regarding their illegal occupation and brutalisation of the Palestinian people

Don’t even try that lame shit here. The Palestinians would have new U.N. resolutions against them every single day if they were a country. Every single thing that Israel has done was in their own defense. And every single square centimeter of land occupied by the Israeli government belongs to them legitimately. In fact Israel would be justified in taking ALL of the land from all of the people who attacked them in 1967. Israel has been far to gentle, kind, and accommodating to their scumbag terrorist neighbors. I’m very happy to see Israel doing the right thing lately by taking care of business. If they kill Arafat, they’d really be doing the right thing.

Israel needs to let the Palestinians and every single one of their neighbors know that if you screw with Israel, you will be destroyed. If you leave Israel alone, you will live in peace. Live in Peace or Rest in Peace are the only choices Israel should give to their neighbors.

The simple truth is there was absolutely no legitimate reason what-so-ever for America to invade Iraq…NONE!!!

[jaguar]

wwoooa......I just entered bizarro world, I agree with Radar on something:

To use those “considerations” as an excuse to invade another country is insane. America is not here to force other countries to be democracies, or to treat their people the way the president thinks they should be treated. America has NO AUTHORITY beyond our own borders.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh yeah?

au·thor·i·ty
(click to hear the word) (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties

The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials

[Radar]

None of those apply to the U.S. Government when it comes to sovereign foreign nations. Sovereign nations have not invested governing power to the United States. And the United States was created to escape from imperialistic tyrrany, not to practice it like George W. Bush and his ilk would like. Iraq is a sovereign state.

Sovereign State: a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.