to not support the war is supporting terrorism (at least now, maybe not before the elections)--take note from the Brittish Antiwar leader who resigned on this principle

This is something that drives me INSANE.

Do those who believe this really think the world is black and white? Good against evil? God against the Devil?

I don't support the war, I guess I support terrorism then. Would you like to add a little graphic in your sig stating that ninty is a terrorist? I'll make it for you.

pm a pic, ill make one for him : )

oOo:

Imo majority of the wars throughout history were unnecessary, but there's people in certain positions that have the power to make and keep them necessary. One person's necessary is anothers unnecessary.

I never said this war was necessary or not, I'm just defending the positive work the US soldiers have done in spite of doing it for what seems like nothing to certain people.

I wouldn't of even replied to that.

^^

The new Ponte! dance:

They have no fucking clue who ponte or reck is Havoc... this isn't biahq... or fpscentral.com lol...

lol well... hey... you do! So there... cool:

First off, regarding the US engagement policy, the United States not only meets the international requirements of the LOAC, it also exceeds them with their own ROE published as the SROE.

Here is some information on the LOAC:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Remember, the rules followed by the US - the SROE - meet or exceed minimum requirements of the LOAC in all areas. A copy of the unclassified portions of the SROE can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/cjcs_sroe.pdf

The United States military, after Vietnam, found it necessary to make identification of hostiles and hostile targets as streamlined and efficient as possible. I doubt you understand the weight of this since you're probably still in high school and never had an 8-year old start tossing grenades at you. I'm not saying I have, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Again, research on this kind of thing is important. It is irresponsible to make a broad assumption that the US engagement policy is the cause of the majority of the civilian casualties in Iraq. As I recall, insurgents managed to exceed US-related civilian casualties for a full quarter of a year in a single day. Keep things in proportion.

[quote:5028f]He added: "By simply calling for 'troops out', it gives succour to terrorists who are killing the very trade unionists and ordinary citizens we should be supporting."[/quote:5028f]



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 30,00.html

I didnt say you supported the terrorist-but it helps the terrorist newtworks

sleeping:

yeah, i guess this has gotten offtopic--there will never be another US draft (hopefully).

Drew, first off you are doing a very good job of proving me wrong, something which doesn’t happen very often, so I would like you commend you that. And secondly I would like to apologize for stereotyping conservatives, more often than not I run across people who simply deny the facts and the support right wing agendas without fully understanding what they are supporting. You are an exception. Anyway maybe it’s not the policies then, but there is no denying the fact that the friendly fire rate of the US forces is disturbing high. I hate to blame it on the soldiers, but is it possible that the squad leaders are trigger happy? After all it is known that the US pilots that bomb the Canadians in the training zone in Afghanistan were given methamphetamine….

I won't even deny that most people who think they share my views tend to be on the less educated side of things. You are beyond 100% correct on that point biggrin:

Anyway, it's hard to really pick out one particular situation in combat and say, "This is why there is friendly fire," or "This is why there are civilian casualties." Combat is a very fluid and unpredictable thing. When you're making decisions with the knowledge that a hesitation or a mistake could potentially cost you not only your life, but cost the lives of your squad mates, it's going to affect your decision-making process. It is probably also a good idea to remember that the United States deploys an exponentially larger number of soldiers into combat situations around the world than does Canada or the UK. This could very easily be the reason for higher numbers of friendly fire incidents.

As for the incident with the US/Canadian friendly-fire.. there were a whole, whole bunch of problems with that. The commander who ordered the training exercise in the first place never reported it to CENTCOM in the area so that all entities in the area were aware. Not even the Canadian AWACS crew, who was providing the radar and imaging data to the pilots, knew that the soldiers on the ground were Canadian. They soldiers on the ground were also firing their weapons as it was a live-fire exercise.

That being said, the US pilots actually violated the ROE by not attempting to evade the fire (they were at 20,000+ feet I believe, which basically already evades any small-arms fire) prior to dropping the bomb. That's a problem with the specific officer and his commander.

As for the stimulants, they were on dexamphetamine as I recall. Very different from methamphetamine. It is still an extremely powerful stimulant, however it doesn't have a majority of the negative effects of methamphetamines.

Saddam Hussein does not support Osama Bin Laden.

The War in Iraq- politically correct imperialism, Iraq has a lot of oil, we take out the Government and ruin the country there's lots of $£ to be made rebuilding it and there would be no economic sanctions to be made against a crackpot dictatorship, the trade would flow freely and the US economy which was in recession can recover. There were no WMD's, this was just an excuse to launch an illegal pre-emptive strike against Iraq. If we were really concerned about fighting terrorism there's a million and one other places we could have invaded instead of Iraq, it just so happens to be that a large number of those million and one places do not have as much oil. There could be terrorists in Angola, the country is floating on oil, and a thousand times more corrupt than Iraq was, it could provide a safe haven for anyone on the run. But Fundamentalist Christians don't think the antiChrist will rule from Luanda, they think he will rule from Bagdad, and neocon Jews don't care squat for Black countries; to them it's all "zululand".

I sometimes wonder why we didn't invade Iran instead as they probably have closer ties with terrorists and have more evidence of WMD. I think I may have accidentally stumbled over Bush's foreign policy with this thought because Bush knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's so decided to take over. But he wasn't sure if Iran had any, so he was catious not to provocate the disaster.

I m not sure what your point was in saying " fuck it is a serial killers dream." However i do not think the US Army is recruiting psychotic people.

That s like saying...Im sure there must be some members who does not masturbate in this forum....but over 90% do. calmdown: I m not really trying to bash you, but just trying to prove that your statement was useless for this thread and was more like trying to either start an argument with someone or you just read the thread and you felt like saying anything. In other words spam it freak: ironic eek:

There is no way there will be a draft for just the war in Iraq, but it really does not matter, I am already taken care of.

i dont see why all the people from canada and england are all worked up , this is an issue that deals with america only.

Not really, it could definately cause certain things to happen. Especially if the Britons are our Ally during a draft. Would they do the same? My ignorance of the British equivalent of a draft can be understood.

And it doesnt matter what country youre from to be anti war.

ok

*edit*

According to this site, the US draft will be reinstated within 75 days of March 31, 2005:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/19/191951/450

That is some interesting information. I still don't think there will be a draft, simply due to how grossly unpopular it would be. It would more or less assure a Democratic victory in the 2008 election and I just don't see Republicans making that move.

That being said, I guess we can't really rule out the possibility that something VERY big is taking place behind closed doors. You never know what kind of war might be about to break loose, etc. that could fuel the need for a draft.

That being said, I suppose I have reason to be slightly concerned about the idea of a "non-combat skills" draft.

Because of heart surgery I had as a child, I cannot be drafted into a combat role. I would also be passed over in a general draft. However, because of my national registered IQ scores (I've said it once and I'll say it again, having a high IQ does nothing but suck) I would be called up in the first round of a non-combat draft to be trained in a specialized field such as intelligence analysis, etc.

So, yeah. Could be interesting.

Here's another article for you:

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... icle=27847

Again, good link with an interesting perspective. Still, I think it's going to take a major catastrophe to see a draft before 2008.

I must admit that the idea of the draft, while somewhat of an inconvenience, is something to which I am not entirely opposed.

Many countries, Spain is one I can name off the top of my head, require high school graduates to engage in 9 months of community service or military service. Many other developed nations require compulsory military service of their young citizens for a few months or a year. This is, in essence, an entire generation of military personnel who are good for at least one tour of duty, more if they opt to remain in the military. I personally think it would be great for the evermore retarded kids pouring out of schools these days.

I'm not even really worried about the draft, to be honest. Military service would only make my resume look even better and I know I wouldn't end up in a combat role. On top of that, I just finished up my degree so I'd enter service as an officer.

we can expect to see a 75% pregnency increase among drafted females

rolleyes: sleeping:

http://www.blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

[quote:9d42d]We now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service, Flavahan and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the draft, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. The proposed changes discussed in this meeting include:


* Allowing a non-combat draft for shortages in critical skills, without calling a combat draft. This non-combat skills draft would induct men and women ages 18 to 34.

* Fill labor shortages of all kinds throughout not only DoD but the Dept. of Homeland Security and other agencies as well, especially high-paying professionals like computer networking specialist or linguist. However, truck drivers, cooks and several hundred other skills are also considered "critical".

* Create a single-point, all-inclusive database, in which every young person would be forced to send in a "self-declaration"--like an IRS form--of all of their critical skills, chosen from a long list o f several hundred occupations like the Air Force Specialty Code with Skills Identifier. The usual penalties of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine would apply to all non-registrants.

* Upgrade the Medical Draft so that it collected data on skill sets and other information in the same way the Skills Draft would.

* Reduce induction time from being able to deliver all inductees in 193 days down to just 90 days for skills and medical inductees.


The Agenda document begins by declaring:

"With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as part of Homeland Security planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System's registration program and primary mission."

And goes on:

"Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc. The costs of attracting and retaining such personnel for military-service could be prohibitive, leading some officials to conclude that while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis, if too few volunteer."

So the Agenda document proposes:

"In line with today's needs, the SSS structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered towards maintaining a national inventory of American men and (for the first time) women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills."

The head of the Selective Service then explained to the Deputy Undersecretaries how the Skills Draft would work:

"... In addition to the basic identifying information collected in the current program, the expanded and revised program would require all registrants to indicate whether they have been trained in, possess, and professionally practice, one or more skills critical to national security or community health and safety. This could take the form of an initial "self-declaration" as a part of the registration process. Men and women would enter on the SSS registration form a multi-digit number representing their specific critical skill (e.g., similar to military occupational specialty or Armed Forces Specialty Code with Skill Identifier), taken from a lengthy list of skills to be compiled and published by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the practiced skill in which they have the greatest degree of experience and competency. They would also be required to update reported information as necessary until they reach the age 35. This unique data base would provide the military (and national, state, and municipal government agencies) with immediately available links to vital human resources...in effect, a single, most accurate and complete, national inventory of young Americans with special skills."

In short, if a Skills Draft and Medical Draft are authorized by Bush and the Republican Congress in 2005, nearly 40 million young people and a somewhat overlapping 13.5 million doctors, nurses and specialists ages 20-44 will have to go to their local Post Office and register with the IRS. The form will have on it a list of several hundred skills for the skills draft, and at least 61 medical specialties for the Medical Draft form, probably along with a host of other medical occupations, from dental lab technician to health forms processor. Under penalty of a $250,000 fine, these tens of millions of Americans will "self-declare" their name address and all of their skills--and they could be drafted for any one of them--by writing down the coded number for that occupation. Recently, the DoD asked the IRS to help them track down the whereabouts of 50,000 Ready Reserve soldiers they had lost track of, so not registering could be very problematic in 2005.

But this new FOI-recovered document and the actions that the SSS admits they are taking in 2004 proves that at the very least, a Skills Draft and Medical Draft are being quietly readied for 2005--"just in case".

From the FOI document, we now know at the end of the Feb. 11 Agenda document the Head of the Selective Service presented the Pentagon with three 3 Options. Option 1 was to maintain the status quo of male-only registration and the not-quite ready Medical Draft. Option 2 was to put the whole Selective Service into "Deep Standby" with reduced funding. From all indications, and from the statements of the SSS itself (see timeline below), the Pentagon has obviously decided to go ahead with Option 3a and Option 3b, which read:

"Next Step A. #3. Restructure the SSS and shift its peacetime focus to accommodate DoD's most likely requirements in a crisis. Plan for conducting a more likely draft of individual with special and critical skills.

a. Minimum requirement: SSS mission guidance and time lines must be redefined promptly by DoD to allow more relevant pre-mobilization planning and funding for the possibility of a critical skills draft at M+90 or sooner (M+ is the number of days from authorization of a draft to delivery of the manpower to the DoD -ed.). Peacetime registration of men 18 through 25 would continue, but consideration would also be given to identifying men with certain critical skills among these year-of-birth groupings. A post-mobilization plan would also be devised and computer programming accomplished for a full-blown critical skills draft. The HCPDS program is completed, brought to the forefront of SSS readiness planning, and tested through exercises...

b. Expanded pre-mobilization requirement. SSS peacetime registration expanded to include women and men, 18 through 34 years old, and collects information on critical skills within these year-of-birth groupings..."

Note that the memo is recommending that a minimum requirement for going forward would be a "post-mobilization plan would also be devised and computer programming accomplished for a full-blown critical skills draft. The HCPDS program is completed, brought to the forefront of SSS readiness planning, and tested through exercises"

From all signs, the Selective Service was quietly asked by the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, to undertake Option 3a and 3b of the Agenda memo over a year ago. The possibility of a Skills Draft or Combat Draft, and the apparent attempt of Donald Rumsfeld, Selective Service spokesman Amon and Acting Director Brodsky to mislead reporters and the public on this issue deserve full debate before the election.

[/quote:9d42d]

Forgot to post this the other day:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 ... RC=army.nl

interesting sig you've got there.

What is lost in all of these links and conspiracy wrangling is that. . .shocks and gee-willickers - the Selective Service is DOING ITS JOB. The "special report" is no more special the the annual report of last year, or the year before - or the year before that. But folks unfamiliar with how things work, get exposed to "new information" and think some new change is happening in the wind. Shocking.

The "damning March 31st report" - is as they say in the biz. . ."business as usual". . .

You may however continue to hand wring and worry about a non-existant draft issue.[/img]

[quote="TGB!":80ce4]What is lost in all of these links and conspiracy wrangling is that. . .shocks and gee-willickers - the Selective Service is DOING ITS JOB. The "special report" is no more special the the annual report of last year, or the year before - or the year before that. But folks unfamiliar with how things work, get exposed to "new information" and think some new change is happening in the wind. Shocking.

The "damning March 31st report" - is as they say in the biz. . ."business as usual". . .

You may however continue to hand wring and worry about a non-existant draft issue.[/img][/quote:80ce4]


You never change prick. You are honestly no better then Bob Novak.

i dont like tgb, but he is right. Noone cares about those links. It doesnt make you look smarter, or prove any points.

[quote="Short Hand":6cd98]

You never change prick.[/quote:6cd98]

Being right - no I dont. Should try it sometime Fatty McCallister.


[quote:6cd98]You are honestly no better then Bob Novak.[/quote:6cd98]

Name-Dropping-Conservative-Pundits!=Social-Awareness

Try again Charlie Brown. . .I promise this time I wont move the football.

"The war on terrorism will not be over in our lifetime. It is different than the Gulf War was in the sense that it may never end. At least not in our lifetime. The way I think of it is, it's a new normalcy."

Vice President Dick Cheney, October 21, 2001.

sleeping:


If you can't make the connection between the quote and the current situation, then I don't know what to tell you bud.