The Draft [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

DontBeAfraid

Apr 17th, 2004, 9:17 PM

This is not a mantra MD as it has only been applied to two people thus far and as far as I can tell one of them has grown out of it. It is grounded in the "poor me" posts that are the only things that seem to come out of DN(one has been warrented so far).

As it relates to this specific situation I believe I have a greater understanding of it than you do MD but I could be wrong.

The only thing that was not entirely grounded in the post your quote came from was my evaluation of her as a soldier. Though unless she gained all her "extra" weight after leaving the military they could be nothing but spot on.

I know the country has 'issues' MD but when one person thinks these issues are only targeting her it is more likely that the issues are not the countries but are the individuals and are not broad issues that apply to many but personal and to few. Now to apply what I have just stated to the situation so it isnt lost on anybody:
In this case its much less likely that the military is "anti-christian", as I KNOW it isnt, than it is that DN was simply looking for a reason to be angry at the world and feel sorry for herself. If this was the first post I had ever read from her and I hadnt been in the army I might just argue the point that the army is NOT anti christian but in most of her posts there is the tone that AMERICA is anti-Defiant Noquisi be it her religion, race, political persuasion or whatever.

Thanks for making me explain myself MD, while I can never know if you REALLY understand where Im coming from because of your "fluctuating persona" Im sure that there are some who wouldnt understand me if you didnt put me on the spot.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 17th, 2004, 10:01 PM

Im going to call you a liar right now because 'atheist' is not now nor has it EVER been a choice for the tags. I dont know about tags and made no reference to them(Why dont you learn how to read youngster.) but it was a religious preference option so they knew where to send us on Sunday in the Corps, which you would have no clue about.

Im not you so I didnt live YOUR life, but I did have the expirence not being a christian in the army.... So I think I can relate. I however wasnt an out-of-shape, substandard soldier so maybe I got the 'special' treatment you wish you had. No, you cant relate since you allegedly were in an entirely different branch of the military than I. I need no special treatment although arrogant individuals such as yourself probably did. I imagine you mightve played someone's house mouse more often than not while the rest of us carried out our orders which is why you posted these elementary school level putdowns.

I still believe, as I did before, that you are the 'victim' type.... You get the same treatment the average person gets but you cry about it because you want 'special' treatment. Only people with limited education such as yourself could regurgitate the same old tripe. The lack of something of substance in what you post leads me to believe you might even be almost simple minded. I dont believe you are as old as you might imply in your posts. Your content and how you present it is much too immature, in fact, it is more representative of a whining cur.

Try and relax child, I wouldnt want you to stress yourself and break a vessel trying to think of something less ignorant to post.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 17th, 2004, 10:30 PM

This mantra of yours is getting tired, DBA..<snip>...There is no victim mentality here. I cant imagine the truth will show itself to him Mickey, it would take him elevating himself above the simpleton innuendoes and insults to see it. I will always hold out some hope however.

How he could claim to not live my life, yet post of an opinion that would imply he has virtually sat next to me most of my life is a bit disturbing. I liken his posts to some little kid whining because he was called a name.

He may not be that young but Ive got a feeling that while I was marching at Parris Island his parents were deciding what color Garanimals he would wear that day.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 17th, 2004, 10:42 PM

ok dingleberry, your options on the tags were the SAME as your options on paper and sinse they are the same this, along with many other factors, determined where you were headed any given sunday. And 'atheist' is not an option on either, only 'no religious preference'. There are also standard operational procedures that are military wide no matter what branch you are in and this is one of them.

I was infantry with MUCH special training. You are a female and Im guessing you used to be when you were in the military. You were a pogue, this is another thing that is standard throughout the military. Females are not allowed in non-pogue positions while people with my caliber of training were not allowed to be used as house monkeys by over-zealous officers. So I guess I really cant relate to being an out of shape female pogue but we did have the common factor of being in the military and not being christian and I thought that is what we were talking about.

You see only what you want to see DN. Yes, I am younger than you and many here, but if you want to start comparing test scores you would soon realize that age DOES NOT directly relate to intelligence. Again it is evident that you didnt fully understand what I posted but this time is much better than the last time I wasnt ignoring you. Sadly if your posts keep inspiring me to point out that the world ISNT against you, even though this is how you must want to see things, you will go back on the ignore list.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 18th, 2004, 1:39 AM

Dingleberry? Pogue? Comments about my health that you can only assume since at that time you were just a few years past eating Cheerios with your hands? Yeah sure kid.

You seem to expect a certain amount of respect from me which will never occur until you mature and get past the juvenile whining and name calling. We ALL served an integral part and Im beginning to doubt you were even in the military since you post so arrogant and singleminded about it. The branches procedures may be similar NOW but they most certainly were NOT when I was in. In fact they were VERY different then.

Kid, when I was in they were just phasing out punishment by physical contact so your military experience was much different than mine since yours was a "kinder" and "nicer" military experience.

As for religious choices there were few and if you didnt pick one you were chewed out, chastised and put on latrine duty (if you were lucky) because it was a God AND Country mentality and if you didnt choose God you werent choosing your country either. You ever see Full Metal Jacket? My experience was not that much different except we were not at war at the time.

Resorting to commentary about my weight (which your comments are very innaccurate) is spewing juvenile rhetoric. Hopefully growing up will be an option for you in the future.

Since you cant handle my opinions and experiences being different from your own nor can you allow objective opinions unless they are similar to yours (i.e. unless the world revolves around YOU), you putting me on ignore rather than threatening it would do us all a favor since we wouldnt have to read your insessant whining. That would give you time to grow up if you use it wisely.

VegasRonin

Apr 18th, 2004, 1:57 AM

This is not a mantra MD as it has only been applied to two people thus far and as far as I can tell one of them has grown out of it. I'm assuming you're refering to a particular post I made about being a militant young man DBA? Cause I haven't grown in anyway on AO, in that aspect. You guys are arguing about military service appears mute to me cause of the time gap between the times of service.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 18th, 2004, 2:40 AM

I am refering to you not being a "poor me" person anymore.... or so it would seem.

I think the thing that seperates my service from DN's the most is that she is female and was part of the military "dog and pony" show while I was a part of the military machine..... Hows that for an insult DN? Calling me a kid DOES IN NO WAY make your side of an argument any stronger...... It makes me laugh though so thanks.....
LOL, DN. you are like that chick on survivor that compared seeing a naked old guy to the stress a soldier feels after battle. Im not talking about ME in my posts about YOU, DN. Having some pogue doubt I was in the military doesnt bother me because I know that as a pogue you were BARELY in the military. :rolling:

Commenting about your weight is rhetoric and juvenile? If you gave an honest accurate description of your weight/height before the last time I put you on ignore and you havent changed much then you are over what is concidered a healthy weight for your height.....

I will give up on you again DN.... You are right, the whole world discriminates against you and hates all the things that you like and you NEVER catch any breaks.... poor you DN. Even my signature was made just for you to read, I certainly didnt here it on the simpsons and think it was funny.

FYI I still eat cheerios with my fingers.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 18th, 2004, 7:38 AM

This guy has missed a ton of conversation and posting since the first time he put me on ignore and I will be just as devastated as the last time. LMAO!!!!

DontBeAfraid

Apr 18th, 2004, 5:57 PM

My ignore list didnt come with me to the new site, so I have caught everything sinse then..... and everything sinse then is the same as it always was.....

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 18th, 2004, 6:25 PM

My ignore list didnt come with me to the new site, so I have caught everything sinse then..... and everything sinse then is the same as it always was..... You claim I am lacking intelligence and you can neither spell nor find the ignore list? I apologize for being so inaccurate. Your arrogance AND ignorance are stellar! NO FAT HEADS!!!

Strife

Apr 18th, 2004, 6:32 PM

Afraid of the military? Oh no! I just don't want to kill anyone, let alone add much grief and stress to my life. You know how it is, ever heard a story of a Vietnam veteran? Regardless if I hold a weapon or not, I'm still taking part in the whole military process. Label me pacifist.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 18th, 2004, 6:40 PM

Thats okay Strife, if they dont amend the regs on it then "concientious observer" will still be there like Skygirl posted earlier.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 18th, 2004, 6:47 PM

I never said you were lacking in intelligence, I said I wasnt. Way to see what you want to see again, everybody is picking on you again :vbroll: . Until you came along I had no reason to look for the ignore list but when you meet someone who whines and complains about how unfair life is as much as you do you just want them to shut the **** up once in a while.

I know what I mispelled and I knew it when I did it but fixing it was more than it was worth since it was such a short post.

I am arrogant. I am not ignorant.

VegasRonin

Apr 18th, 2004, 6:52 PM

I am refering to you not being a "poor me" person anymore.... or so it would seem. I would wager that you're the only member that ever got that impression from me. Poor me?! HAH! Glorious Me!! Okay, maybe that's OTT. Hehehehe :yeah:

Chris4334

Apr 18th, 2004, 6:54 PM

Strife Wrote:

Afraid of the military? Oh no! I just don't want to kill anyone, let alone add much grief and stress to my life. You know how it is, ever heard a story of a Vietnam veteran? Regardless if I hold a weapon or not, I'm still taking part in the whole military process. Label me pacifist.

Unless you are actively working against a particular war that your country is involved in, you are in effect giving the green light to the government. Pacifism doesn't mean resistance, it means apathy.

Maleko

Apr 18th, 2004, 7:06 PM

DBA, are you always so argumentative and childish? I can not find a thread where you haven't insulted someone.

DBA should stand for Don't Be an Ass, but unfortunately, it seems you couldn't live up to that.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 18th, 2004, 7:21 PM

maleko there are VERY few people that I argue like this with.... But I am not the type of person who usually responds to posts I either agree with or am indifferent to so most of my posts would be in opposition to some opinion.

If you look at my first couple of posts IN THIS THREAD you will see that they are neither insults nor arguments.... So if you want to go ahead and keep posting garbage I will shift my focus from "poor me" DN to "cant read" maleko :rolling: .......

Dont pretend you are taking the high road in this either as your only post to me was to call me a argumentative childish ass....... You are a joke dude.

Maleko

Apr 18th, 2004, 8:03 PM

I agree your posts were neither aggressive, nor what I would consider out of line until you said this:

"Im going to call you a liar right now because 'atheist' is not now nor has it EVER been a choice for the tags. I had mine made offpost.

Im not you so I didnt live YOUR life, but I did have the expirence not being a christian in the army.... So I think I can relate. I however wasnt an out-of-shape, substandard soldier so maybe I got the 'special' treatment you wish you had.

I still believe, as I did before, that you are the 'victim' type.... You get the same treatment the average person gets but you cry about it because you want 'special' treatment."

I can think of several ways to convey this same message WITHOUT making it personal. It's a matter of semantics. Whether DN is overweight, by your definition, the military did not think she was overweight or guess what? She would have been thrown out. So what if she had a harder or easier time in the military? Is joining the military all about who is tougher, better, smarter or faster? NO!!! It's about service, in whatever capacity that is requested of you.

DN expressed her points without taking it to a personal level, you didn't.

And yes I would be a joke if I were going to defend my actions by trying to take a high road, but you know what? I stand behind my low road words and admit I was making a personal attack.

Can you do the same?

<edit: I never said ass, just childish and argumentative>

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 18th, 2004, 8:04 PM

It is interesting that someone who himself cannot use proper grammatical form, cant spell, has delusions of grandeur and appears to wallow in self gloat can accuse anyone of anything. Of coarse this is also the same person who very proudly posted of alleged special training and apparent military prowess that cannot even find the ignore list.

The nic "DontBeAnnoying" would also befit a youngster of so little maturity and limited intelligence would it not Maleko?

VegasRonin

Apr 18th, 2004, 8:46 PM

What was the topic again? ......oh yeah, The Draft. :deal:

DontBeAfraid

Apr 18th, 2004, 10:20 PM

maleko Would you like me to quote where you call me an ass or would you like to go back and read your post again? I can make you look stupid if you like.

Melako the military does not throw out the fatso's they just treat them really poorly, at least in jobs where weight is important.

Maleko all but one of DN's posts to me has been to call me childish and ignorant or are to say that I cant possibly know or judge stuff that I know something about because I am not her.... these are directed at me and are on a personal level. As soon as I called her on something she insulted me.... So I got mean.

Even her last post is to say that I am too young to have any kind of intelligent input and that I still have no idea what Im talking about. Well, Im going to get mean right back and ask her if she still hasnt lost the extra weight she claimed to have when she posted it in the 'introduce yourself' forum so long ago. She is calling me a liar and stupid....

maleko what point are you trying to make??? That I wasnt nice to DN? Thats quite obvious.... but I will point it out for you because I know you have a hard time reading or something.. I WAS MEAN TO DN. If you are wondering why its because she insists that I cant know anything because of my age whenever my opinion is in opposition of hers and almost all of her posts are "poor me" posts. At least the posts that are not direct personal attacks on me.

I do beleive that she is a liar.... but what might fit more is that she 'exagerates' a lot..... They are very much the same to me but you can draw whatever differences you like.

I am not looking for the ignore feature yet, as soon as this quits being amusing I might.

Skygirl

Apr 18th, 2004, 10:42 PM

The following is now posted on the Selective Service System website-

Notice

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe they are being honest in issueing this statement? Do you think it is based on political motivation due to the upcoming election?

Skygirl

VegasRonin

Apr 18th, 2004, 10:46 PM

They probably don't want anymore young American males to flee to Canada before the chance to draft 'em. :devsmoke:

Skygirl

Apr 18th, 2004, 10:59 PM

They probably don't want anymore young American males to flee to Canada before the chance to draft 'em. :devsmoke:

I'm not sure what to make of the statement as to the motivation. Can the Smart Border Declaration actually be used to prevent draft dodgers and individuals who go AWOL? I've read it over and it seems very vague.

Skygirl

VegasRonin

Apr 19th, 2004, 1:04 AM

Can the Smart Border Declaration actually be used to prevent draft dodgers and individuals who go AWOL? I've read it over and it seems very vague. In other words, if its contested, the side with the better lawer wins.

substand

Apr 19th, 2004, 5:28 PM

I can't beleive I finally made it to the end of that crap... And now I have nothing to say.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 19th, 2004, 5:33 PM

Dont worry subs..... she seems to be stalking me from thread to thread calling me childish and stupid...... LOL.... Im sure you will get to say what you want to me.

Strife

Apr 20th, 2004, 6:20 PM

Pacifism doesn't mean resistance, it means apathy.

I know what it means. :thumbs:

lazserus

Apr 20th, 2004, 7:06 PM

The following is now posted on the Selective Service System website-

<snip>

Do you believe they are being honest in issueing this statement? Do you think it is based on political motivation due to the upcoming election?

Skygirl
Quite honestly, I agree with the quoted documentation. We are really in no hurt for soldiers.

Soldiers fleeing to Canada are neglected by the Canadian government. Canada doesn't want them either.

zed

Apr 20th, 2004, 10:07 PM

One of our fine Senators seems to think a draft is necessary..

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_iraq_military_draft&printer=1

substand

Apr 21st, 2004, 12:39 AM

Soldiers fleeing to Canada are neglected by the Canadian government. Canada doesn't want them either.

who would?

i dont mind if a normal citizen wants to leave... but to join the military and leave because you are too much of a poontang to do your job is one thing... to leave because you dont want to do a military job before you get it is quite another.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 21st, 2004, 4:30 AM

lazserus

Apr 21st, 2004, 10:12 AM

While I agree that once your in you should do what you signed up to do, the military really should change how its recruitment department "sells" people on joining.... Because quite honestly recruiters sell kids on it being EASY college money with no strings attached......

edit: also, please dont call someone a poontang for wanting out of the military until you have been there..... Half of my basic training cycle didnt even finish, and basic is the easiest training in the military.
I know this, man. There were kids in RECEPTION trying to break their hands just to get medical discharge. I thought it was pathetic. Reception was deperessing at Ft. Benning, but basic was fun. The only thing that prevented basic from being great were the idiot kids who just couldn't get it together. And, I don't mean PT, I mean following orders.

At the same time, I was older than 95% of the kids there. So, the experience was much different for me than the average recruit.

substand

Apr 22nd, 2004, 8:51 PM

While I agree that once your in you should do what you signed up to do, the military really should change how its recruitment department "sells" people on joining.... Because quite honestly recruiters sell kids on it being EASY college money with no strings attached......

edit: also, please dont call someone a poontang for wanting out of the military until you have been there..... Half of my basic training cycle didnt even finish, and basic is the easiest training in the military.

1st- every employer tries hard to "sell" themselves to qualified or potential employees. The military should be no different. I refuse to beleive anyone of sound mind is so retarded to think that a military job means picking daisies at a retirement home in Middletown, USA.

2nd- I don't mean to disregard your accomplishments by calling quitters poontangs. I don't mean to disregard potential recruits' or active soldiers' bravery by calling quitters poontangs. To me, anyone who shirks responsibility is a poontang. That includes brave men who have tried and quit at responsibility, and that includes cowards who knock girls up and leave thier children to rot. Obviously there is a degree of difference, but I generally use the term to just mean "one who shirks responsibility." No offense was intended, its just quicker to say "poontang" than "one who shirks responsibility."

DontBeAfraid

Apr 22nd, 2004, 9:57 PM

It didnt offend me subs.... What Im saying is you cant tell if someone is going to make it until they actually do, and lots of people Dont make it. I can call them poontangs for not making it, we dont know if YOU can call them poontangs or not.... yet?

substand

Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:44 PM

i wouldn't call them poontangs for not making it... i know someone who was overweight and couldnt even try out until he lost weight... and i know someone who was underweight and couldn't make it until she gained some...

Even dispite that, i wouldn't neccesarily call someone who doesn't try out a poontang, and i wouldn't even go so far as calling them that if they did try out and didn't make it...

just if they shirk they're responsibility.

I don't plan on anything but analysis of intelligence (assuming i can get a job in the cia). I've got a poli sci and comp. sci degree, math minor and enough credit probably for an electrical engineering minor if i could find where they offer it (on may 16, 2004 after 6 years of college)...

call me a poontang if you wish (not that you did)- i'm not trying out for active duty or a field agent (although, with my VERY minor knowledge in arabic and my islamic background, I could be prime pruning grounds)... I want to help my country if they'll have me... on my own terms as well (for instance, I don't want to be infantry and waste my knowledge).

VegasRonin

Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:29 AM

Shoot Subs, you sound like SF material. How's your physical attributes?

substand

Apr 23rd, 2004, 1:33 AM

I'm assuming SF means Special Forces and not San Francisco (material)...

I currently protect my excrement excreter like its nobody's bizznass. I would love to be special forces... but:

My physical attributes SUCK. I'm so out of shape its not funny. About 3 years ago I started drinking WAY too much with no excercise. I drank beer first, then jack n' coke, then straight jack. the first two (combined with no excercise) caused me to gain about 80 lbs (no lie) and the last one caused me to get an ulcer/acid reflux (still no lie)

I hope to get back in shape this summer and beyond when i exit school, but for now, if i entered even basic training i'm convinced I'd die of lack of alcohol or a heart attack. Only my mind is conditioned well enough for it. Again, body is shitty.

VegasRonin

Apr 23rd, 2004, 1:46 AM

Ah no biggie. I'm assuming you're still pretty young, cause you hang with Laz. Doesn't take much to get in shape. Simple math really. Don't intake more than you're burning but you know that I'm sure. :wink:

substand

Apr 23rd, 2004, 2:23 AM

i spp in that sense i'm "still young"... but i'm 24, so really not that young... at the same time, i understand what you're saying about "simple math"

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 23rd, 2004, 3:34 AM

Maleko all but one of DN's posts to me has been to call me childish and ignorant or are to say that I cant possibly know or judge stuff that I know something about because I am not her.... these are directed at me and are on a personal level. As soon as I called her on something she insulted me.... So I got mean. Damn straight, I call it like I see it. Since your first response to me using name calling and responding foolishly I have pointed it out and will continue to do so until you can debate maturely and without being "holier than thou". Whining about it after the fact DBA is too late. "So I get mean". Yeah sure kid, someday when you can take constructive criticism for what it is instead of lashing out and crying like some kid who just was called a name, THAT will be the day I have some respect for you but not until then. If you cant take the heat why did you start the fire in the first place? Ive been walking this earth longer and have a few more years of experience than you do and while that does not guarentee me respect, Ill be damned if Im going to put up with some youngster with the low level of bs youve been spewing have superiority over me.

Even her last post is to say that I am too young to have any kind of intelligent input and that I still have no idea what Im talking about. Well, Im going to get mean right back and ask her if she still hasnt lost the extra weight she claimed to have when she posted it in the 'introduce yourself' forum so long ago. She is calling me a liar and stupid.... This post does too. In that OLD profile I said I looked like the Michelin Tire Man. Does this one really need to be explained to you or are you going to choose to grow up and see it for what it really is? People who cannot win resort to garbage spewing such as what you have provided since theyve run out of intelligent material. PROVE ME WRONG. You obviously ARE too young since you use such immaturity in your posting. YOU are the one who decided to post that way and as such you can also decide to not post like a crybaby either. Im not looking for you to agree with me, ever. But, if you want to be treated with respect then act like you can be yourself. Going to get mean right back? There it is again, a loser school kid type of mentality.

If you are wondering why its because she insists that I cant know anything because of my age whenever my opinion is in opposition of hers and almost all of her posts are "poor me" posts. At least the posts that are not direct personal attacks on me. Its very simple, dont post like youre some punk kid with little or no maturity as well as having an obvious lack of education. I dont post poor me stuff kid and when you grow up you will see that. The kind of life I have had has been treacherous, terrifying and terrible and I could very easily play the victim to gather up everyones sympathy but I dont. As you age you will also recognize this. When you have lived the life I have had and know me personally then and ONLY then can you call bulls**t on my life but until then stop putting words in "my mouth" so to speak and quit trying to think for me which is also highly immature. Your posting about religious choice in the military is a blaring example of your smug, superior attitude and acting as if you know more than I about MY OWN experiences. Experiences of which you were TOO YOUNG to have been able to even participate in those years.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 23rd, 2004, 4:19 AM

I can't beleive I finally made it to the end of that crap... And now I have nothing to say. Somebody call a doctor!!! Start cpr and get the defibulator STAT!!! Were losing him!!! Sorry I just couldnt help it. :D

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 23rd, 2004, 4:53 AM

......the military really should change how its recruitment department "sells" people on joining.... Because quite honestly recruiters sell kids on it being EASY college money with no strings attached...... I totally agree. Alot of these momma's boys and daddy's girls sign up for a free ride without really realizing what they are signing up for. Its buried in that college money and "free" travel to foreign countries. Maybe a disclaimer for those ads and commercials just like on cigarrettes....

MILITARY GENERAL'S WARNING: Signing up for the military can be hazardous to your health and may result in capture, torture, mutilation and DEATH.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 23rd, 2004, 5:55 AM

Dont worry subs..... she seems to be stalking me from thread to thread calling me childish and stupid...... LOL.... Im sure you will get to say what you want to me. Interesting you should say this since I brought it up in a chatroom last week and you were observed doing it (the stalking) yourself. I told everyone it appeared that you were sitting on top of the threads just waiting for me to post so you could respond.....and you did.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 23rd, 2004, 7:24 AM

And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.....

Lets agree to agree on post 66 of this thread and agree to disagree on the rest.

fyi, Me responding to you in 2 threads, as "holier than thou" as my posts come off as, is not the same as you stalking me in MD's thread just to ,again, call me a childish punk.

damn it.... the more I read the more I CANT let it go. EVERYBODY dishes out 'low blows' no matter how intelligent or right they(I) may be. I call bullshyt when I see it, and you show me a lot. If I am so wrong about the religious choices for the military then fuqin prove it, I KNOW atheist is not a choice and it sure as fuq wasnt back when we were coming out of the cold fuqin war or whenever the fuq you were in the Navy, and dont say the marines because we both know who cut your paychecks. lol.

MetalMilitia

Apr 27th, 2004, 11:57 PM

A return to the military draft?

No one is going to allow re-instatement of the draft in a presidential election year. But the issue has been raised in both major political parties, so it's something we'd better start thinking about, and thinking about soon... 'cause Iraq and the war on terror isn't gonna go away.

It's more important than ever for Americans to decide whether Iraq is a misguided foreign adventure or an integral part of the overall war on terror. Involuntary servitude in support of an isolated and divisive national commitment is not something we have historically tolerated... But if we are truly in a generation-long struggle against a new kind of enemy, in a sense we have all already been conscripted. Its not going away

I'm 20 years old, and I think everyone is well aware of my views on Bush and Iraq, but this goes beyond that. I could be PUT into their little collective struggle, and not have a say... Worried, No... They'd have to fine me and convince me first.... but that immediatly makes me a pansy huh?

-MM- :crs:

DontBeAfraid

Apr 28th, 2004, 7:01 AM

I heard a good argument for the draft on the radio the other day.... A good liberal argument....

Right now the population that makes up our military is disproportionately lower income and ethnic.... A draft would even this out and perhaps make the people who the war isnt currently TRUELY effecting take notice.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 28th, 2004, 8:49 AM

Okay, I had to think on this awhile and now I can answer it without distraction.

And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.. Fair enough. However, if you would stop posting the same mindless, juvenile drivel and trying to put me down to make yourself feel better, I wouldn’t be compelled to point it out to you since it is obvious you cannot see this yourself.

Lets agree to agree on post 66 of this thread and agree to disagree on the rest. I cant do that, especially since I also agree with what you posted on levelling the enlistment playing field through a draft. You have posted more than once about things I do/dont agree on and with some degree of intelligence. You can chose to post disagreement anytime but if you post as a punk kid trying to take me down with idiocy, I will point it out.

is not the same as you stalking me in MD's thread just to ,again, call me a childish punk. Simple, don’t act like one and I wont call you on it. Further more, who is calling who a stalker? Or is this your attempt to even things up since I had already stated that it appeared you were doing the same?

EVERYBODY dishes out 'low blows' no matter how intelligent or right they(I) may be. Yes, and scores of lemmings jump over cliffs, sheeple blindly follow their arrogant masters and if a mass of people were to jump off a bridge, would you do the same? I think not. As always, it is a decision that you alone make. You have been in the chatroom twice now when I have been there and I could have chosen to attack you. Instead treated you decently and cordially conversed with you. You could have also chosen to discuss this and have not other than making a statement about us not responding to each other when I had to take a call. I apologize for missing out the first time but it was a call I had to take.

I call bullshyt when I see it, and you show me a lot. Sure do, maybe someday you will realize that you are providing the bulk of the material.

If I am so wrong about the religious choices for the military then fuqin prove it, I KNOW atheist is not a choice and it sure as fuq wasnt back when we were coming out of the cold fuqin war or whenever the fuq you were in the Navy, and dont say the marines because we both know who cut your paychecks. lol. WOW!! Knowing that the Marine Corps is a branch of the Navy proves what? Did someone lie on my DD-214 when they typed UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS? Lets do some math……

Somewhere in another post you claim you are in your mid-twenties. If you are being truthful, and for myself erring on the side of caution, Ill use the age of 25 for you. Im 39 so we have an approximate age difference of 14 years. Which means when I enlisted, you were approximately three years old.

DAYUM!!!! You mean to tell me and the hundreds of other people that read this board that the period of time from my entrance into the military to yours, there were ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES in policies, procedures or anything?

Since you are acting like this is some kind of court room then let me point out that since YOU are making the accusation that I am lying, it is also up to YOU to PROVE IT!

Thanks again for proving me right in that you post as if you were actually sitting next to me during my life. I would like to know how a three year old male would have been in the women's exam room at the AAFEES station at that time to hear me get asked what my religious preference was. I would also like to know how the same three year old male would have been on Parris Island when they asked me yet again and more than once.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 28th, 2004, 9:09 AM

and on and on and on and on and......

Do you mean the meps station? cause if they used to do the exams at aafees then things have changed considerably.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 28th, 2004, 10:02 AM

and on and on and on and on and......

Do you mean the meps station? cause if they used to do the exams at aafees then things have changed considerably. Thats my point, my enlistment was much different from yours. The following week(damn near just a day) after I enlisted, AAFEES in Seattle, WA moved out or something and MEPS officially took over the building. Before that time it had always been called AAFEES(including when I enlisted) regardless of who had most of the run of it and it was listed on all paperwork as AAFEES or AAFEES/MEPS including the original enlistment papers I signed.

http://www.mepcom.army.mil/meps/seat/index.htm

Thats for all you people that might get caught up in the draft that live in Seattle.

Kohler

Apr 28th, 2004, 2:29 PM

Don't get too excited. The fact that you turn 18 the year prior to the proposed draft reinstatement would not make you exempt. It would simply make you exempt from the first round of the lottery. If the draft is reinstituted in 2006 you would be in the first round.

I'm prety sure he was being sarcastic. I turn 18 next January, and although this draft will -completely- **** up my plans, I do not mind serving; I was considering joining anyway.

Marajadex

Apr 28th, 2004, 3:26 PM

I found this article reading thru the messages at Surfing the Apocalypse about what is going on in Korea. Could be an indication about future draft issues.

Here is the link from Surfing the Apocalypse:
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=1993

Here is the link to the original article:
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/wecontrolamerica/ryongchon.html

You decide after you read this.

MetalMilitia

Apr 29th, 2004, 12:46 PM

WASHINGTON - The Army could have a tough time finding more combat troops if they are needed in Iraq . Of the service's 10 active-duty divisions, all or parts of nine are either already in Iraq to serve 12-month tours of duty, or have just returned home in recent weeks after a year's duty.

If extra troops are needed, soldiers may get less time at home before going back, one top general says. The Army might also have to consider sending troops now in South Korea. National Guard and Reserve combat forces would simply take too long to train.

"It's getting thin," said Pat Towell, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

It's not yet certain that U.S. commanders in Iraq will ask for more troops, beyond the 135,000 there now, although it appears increasingly likely with violence high. But if they do, the Army would have to resort to extreme measures to answer the call.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_re_us/iraq_stretched_thin_1&printer=1

Do you smell a draft? Is it drafty in here? You just wait and see... wait 'til after the election year politics.

-MM- :crs:

VegasRonin

Apr 29th, 2004, 7:58 PM

One thing ya failed to mention. The military's recruitment quota for the whole year, has already been met. We still have 7 months left in the year.

Bigsky770

Apr 29th, 2004, 9:12 PM

- - -Yeah VR, I saw that report on the news myself :D Imagine that! But it is also why I generally remain "optimistic" about the direction of our nation;
- - -As long as we have "Heroes" like Patrick Tillman, who turned down a 3.6 Million-Dollar Football contract so he could fight for us and die in Afghanistan, there is hope. . . (Cheers to You also, VR, for YOUR time of service!) Thank-You! :Bow:

Joe (Bigsky770)

DontBeAfraid

Apr 29th, 2004, 10:23 PM

Quota's already met? Then if anybody is planning on re upping I suggest waiting until next year...... For the bonus.

VegasRonin

Apr 29th, 2004, 10:44 PM

Thanks Joe! It was my pleasure to serve Bro. :thumbs:

lazserus

Apr 29th, 2004, 11:14 PM

The Army might also have to consider sending troops now in South Korea.
That's stupid. The North Koreans can barely afford to feed their own military, so the North Korea/South Korea border is rarely patrolled by NK. SK and US troops tend to post regular guard against non-existing force. I can't imagine NK's morale is very high or even stable right now.

National Guard and Reserve combat forces would simply take too long to train.
That's a crock. There are a lot of Guard and Reserve units that train quit a bit (I guess as much as you can one weekend a month), and the standard training before mobilization is 90 days. That's really not very long. On top of that, if the government would actually TRAIN those units like they're supposed to, then there wouldn't be a problem. Those units who don't train are just a waste of goverment resources and unfortunately I'm in one of those units. It's a complete waste.

One thing ya failed to mention. The military's recruitment quota for the whole year, has already been met. We still have 7 months left in the year.
That sounds like we're not having a problem finding new troops like that article MM posted said. Good thing I'm not re-upping this year. :nudge:

Emerald_Dragon

Apr 30th, 2004, 12:18 PM

....could it be, because all the Armed Forces ads are working?
"Be All That You Can Be"
"The Few, The Proud, The Marines", etc.

....or could it be because there are no jobs?

....or could it be, that the recruitment quotas have been unchanged for many years?

If your premise is to show that the Draft is not needed due to current, acceptable recruitment quotas, fulfilled. Then I disagree. Why would a draft be in the works if recruitment quotas are met?

Marajadex

Apr 30th, 2004, 3:30 PM

It is just a theory but... Could they have been so far thinking about war that they outsourced so many jobs so that thoes who are unemployed would have no other choice than to enlist in the military?

No they couldn't have forseen the need for so many replacement soldiers. Could they?

Emerald_Dragon

Apr 30th, 2004, 4:31 PM

>It is just a theory but...

i had that thought months ago. but had no proof. just a gut feeling.

and now, after chewing on the thought for many months. I still think its a possibility. mainly because, things like this would take time, years to cultivate, to make it evolve properly.

i say this because, what is currently happening, was already planned out and committed to paper, by the people who are in places, to make it happen.

Brzezinski's, "The Grand Chessboard", followed by his involvement in the Project for a New American Century, who's members included Cheney and Wolfowitz. I believe corporate america [Cheney/Halliburton] found a fertile ground in the malleable Bush and friends [Carlyle, Enron], and allowed 911 to occur, as the needed "Pearl Harbor", to initiate the grand scheme. Some people are really getting rich in this war.

A virtual repeat of Vietnam, politics-wise. With similar arguments surfacing. Politicians holding back the military and viceversa, the Draft, reactions to coverage, etc. Only this time, because they've had some practice, they know what not to let the media report, how to slip in the legislation to catch draft dodgers, and a media that will play along until too many people know whats going on.

Only time will tell.

Defiant Noquisi

Apr 30th, 2004, 11:54 PM

Prez, oh prez! Where are you? :yikes:

lazserus

May 1st, 2004, 2:06 AM

I swear, some of you people are complete blockheads and are so caught up with how you THINK things are and don't pay attention to how things are, nor do some of you actually read what's displayed.

....could it be, because all the Armed Forces ads are working? "Be All That You Can Be"
These ads don't work all that much, and you totally misquoted the Army. They haven't used that theme in almost 10 years. Catch up. :grin

Why would a draft be in the works if recruitment quotas are met?
Maybe if you actually took the time to read what they were considering to draft you'd understand. Apparently you saw "draft" and took it from there, because there is no DRAFT. The draft was only in consideration for certain fields, mainly for intelligence and communication purposes. It was mentioned in several links posted in this thread AND from others. So, the answer to your question is simple. We've got a lot of Americans signing up to go FIGHT. Yet, we have little to actually support those willing to fight. I'm willing to bet that the quota is at least 70% combat MOS's.

Emerald_Dragon

May 2nd, 2004, 8:19 PM

>nor do some of you actually read what's displayed.

i take it that i'm one of those "blockheads". i don't believe our corporate controlled media. i don't like being misled to war, spoonfed my rationale to support the war, and/or that everything is done for our own good in spite of ourselves.

i do believe that the mass of American society is not very intelligent. Led by a rich aristocracy that tells us what we should believe and how we should behave thru TV. I see that real issues are only presented in "humor" and otherwise marginalized, to put everyone at ease and spread apathy.

I'm not one of those, so simply minded, to believe that everything is so simple. I've read about too many events and people dying, to believe what you believe.

Even if the FOIA proves what I believe, it won't prove it for you. So call me a "blockhead". I would rather know, than live a lie.

lazserus

May 2nd, 2004, 9:02 PM

i don't believe our corporate controlled media.
Then do you believe in the private, uninformed, opinionated media? Because that's your other option. All media is uneducated and misconstrues the truth, whether it be private or commercial. The other options are first hand tales, tales from those who see it with their own eyes.

I've read about too many events and people dying, to believe what you believe.
And what exactly is it that you think I believe? While you read on paper about those who die, I hear first hand about it. I have no media filter over my vision. My beliefs aren't filtered into aesthetic text, but are based from what I've seen myself and what I've been told by those who have.

I would rather know, than live a lie.
The difference between you and I is that I see good when you see only evil. You have to find ways to twist everything into a negative light, while I can see past all the political bullshit you find evil and see the good out of situations. I'd rather be positive and have hope than to be pessimistic about everything and have none. To each his own.

Emerald_Dragon

May 2nd, 2004, 9:40 PM

>All media is uneducated and misconstrues the truth

I agree. Read both sides, whatever angles presented, and derive your own, as to what really happened.

>The other options are first hand tales,
>tales from those who see it with their own eyes.

from books from the first hand.
John Stockwell. Robert Stinnett. Victor Ostrovsky. John Snow. Richard Clarke. Ray McGovern.

Freedom of the Press exists, even if the authors are discredited by their former employers as "disgruntled".
The truth hurts and is NOT for everyone.

>And what exactly is it that you think I believe?

the opinions that i've written are what i believe. it counters yours on many occasions.

>While you read on paper about those who die, I hear first hand about it.

i believe you. tactical frontline data. I see a different picture. The end results. Are the ends, justified by the means?

>The difference between you and I is that I see good when you see only evil.

at first, i agreed. then after some thought. Disagreed.

There is good. The exposure of the truth lets people know enough, to make changes, to fight back. To stop it. The "good" comes from people who see what they have done, realize that its wrong, and try to tell as many people
about it as possible, before the guys in power, have them discredited or otherwise.

We are all human. We all do what we think is best. But there comes a time of reckoning. Of self-realization. A "is this really what my life is about" moment, that makes people risk their lives to let the truth out.

And this is the good that I see. These people who are ridiculed by their peers for whistleblowing should be commended. They may be traitors to the team, but not to the nation they are looking out for.

>To each his own.

Yes. I know. I think we have a mutual disagreement on points of view. I can see the 'bad' [as you call it] and still go to work, do my job, function as a cog in the machine that is destroying lives in a foreign country i'll never see.

You can see only the good, else go crazy if any of the bad were true. Or maybe, the 'good' along with the 'bad'.

Its how we see life, thru a differing set of eyes.
But to me, "no matter how much perfume you put on a turd, its still a turd".

Emerald_Dragon

May 2nd, 2004, 10:07 PM

i hope this media link is wrong....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html
"
The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.
"

These changes better not pass this summer. I don't want to work in their technical field of armed forces and expected to come under fire or kill someone to defend myself because i'm part of the military.

lazserus

May 6th, 2004, 8:13 AM

I don't want to work in their technical field of armed forces and expected to come under fire or kill someone to defend myself because i'm part of the military.
Then don't shoot back. But I guarantee throwing hugs at people doesn't work. As long as we're humans and not robots, there will always be hate. There's no way around it. You don't fight hate with a holier than thou attitude by standing on a soap box and telling those who are actually doing something that they're doing it wrong. If you're so perceptive and so much better than the common soldier, then why not accept a Selective Service draft with open arms? It would give you the chance to show people how to do it right.

Oh, and the technology fields mentioned in the Selective Service draft would more than likely NEVER see combat. You sit in a cozy base punching buttons while the grunts are out there getting shot at.

Emerald_Dragon

May 6th, 2004, 10:14 AM

>Stand up and act like a fuq'n man for once.

its one thing to stand up and defend yourself and your home.
its another to go kill someone because someone else ordered you to.

> telling those who are actually doing something that they're doing it wrong.

soldiers are following orders, doing what they are told.
its the politics involved that I have a problem with.
the politics that tells them that using DU rounds is safe.
that teaches them that all Muslims want to kill us because of our "culture".

> It would give you the chance to show people how to do it right.

you can't talk to a mob of "disciplined" and focused grunts who are trained to kill on demand. logic and reason are far from their strongpoints. they are not taught to think. only to do.

"Ours is not to question why, ours is only to do or die,"- Marine motto (?)

>Then don't shoot back.

you may have little value for life. but i would have a problem killing anyone.
unless, of course, i've been brainwashed and desensitized. If i were imbued with enough "hate" to kill on command. that i believed that all the Muslims in the world are out to kill me so i better start killing them before they do. that, to become a "man", I have to kill another person [geezus].

so sure. fill me with hate and i'd probably think the way you do. kill them before they kill us.

>But I guarantee throwing hugs at people doesn't work.

of course it doesn't. But instigating fights and reacting to the reprisals as if it they were unprovoked, is deceptive. You should know history. Its happened. But wait. You may just be familiar with the "militarized" history. The history that justifies/glorifies war. Not the politics that are spun to initiate wars.

Defiant Noquisi

May 6th, 2004, 1:14 PM

you can't talk to a mob of "disciplined" and focused grunts who are trained to kill on demand. logic and reason are far from their strongpoints. they are not taught to think. only to do.

"Ours is not to question why, ours is only to do or die,"- Marine motto (?) You have been watching too much "Full Metal Jacket" and Porklips Now havent you? Are you one of those who believes that we all go in as spoiled city brats, troubled kids and ignorant country bumpkins and come out insane and ignorant killing machines? The way you are posting tells me that you do. Have you ever served in the military? Your lack of knowledge about the military is blatant.

At any rate you are a complete sporking idiot.

We dont go into basic and come out mindless robots who do nothing but await the order to "kill". You say logic and reason are far from being strong points? Ill bet you believe that when the firing starts we just haphazardly hail bullets everywhere anytime all the time dont you?

Its true that when a recruit goes to basic they are essentially "broken down" and rebuilt into a soldier. However, even in basic you better have a head and you better be able to think because you will become a target if you dont. I watched two women get the boot because they were mindless naive daddy's girls.

Under combat conditions a soldier better be able to think, especially if their commanding officer goes down, then what? Sit there and await someone to come along and bark an order? How ignorant can you possibly be ED?

I know asking you to not post so ignorantly is asking too much since you cant even use quotes. You think you post like you are intelligent but then your format proves otherwise. What is your major malfunction?

Dont "quote" my beloved Corps in your tripe you naive malcontent.

lazserus

May 6th, 2004, 1:21 PM

You've out done yourself this time, ED - you've successfully posted ficticious rubbish based on an imaginary reality. The real world doesn't work that way.

that teaches them that all Muslims want to kill us because of our "culture".
That's 100% wrong. The US military does NOT teach its soldiers that Islam is evil and that all Muslims want to kill us. It actually teaches quite the opposite. Thanks so much, please drive through.

you can't talk to a mob of "disciplined" and focused grunts who are trained to kill on demand. logic and reason are far from their strongpoints. they are not taught to think. only to do.
Once again, you're living in an imaginary world. Stop watching fiction and start experiencing fact. When you go through some military training yourself, or get a clue - come back and make speeches about how the military trains and works. Until then, you're just making yourself look more and more MISINFORMED.

you may have little value for life. but i would have a problem killing anyone. unless, of course, i've been brainwashed and desensitized. If i were imbued with enough "hate" to kill on command.
Finally - your theories on how the military work are so twisted and fabricated that you firmly believe things work the way YOU see it. I wonder how many other topics you've done this with. For some one who claims to be well read and well informed, you're certainly on the other side of the planet of reality. You can call it little value for life if you want, but when you're being shot at things change. You think the enemy will stop shooting because you stop? You can stretch your little peace pallette out anyday in a combat zone, but you won't live longer than 30 seconds.

Defiant Noquisi

May 6th, 2004, 1:54 PM

You can call it little value for life if you want, but when you're being shot at things change. You think the enemy will stop shooting because you stop? You can stretch your little peace pallette out anyday in a combat zone, but you won't live longer than 30 seconds. If I had someone like that in my unit for AIT or practice ops, Id stick them somewhere for a decoy. Well see how quick that "brainwashed and desensitized" proselytizing BS lasts. :wlink:

Thirty seconds is very compassionate of you Laz. :amaz: :Llol:

Emerald_Dragon

May 6th, 2004, 5:25 PM

>The real world doesn't work that way.

when you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth, compliments of the Rand Corporation. Your truths are not mine. I haven't been properly trained.

>>that teaches them that all Muslims want to kill us because of our "culture".

>That's 100% wrong. The US military does NOT teach its soldiers that Islam is evil
>and that all Muslims want to kill us.
>It actually teaches quite the opposite. Thanks so much, please drive through.

yeah, you are right, i was wrong. after all, the remark/opinion came from you.
you're trained by the military, right? are you not a representative/member of the armed forces?

>http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=1863&page=3&pp=10
"
Al Qeada doesn't just target America, but targets anyone who opposes their beliefs. It's the same with every Islamic fundamentalist group. They oppose western culture.
"

>When you go through some military training yourself,
>or get a clue - come back and make speeches about how the military trains and works.

so by that logic, i shouldn't have an opinion on military service, unless i served?
you mean having connections in the military and learning about life in the military,
vicariously thru friends, would not count as being "informed".

Well then, unless you or i are in Iraq, we shouldn't be talking about it.
According to your logic.

>You think the enemy will stop shooting because you stop?

of course not. but what did a fictional martial artist once say?
"The best way to avoid a strike, is to not be there." -- Mr. Miyagi, Karate Kid.

Am i right or wrong, the military teaches you how to fight? Basic training shows you how to shoot, gets you physically fit, to work in a team, to work alone, to follow orders, pursue objectives, react properly in a combat situation, how to efficiently take out your opponent. To take a life without remorse.

Is anyone born to do that? it takes mental and physical conditioning for those who prefer 'PC' words.

>How ignorant can you possibly be ED?

the truth hurts, does it not? to deserve such an inflamed reaction, it must have been too 'close'.

i'm clearly not as trained nor well-informed as you. i am not a disciplined combatant. i have a healthy respect for my friends and our troops in the military. you're the exception.

anyone can kill. few can build.

>What is your major malfunction?

have you ever used e-mail? not everyone is willing to pay, to post on bulletin boards.
if you have a hard time reading, go shoot something. It will make you feel better.

>Dont "quote" my beloved Corps in your tripe you naive malcontent.

Semper Fi!

Just because i disagree with you, doesn't mean i hate you. But if you want to take it personally, it's your choice. i'm not here to make life-long friends, just debate issues. However, I will reserve the right to "return in kind", the attacks made upon me, as you have now read.

DarkAce

May 6th, 2004, 6:38 PM

I've tried to stay out of this because I don't think I'd have the patience to put up with such tripe presented so I'll just be breif on the recent posting.

First off you need to quit with all the cliched sayings you put in most of your posts. It doesn't reaffirm jack.

Lazerus is a person not a puppet trained to only say good things about the army if that's the angle your trying to spin. I've seen enough of his posts to gather that he's intelligent, objective and rationale among other things. I can't hardly say the same for you. Your posts are often all over the place with you constantly adhering that you know the 'truth' your 'enlightened' and you're somehow above us in your 'understandings'. Which in reality is far from it and you see only what fits you best.

so by that logic, i shouldn't have an opinion on military service, unless i served?
you mean having connections in the military and learning about life in the military,
vicariously thru friends, would not count as being "informed".

You seem to have missed a crucial point in what you had quoted of him. "Or get a clue". It means to edcuate yourself properly and stop making half-assed assumptions and misconceptions. It's very good that you have connections within the military and learn about it "vicariously thru friends" but apparently your not reflecting any of what you've learned about it or else you wouldn't be posting such BS. Then again you could just be bull shitting us with that comment above, hard to tell over the internet and all.

To take a life without remorse.
I would believe it to be more of: to take a life without hesitation. There's a big difference between the words and the military coincides with the latter. You seem to think they're animals which is far from the truth as someone has already pointed out. You must learn not to hesitate because those few moments could make the difference between life and death. They're not mindless killing machines as you seem to think of them.

of course not. but what did a fictional martial artist once say?
"The best way to avoid a strike, is to not be there." -- Mr. Miyagi, Karate Kid.

You would only be prolonging the inevitable. If we had gone into Afghanistan prior to 9/11 would you be bitching this much about how wrong it is to do that and all this other BS?

the truth hurts, does it not? to deserve such an inflamed reaction, it must have been too 'close'.

It would all depend on one's conception of what the truth is. Don't think too highly of yourself. You're receiving these replies because of the frustration of people trying to paint a clearer picture for you which you cannot see because you dare not step out of your fantasy world and look at things objectively and rationally.

But if you want to take it personally, it's your choice. i'm not here to make life-long friends, just debate issues.

If you're here to debate then please do it right. Learn to accept and understand, to view things rationally and objectively and not regurgitate the same tired BS over and over again when your even proven wrong.

lazserus

May 6th, 2004, 8:42 PM

yeah, you are right, i was wrong. after all, the remark/opinion came from you. you're trained by the military, right? are you not a representative/member of the armed forces?
I don't even have to go here. You just proved to everyone that you don't pay attention to what you read. It's one thing to have other people prove you're wrong, but it's much more fun when you do it yourself, especially with out realizing it.

have you ever used e-mail? not everyone is willing to pay, to post on bulletin boards. if you have a hard time reading, go shoot something. It will make you feel better.
It's no surprise you sink to this level - most people do that when they can't think of anything intelligent to say. Cheap shots from the enlightened one. You can shoot insults at people who contribute to this site all you want. But remember, we provide a free service and SOME of these people care enough about this site to help us. Armageddon Online is not brought to the internet by the web-fairy. It costs money to provide a place for people to "debate".

I could kiss you, DarkAce.

If you're here to debate then please do it right. Learn to accept and understand, to view things rationally and objectively and not regurgitate the same tired BS over and over again when your even proven wrong.
This is true. Proper debating is an artform and quoting cliches and repeating oneself isn't a debate - it's talking to yourself. :drool:

Emerald_Dragon

May 7th, 2004, 4:03 PM

>First off you need to quit with all the cliched sayings you put in most of your posts.
>It doesn't reaffirm jack.

I apologize for the usage of cliches. They are used to spare me the longhand writeups of simple concepts that everyone knows and has heard too many times. Hence, "cliched sayings".

If you prefer a paragraph to a phrase, I'll endeavour to indulge you.

This discussion may be "tripe" to you, but to me, it could change my life. I'm not in the military and from what my friends have shared with me, I don't want to be "drafted". It's not for me. It does not mean that I won't take arms to defend my country and my freedom. However, I have a life and I believe we should be protecting our borders, not expanding them [repetitive theme]. Its a better armed forces when the people in it, want to be part of it. With the exception of the conscientious objectors.

IMO, We wouldn't have these problems if we focused more on ourselves, our nation. Instead, we are pursuing special interests that benefit our corporations, promoted by our corporations.

Its a broader subject which we should go into another thread to discuss.

>Lazerus is a person not a puppet trained to only say good things about the army
>if that's the angle your trying to spin.

It is. I was not trained as he was and therefore, don't think the same way.
"You can't talk calculus to someone who doesn't speak algebra," [another cliche, sry].

>I've seen enough of his posts to gather that he's intelligent,
>objective and rationale among other things.

i agree. i have the same impression. which is why i'm engaging him in this debate. whether its him teaching me calculus or viceversa, we're both going to come away with more data.

my debates with Laz go back to 911. He still doesn't take my POV seriously, but so what?! I'm here to debate them. He calls it a "soap box", i see it as a "sound board"; although, its technically, a "bulletin board". :D

As for correct ettiquette for debates, I'm familiar with Roberts Rules of Order, I found it unnecessary to be so formal. Maybe being more diplomatic and tactful would make my posts less of a venom/headache to read, but when i'm pushed, i push back. Laz has already implied on multiple occasions, what he thinks of me and my posts. I reply in kind. Which is prolly why you were offended enough to "voice in" to back him up. No worries. I don't disrespect him. I disagree with him.

>I can't hardly say the same for you. Your posts are often all over the place

...well, they are my opinions...<insert cliche(s) here>

and to me, some things are simple, some things are not.

For those that are not, i include the variables that could influence the result.
so of course, they can tend to cover more than someone wants to talk about.

OT: for example, gun control, "for" or "against". why? Its not a simple PRO or CON answer. Why do you think there are so many viewpoints and statistics supporting both sides?

>It means to edcuate yourself properly and stop making half-assed assumptions and misconceptions.

if you mean [for me] to read the NYTimes/WPost and watch CNN/Fox. I have. However, when you follow the money...
<seperate subject>.

suffice to say, of the books and internet articles i've read, I'm more inclined to digest on less-biased opinions from non-US sources [BBC, Guardian, et al]. Especially after the problems in U.S. media [Jayson Blair]. Have you read anything by Greg Palast? Michael Ruppert?

>I would believe it to be more of: to take a life without hesitation.

*ouch* that is a more severe POV than mine.

>They're not mindless killing machines as you seem to think of them.

i'm not saying they're mindless (when have i stated that?).
how else can you tell them who and what to kill? :grin [j/k]

i've said they are brainwashed and desensitized and/or mentally and physically conditioned. are these false observations of what joining the military entails? and if you're not cut-out for it, you get mustered?

of course they are not mindless. they are highly skilled and trained. disciplined. focused. modern day samurai. my "malcontent" is not with the soldier, its with the politics.

The Draft. Why do you think I didn't join when I had the chance? Take this as BS if you choose, but I performed my due diligence when considering enlistment. I have a healthy respect for those in the armed services [*but now getting second thoughts*]. It may not convey well in words, but it was of consequence to me at one time. I was aiming for an F-14 Tomcat w/AMRAAMs (Navy) or the F-15 Eagle (NG).

>If we had gone into Afghanistan prior to 9/11 would you be bitching this much
>about how wrong it is to do that and all this other BS?...

from what i've learned, we were going in pre-911 anyway [BBC]. Many things have happened that make me believe "The Grand Chessboard" by Brzezinski, is in play. Sure, its old and tired and repeated over and over again....

>and not regurgitate the same tired BS over and over again when your even proven wrong.

...But it needs to be repeated for those who don't acknowledge its existence or didn't read it in a previous thread. further, is anyone's opinion wrong?

from what i understand from what we've discussed, my interpretations of the military have been proven wrong(?). that they are not brainwashed or desensitized, nor mentally or physically conditioned. I won't have to kill anyone when forced to defend myself, without hesitation. I won't be "mindless". Muslim Fundamentalists don't oppose us because of our western culture. I don't have to worry about the Draft because it won't happen.

Are those the points we discussed? or am i wrong, yet again?

>This is true. Proper debating is an artform and quoting cliches
>and repeating oneself isn't a debate - it's talking to yourself.

i must be schizophrenic then. there's more than one voice.

DontBeAfraid

May 7th, 2004, 4:33 PM

Taking life without hesitation in a combat situation is not worse than taking one without remorse. If you can kill without remorse then you are disturbed, if you cant kill without hesitation then you wont be alive to feel bad about it later,

DarkAce

May 8th, 2004, 7:37 PM

I apologize for the usage of cliches.

I don't mind the usage of them, however the way you use them has no merit for them to be used. For example this one, "when you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth" What proof can you provide to state that what has been said is "lies"? That's the problem. You seem to be clouding reality too much with your personal conception of it. It's blocking you from seeing what's real as oppose to what you think is real.

This discussion may be "tripe" to you, but to me, it could change my life.

The discussion as a whole isn't what had bothered me. It's few specific posts that I'm sure all can tell which ones I speak of.

I was not trained as he was and therefore, don't think the same way.

None of us think the exact same way. If we did these forums and debating wouldn't be as interesting. The difference here is although some might have similar mentalities most members are able to agree to disagree, accept and understand and see the validity in one's statements. If someone spews BS they'll be called on that, and no matter how many times they repeat the same BS it will still be nothing but BS.

"You can't talk calculus to someone who doesn't speak algebra,"

Again, another unneccessary cliche which doesn't reaffirm anything. The meaning of this cliche would make sense if anyone was using special 'military lingo' but alas no one is.

my debates with Laz go back to 911. He still doesn't take my POV seriously, but so what?! I'm here to debate them.

It's hard to see someone's POV when they don't provide any validity for it. Again that's the problem. I'm not sure if you can see what I'm getting at, but the problem is that what you so firmly believe to be the truth is also what you seem to think the truth is. And only that. You don't seem to be willing to accept anyone else's points or criticisms of your logic and just go on thinking your view is the right view.
Now I know this could be said about me or any other person, however the difference is most of the time people see the validity in our statements and often agree on them. Now most people here aren't stupid nor sheep, and provide many differing opinions, but when so many people are against what your saying perhaps it's time to re-evaluate exatcly what it is your saying.

...well, they are my opinions...<insert cliche(s) here>

And if you voice them more properly perhaps people might read them more seriously.

if you mean [for me] to read the NYTimes/WPost and watch CNN/Fox.

By educating yourself it doesn't neccessarily mean to watch CNN/Fox or read a few newspapers, but if you think that's the best route then by all means use it.

i've said they are brainwashed and desensitized and/or mentally and physically conditioned. are these false observations of what joining the military entails? and if you're not cut-out for it, you get mustered?

Of course not everyone is cut out for the military. Yes mental and physical conditioning takes place, it's pretty obvious. This however doesn't make them inhuman as you seem to think of them. Not everyone is born with the neccessary skills, so their trained. It's the same for any job. I'm not sure what you mean by mustered however and what that has to do with what you've stated.

from what i've learned, we were going in pre-911 anyway

I didn't ask if it was on paper prior to 9/11. My question was simple: If we had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11 ever happening (perhaps 2-3 years before it taking place) would you be acting the same way you are with Iraq, or would you have supported the war? Difference being in this scenario we already know the consequences. The question still stands however.

anyone's opinion wrong?

If you have to ask, I don't think you're ready for the answer. Nevertheless the answer is yes. Everyone's entitled to their opinion no matter how dumbfounded it is, but it doesn't mean their opinion is right. My opinion could be that the earth is flat. It's been proven that it's not, so therefore my opinion would be wrong.

from what i understand from what we've discussed, my interpretations of the military have been proven wrong(?). that they are not brainwashed or desensitized, nor mentally or physically conditioned. I won't have to kill anyone when forced to defend myself, without hesitation. I won't be "mindless".

I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and figure you're talking about the common soldier when you say "military" and I've already said my points on this above. As someone has already suggested, you don't have to kill anyone. You could just "throw hugs" at them. What is your reasoning for thinking they're mindless? Because they take orders? When you're a child you take 'orders' from your parents, does that make a child mindless? When you're in school you take orders from the teachers/principals/etc, does that make one mindless? You take orders from the authorities, does that make one mindless? I could go on and on. Please breif me on your logic as to how the military is mindless.

Emerald_Dragon

May 9th, 2004, 11:32 PM

>Taking life without hesitation in a combat situation
>is not worse than taking one without remorse.

agreed. in a combat situation. i'd prolly be dead without proper training.
however, i'd argue, i wouldn't be the same person, with that training.

>"when you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth"
>What proof can you provide to state that what has been said is "lies"?

in the context of the statement, in reply to...
>>The real world doesn't work that way.

i was attempting to state, that if you repeat a lie long enough , it becomes the truth. in the context of the real world, as Laz asserted.

which is what happened with Cynthia McKinney's non-existent statements to Congress, that Bush had foreknowledge of 911.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=229&row=1
[i]"
And why is McKinney dangerous/loony/disgusting? According to NPR, “McKinney implied that the [Bush] Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information.”

The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”

That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”

Problem is, McKinney never said it.
"

Or that there were 19 Hijackers for 911. Which, when followed up, 7 are still alive. Yet everyone knows that 19 were involved and died on the planes. Yet there were no bodies, on flight 93, of the hijackers, per Sierra Times who used FOIAs to supply that information. [ref my previous posts regarding 911]

and, as per research performed by the Rand Corporation (Delphi technique?)...

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=1129
"And should your thinking stray into unsanctioned territory despite the trusted anchor's example, a

poll can be produced which shows that most persons do not think that way--and you don't want to be

different do you? Thus, the mental wanderer is brought back into the fold.
"

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Delphi.htm
"
The Rand Corporation in the early sixties developed the "Delphi Technique" for the purpose of maneuvering segments of the public into accepting pre-determined government policies.
"

I don't completely agree with what the articles state, but I do believe, based on them, that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Hence, my cliche.

>>"You can't talk calculus to someone who doesn't speak algebra,"
>Again, another unneccessary cliche which doesn't reaffirm anything.
>The meaning of this cliche would make sense if anyone was using special
>'military lingo' but alas no one is.

i'll attempt to clarify this one. although i agree, beforehand, that it may have been unnecessary.

no military lingo needed to be used. I was attempting to say, that because he didn't have the info that I did, I could not speak to him on an equal level, without causing further confusion/misunderstanding. Or viceversa.

I didn't get his "training" and he hasn't read and digested all the info i've been exposed to. Just as he's [Laz] had Secret level, compartmentalized, confidential, intelligence, gathered by military sources, *takes a breath*, i've read reams of opinions, editorials, exposes, banned news articles, suppressed information, biographies, and books, that he has not.

And here we are, talking about an issue [the Draft], that he and I have differing Points of view on.

It was a vague cliche, agreed. You had to have taken higher math to understand the scope/analogy.

Addition/Subtraction -> Multiplication/Division -> Algebra-Trig/Geometry -> Calculus -> Multivariate -> Quantum Physics, etc.

>but the problem is that what you so firmly believe to be the truth is
>also what you seem to think the truth is....
>You don't seem to be willing to accept anyone else's points or criticisms
>of your logic and just go on thinking your view is the right view.

Point taken. right now, the truth for me, regarding the draft, is that, I'm not willing to be drafted. Not even for a desk job w/o Basic training. The descriptions given to me about Basic aren't so bad. But I'm not one who likes to be told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. Which could be perceived by some [Laz, Noquisi], as a misconception of the military life. But that is my truth, as concluded, when my buddies told me about their experiences.

One could argue, that living a civilian life, I still have to do as I'm told at my job. But, its a job of my choosing, in the city of my choosing. And, I can always quit and look for another job. Can I quit being a soldier to take up another career? Sure, when my term is up, but not before. Else I'm bound for Levinworth (sp?).

>This however doesn't make them inhuman as you seem to think of them.

i never said that. although, I guess it could be interpreted, as that. I said they were brainwashed and desensitized. I never said soldiers were mindless and inhuman. However, I did say, they could "Kill on command". which could be taken in the same vein. but it doesn't mean they are the former.

>If we had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11 ever happening
>would you be acting the same way you are with Iraq,

My answer could be used against me. But I'll state it anyway. It is who I am.

No. I'd probably be oblivious and apathetic to the whole thing. As I was before Iraq, before 911. I'd probably be wondering why we were in Afghanistan, but so long as it didn't affect me, I wouldn't care. [typical American]. Why did I choose to get involved? To be immersed, versed, and hungry for info? my stocks were adversely affected. and as one who follows stocks and performs due diligence, i read about why and what and how. All the variables that could influence the value of my portfolio. I didn't like the answers I was finding. and before I knew it, i was politically labelled, a "Liberal". :grin
I always thought I was conservative with Republican values. My, how people change!?

Sure, one can argue that I'd be against the war, given that my stocks would be affected by Afghanistan. However, war has historically been good for the market and the economy, so its a moot point.

The reality is, Iraq got me involved. Not 911, not Afghanistan. I performed my root cause [leading me to 911], my due diligence [behind the media spin], my research [lotsa reading]. And now, I've got my answers. My truth. And mind you, it is not for everyone. The Draft is a collateral issue of this war.

IMO, there is a reason why the saying, "The truth is out there" exists. It's a true statement. But it's converse, "Ignorance is bliss", reigns supreme. You will find it if you look for it, but it may not be the answer you expected. Therefore, maybe it would have been better, not to have delved into it and not to know.

To conclude my answer to the Afghanistan question, I would argue that the Draft would not have been proposed, had we went _only_ into Afghanistan. It would not have been needed. It was not considered until Iraq, when troops and divisions needed time to rest+recuperate, but were required to be active.

Which prolly would not be so, if Clinton hadn't cut half the military during his term. They don't need a Draft, just recall the troops/divisions they laid off. Isn't that possible? Isn't that a likely reason why recruitment quota are met 9 months early? Everyone who were mustered out, are returning? Especially given the bleak job market since 2000?

>>anyone's opinion wrong?
>If you have to ask, I don't think you're ready for the answer.
>Nevertheless the answer is yes.

it was rhetorical. my answer would have been 'no'. its hard to tell someone [at least to me], that their opinion is wrong. i'd rather show it. or explain it. saying to someone that they are wrong, tends not to make much of conversation. but i guess, explaining it, is no different.

Emerald_Dragon

May 9th, 2004, 11:33 PM

>Please breif me on your logic as to how the military is mindless.

i was caught in the moment of being wrong, collecting my alleged misconceptions, and said "mindless" when I should have said brainwashed and desensitized. it was an error.

but i suppose i can try to answer. "Mindless" in the sense that, you were unable to do, other than what you are told. without your free will.

sure,
1) a child has to listen to his parents and do as he/she's told, but when he/she doesn't, he/she will be punished for it.

2) a student has to study the course material, as prescribed by the professor, else not be ready for the exam. and possibly fail the course and waste everyones time and money.

3) i obey the laws and statutes, as written and approved by the constituents. If I don't, I pay the fine or penalties involved for breaking them.

same with a soldier. do as you're trained/instructed, or face the consequences. perform your duties without question.

However, none of the above can be court martialed and shot for dereliction of duty, can they? In example 3, I could be killed for killing someone else. But in the armed forces, is it, or is it not true, that I can be killed, for _not_ killing anybody ?[rhetorical] Call it another misconception, but is it true/possible? [not rhetorical]

Which is why I didn't state they were mindless or inhuman. I concede that I did say, "Kill on command". Neutralize the threat.

And if I am drafted, I'd have to adhere to rules that i had no say in. no choice. Whereas, if i enlisted, willingly. it would be my choice to adhere. Am i right or wrong?

I've been accused of having misconceptions about enlistment and what I'd experience as a recruit. If so, what should my perceptions be? What romantic notions should I have for being a soldier?

i agree that you have to be intelligent to do what's expected of you. But how about doing what's against your conscious? as in conscientious objectors. they don't have to fight. does that make them any less a soldier? what's their purpose if they don't fight? [rhetorical]

again, it was my mistake to interject "mindless" into my statements about soldiers, it didn't start off that way. i was using words provided by others, to re-state them, to show my point. little did i know, it would alter my arguments. will be more careful.

>I'm not sure what you mean by mustered however and what that has to do with what you've stated.

i mean that if they don't pass basic, they don't enlist, or something to that affect. That, and if you don't re-enlist at the end of your term, you can muster out, get discharged, and whatnot.

lazserus

May 10th, 2004, 1:56 AM

I have to start with something that may come off as a cheap shot and I certainly don't mean it that way, but I believe it's relevant. ED, you talk about perception and selective perception and how you're willing to see the "truth" while people like myself are "mindless" and "desensitized", etc. However, for someone who claims to have an enlightened perception you can't seem to utilize forum features to create easy reading for other members. You attempt to quote things in your responses and they're just accented by >< symbols. You complain because people skim over your posts and don't pay full attention to what you say, and I must tell you... it's because you make them tedious for the reader by not being perceptive and noticing certain forum features that create the easy read. Maybe you do that on purpose, but if you do, it doesn't help your stance. Now, on to the slaughter...

i wouldn't be the same person, with that training.
You normally come off as a logical person, but this last post seemed to puke logic into the toilet. Of course you wouldn't be the same person. Do you call yourself a static person? You should change always - especially after new experiences. The point of any training is a form of change, whether it's a health, fat, porno, or military training session. If you actually think you could go through any other "training" but military and not train and learn/change from the experience then you live in a fantasy world.

when you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth
The door swings both ways, Mr. Know-it-All. I love how only your words are truth and every other opinion is just a regurgitated lie accepted as truth. It might be a good idea to get over yourself at some point. :bubble:

he hasn't read and digested all the info i've been exposed to.
This is the first time you mention this, and you're making baseless, blind assumptions. You can't prove your point by acting like you have remotely the closest idea of what your opponent knows. Every assumption you make weakens your argument. You haven't a clue how much I know, have access or have read - just because we don't see eye to eye doesn't mean we didn't read the same book. Stop assuming you're "in the know" and know one else is. Assumptions are nothing more than uneducated guesses used to aid a cause that's already hollow.

i've read reams of opinions, editorials, exposes, banned news articles, suppressed information, biographies, and books, that he has not.
Once again, assumptions based off what you THINK I know and believe. I joined the military very late in life, not as some ignorant teenager. The more you assume the more your position falters. Stop placing me as some brainwashed drone within the US military. You haven't a clue how long I've been in, what branch I'm in, what I actually do, and so on. Your assumptions get quite tedious and they are all very ignorant. Just because someone joins the military doesn't always mean they believe in the current political views, not does it mean they're uneducated. I've known quite a few college grads who joined because they believed...Your stereotypes are ignorant, redundant and self centered. Open your front door and look outside. There's a world beyond your opinion.

i never said that. although, I guess it could be interpreted, as that. I said they were brainwashed and desensitized. I never said soldiers were mindless and inhuman. However, I did say, they could "Kill on command". which could be taken in the same vein. but it doesn't mean they are the former.
Read over your comments previously. You did say soldiers were mindless. Plus, if you don't mean something and everyone interprets it as so, maybe you need to change your approach. You've been completely bashing military the entire thread.

But it's converse, "Ignorance is bliss", reigns supreme. You will find it if you look for it, but it may not be the answer you expected. Therefore, maybe it would have been better, not to have delved into it and not to know.
Once again, like DarkAce says, you seem to have the truth while everyone else lives a lie. Everytime someone refutes what you say you quote the "If a lie is said enough times it becomes truth", as if that is supports only YOUR thoughts, leaving room for no one else's opinion or "truth". Everytime someone has a conflicting opinion you claim to have the truth while those who conflict (even in numbers) don't "read" or "know" what you know. I mentioned before that there was a world beyond your opinion, but you should also know there is a world beyond your self.

I stopped reading at this point. I know you said more, but you have a trend and I saw how you started it and it wasn't any different than watching a cow spit up his grassy lunch.

At this point I'm no longer even arguing against your views, but against your logic. Yes, I call some of your posts soapbox material, but you do tend to preach and you can't reap what you sew. You contradict yourself and you constantly create horrible excuses for your ignorant assumptions. It's best that you leave assumptions out of your debating. Lastly, stop preaching about perception and attention when your lack of perception is displayed publicly within your post formatting.

I appreciate DarkAce's support in this matter - very much so, considering I believe this is the first time we have both been on the same page. ED, don't think DA is teaming up with me on this matter, because I, myself, was completely shocked that he backed me. It appears Da and myself agree in logic, but not philosophy. :D

Hoodlum

May 10th, 2004, 8:06 AM

this sounds like a big winded fartbag, please talk about the topic instead of trying to satisfy your rediculous urges to feel cool on the internet..

Chrome Ninja

May 10th, 2004, 8:09 AM

knowing our goverment i would not worry about the draft yet :alcoholic ,
they will start with the entire mexican and cuban imagrant population first

DarkAce

May 10th, 2004, 8:30 PM

In addition to what's already been said, I guess I'll comment on some of which hasn't.

agreed. in a combat situation. i'd prolly be dead without proper training.
however, i'd argue, i wouldn't be the same person, with that training.

Of course you wouldn't be the same person. You would of aquired skills you've never had before and would be mentally stronger through discipline and other stuff you'd learn. Life's about change, deal with it.

>"when you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth"
>What proof can you provide to state that what has been said is "lies"?

in the context of the statement, in reply to...
>>The real world doesn't work that way.

i was attempting to state, that if you repeat a lie long enough [in the real world], it becomes the truth. in the context of the real world, as Laz asserted.

which is what happened with Cynthia McKinney's non-existent statements to Congress, that Bush had foreknowledge of 911.

Why are you speaking of 9/11? I could be mistaken, but weren't we speaking of Iraq? That's what people are opposing you on in here mostly is about your assumptions of Iraq, among other things. I could pick out situations where that cliche would make sense also but that would be besides the point since we are speaking of the current situation in Iraq and the military.

One could argue, that living a civilian life, I still have to do as I'm told at my job. But, its a job of my choosing, in the city of my choosing. And, I can always quit and look for another job. Can I quit being a soldier to take up another career? Sure, when my term is up, but not before. Else I'm bound for Levinworth (sp?).

Let me get this straight. One of your main arguements about the military is that you can't cut tail and leave whenever the hell you want? Heh. Being a part of the miltary is no ordinary job, might be best to stop thinking of it as that.

No. I'd probably be oblivious and apathetic to the whole thing. As I was before Iraq, before 911. I'd probably be wondering why we were in Afghanistan, but so long as it didn't affect me, I wouldn't care. [typical American]. Why did I choose to get involved? To be immersed, versed, and hungry for info? my stocks were adversely affected. and as one who follows stocks and performs due diligence, i read about why and what and how. All the variables that could influence the value of my portfolio. I didn't like the answers I was finding. and before I knew it, i was politically labelled, a "Liberal".

Sure, one can argue that I'd be against the war, given that my stocks would be affected by Afghanistan. However, war has historically been good for the market and the economy, so its a moot point.

So basically you didn't give two shits about the whole thing if this is what I'm reading? Your only interest was that of your stocks and your $$$? As the way you've stated you knew nothing of the issues of Afghanistan pre 9/11 it still seems you know nothing of Iraq and the Middle East in general. Unless you could care less and are only concerned about your stocks. This would answer why your posts are filled with BS all the time.

it was rhetorical. my answer would have been 'no'. its hard to tell someone [at least to me], that their opinion is wrong. i'd rather show it. or explain it. saying to someone that they are wrong, tends not to make much of conversation. but i guess, explaining it, is no different.

I wouldn't consider it rhetorical if it can be simply answered. It's rather easy to tell someone their opinion is wrong. That's why you back up your statements of why it's wrong with how it's wrong with valid statements...If you just say you're wrong, or you're right without any real valid reasoning behind your statements then no one will take you seriously. This is something you need to learn and approve on.

In example 3, I could be killed for killing someone else. But in the armed forces, is it, or is it not true, that I can be killed, for _not_ killing anybody ?[rhetorical] Call it another misconception, but is it true/possible? [not rhetorical]

Hardly rhetorical at all. You can be killed with out killing anybody even if you're not in the army. If I have to explain even this much to you, then you're in need of some serious help.

But how about doing what's against your conscious? as in conscientious objectors. they don't have to fight. does that make them any less a soldier? what's their purpose if they don't fight? [rhetorical]

Life's full of choices my boy. If you don't want to fight, don't sign up for infantry or whatever the term for a soldier is. Do something within the military that doesn't involve fighting out on the field. Their purpose is to ensure the victory.

By the way, I play favourites with no one.

Emerald_Dragon

May 11th, 2004, 3:53 PM

>Life's about change, deal with it.

which is what i'm doing, is it not? discussing it? deciding that i'm against it?
i agree that i'd probably lose weight, get more fit, be more accurate with a rifle, learn additional technical skills, expand on the ones I do know; but its a life i would rather not pursue. The armed forces are not for me.

I've dealt with it.

>Heh. Being a part of the miltary is no ordinary job,
>might be best to stop thinking of it as that.

i'm not disagreeing.

>Why are you speaking of 9/11? I could be mistaken, but weren't we speaking of Iraq?

i see why you see, that I stray from the subject. I think you failed to see my point.

In the contextual reply to Laz accusing me of not being part of the real world, I responded with "repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth" [in the real world]. And I proceeded to provide 3 points to support my point. 1) A lie was repeated about McKinney until it became the truth, 2) a lie was repeated about 19 hijackers until no one believes otherwise, and 3) the Rand Corporation developed the Delphi technique used to get people to believe what they should believe.

It may be too much data at one time. But you did say, that i should provide validating points to support my opinion.

>I could pick out situations where that cliche would make sense also

i agree. but we'll only know when people discuss it. belittling, marginalizing, and dismissing the opposing view doesn't help the discussion. it only detracts and derails the discourse, much like it has here. although, the personal attacks are not as colorful.

>So basically you didn't give two shits about the whole thing if this is what
>I'm reading? Your only interest was that of your stocks and your $$$?

like i said, it could be used against me, as i anticipated it might.
and now i know you better from your reaction, and viceversa, by showing you my motives.

i don't know about you, but i don't live at home with my parents and would like to retire sometime.
something i won't have to worry about if I was active in the armed forces. They have pensions too? right?

>This would answer why your posts are filled with BS all the time.

i take it, that 'BS' to you, is anything you don't agree with. Or just unsupported opinions?
do I need to supply 3 more points to support an argument you don't get?

>Hardly rhetorical at all.

which part? the 1st or 2nd? I have my answers, which was why it was rhetorical. The non-rhetorical part was limited in scope to my alleged misconceptions about the military.

>Life's full of choices my boy.
>If you don't want to fight, don't sign up for infantry or whatever the term for a soldier is.

well, it won't be my choice if the 'Draft' happens, now, will it?

From my last read of Laz, he still sounds pissed at me. I'll wait til he cools down to respond. Sometimes, you get so angry, you forget that its just a discussion, a disagreement. Laz, you're above personal attacks, why start?

One more thing bothers me.

You've labelled me "enlightened". [was that you?] I resent that remark. I never claimed to be, nor did I claim that I held the truth. To thus label me and proceed to disprove the label, you are being deceptive.

These are my opinions, my truths, as collected, as I've progressed. You seem to feel that I don't know diddly about squat. You're welcome to that opinion, its yours and I won't change that.

But from whatall I've figured out, the truth, (the honest straightforward, third person, uninvolved, unbiased view) is relative. Based on what information you have available to you. If you don't have it all, you don't know it all. I know that I don't know. Which is why I say its my opinion. Until I get more data that supports a different conclusion, the answers I've got, are the ones I'm considering, my truth.

Until you invalidate the supporting arguments, they stand.
If you need a review, just re-read the thread. I'm sure you'll find it as entertaining as I have. :grin

DarkAce

May 11th, 2004, 4:47 PM

I think you failed to see my point.

In the contextual reply to Laz accusing me of not being part of the real world, I responded with "repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth" [in the real world].

It may be too much data at one time. But you did say, that i should provide validating points to support my opinion.

I didn't fail to see your point at all. You should continue to read my entire paragraphs more clearly before you start taking quotes from it. Laz's questioning in this thread was in context to IRAQ AND THE MILITARY, not 9/11. Why you feel it neccessary to bring in other subject matters which have no context to validate your statements on Iraq and the military is beyond me. When I said to provide validating points it was meant to provide them to support your current arguements. You still have provided no valid points on your assumptions and opinion of Iraq and the military. All you've done is made a half-assed comparison to two different situations with no real proof or valid statements to proove why this: "repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth" has to do with Iraq and the military. You've already shown what it has to do with 9/11 so I'm telling you from now, don't post about it again.

i take it, that 'BS' to you, is anything you don't agree with. Or just unsupported opinions?
do I need to supply 3 more points to support an argument you don't get?

BS to me is assumptions based on no real claims or evidence. Which is what you've posted over and over again on certain subjects. Your points you've provided are weak and irrelevant to the arguement at hand.

>Hardly rhetorical at all.

which part? the 1st or 2nd? I have my answers, which was why it was rhetorical.

In example 3, I could be killed for killing someone else. But in the armed forces, is it, or is it not true, that I can be killed, for _not_ killing anybody ?[rhetorical]

How is this rhetorical? Obviously the answer is yes, but if you have read on to whatelse I had wrote in the paragraph: "You can be killed with out killing anybody even if you're not in the army."

>Life's full of choices my boy.
>If you don't want to fight, don't sign up for infantry or whatever the term for a soldier is.

well, it won't be my choice if the 'Draft' happens, now, will it?

What is that you're exactly against? Joining the military or fighting for the military? There are many other occupations within the military as I've already stated.

Sometimes, you get so angry, you forget that its just a discussion, a disagreement.

Anyone would get angry after so many unsuccessful trys at reasoning and trying to talk sense and logic into someone that obviously doesn't want any part of it.

I never claimed to be, nor did I claim that I held the truth.

All you've done in most of your posts is claims this!

If you need a review, just re-read the thread.

My eyes are tripping out enough as it is. I don't want to focus them even more by going through all this BS again.

Emerald_Dragon

May 13th, 2004, 10:47 AM

>You did say soldiers were mindless.

in the context of that statement, I was agreeing with what you had said, similar to the remark about Muslims opposing western culture. which says I wasn't and I didn't.

And even after I admitted making the mistake of repeating what was said by you, I seem to be credited with its origins. Keep repeating it, it will become the truth because I'll be too tired and over it, to dispute it. if you choose to substitute/change my words, (brainwashed and desensitized), that's your choice on how you read it.

>You contradict yourself and you constantly create horrible excuses for your ignorant assumptions.

i have? where?
when i said i was enlightened? wrong, you said that.
when i said that soldiers were mindless and inhuman? wrong, you and DA said that.
when i said Muslims oppose western culture? wrong, you said that.

>Everytime someone has a conflicting opinion you claim to have the truth while
>those who conflict (even in numbers) don't "read" or "know" what you know.

are saying that my opinion is the "truth"? i'm flattered.
but its only my point of view. i disagree.

oh, and in case you want to use my previous statement as a self-contradiction, I will be more clear. I disagree that I claim to have the truth when someone else has a conflicting opinion. it could be mis-read by some, to say, i disagree with my point of view. which would be a huge contradiction. Again, you can chose to mis-read it if you want, hell, call it BS, I'm not at fault for your perceived notions of contradiction.

I don't claim to "know it all" as you have asserted. if i did, i would not waste my time with you, because I would always be right.

>Laz's questioning in this thread was in context to IRAQ AND THE MILITARY, not 9/11. Why you feel it
>neccessary to bring in other subject matters which have no context to validate your statements on Iraq
>and the military is beyond me.

you mean to tell me, that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq? If I remember correctly, 911 was a terrorist attack, which led us to Afghanistan and later Iraq, and now the Draft. Its all related to me. The Draft would not have been an issue, had we not entered Afghanistan/Iraq. The military has everything to do with Iraq and the Draft.

BTW, I agree that 911 had no physical connection with Iraq. If you ask John Snow and Richard Clarke, they'll say the same thing, but well, Iraq was on the agenda. The administration wanted any excuse to get into Iraq.

Again, i can guess that someones going to chime in with 'contradiction' and 'out of context', but True or False, 911 was the catalyst? The "Pearl Harbor" of the PNAC mission? Is it, or is it not true, that the Draft is a collateral effect of Iraq? Which was precipitated from 911? How can you not believe its not related? I have no evidence to back up my claims, so you can categorize it as BS. It is what I believe.

There was no connection between 911 and Iraq, yet it was used as a catalyst to drum up support for the war. So you tell me, is it 'connected'?

>Which is what you've posted over and over again on certain subjects.
>Your points you've provided are weak and irrelevant to the arguement at hand.

do you even remember my point? or are you just writing to say, that whatever i'm saying, is BS? it may be BS to you, but let's hear your arguments to invalidate it.

I say I don't want to be Drafted because its not for me. I say I don't want to be brainwashed and desensitized as an after-effect of Basic training. Is that BS? Laz and DN say I have a misconception, am misinformed about the military, and have no basis in my assumptions. You say they are right and that I have no basis because I haven't been thru training. Further, you add that my opinions about why we are in Iraq are wrong. Am I painting a clear enough picture here? Are we in agreement thus far?

Now maybe you can tell me why being Drafted is a good thing. Why fighting for our country in Iraq would help win the war on terrorism. Is this not the heart of the discussion? If the issues were limited in scope and breadth, like you would like to keep this one, I would agree. However, the world is not that simple. By waging this war, we've made more enemies and have even alienated our allies. Unsubstantiate claims lacking concrete evidence, I know. Deny it didn't happen (making enemies, alienating allies). But IMO, the European community, which had sympathy for us post-911, are now having second thoughts.

You can keep you're limited scope and support the Draft. I have a differing point of view.

>There are many other occupations within the military as I've already stated.

of course there are. I can be a non-combatant serving behind the lines on the 507th Maintenance Company where I don't have to shoot back. Or maybe a desk job at the joint chiefs of staff procuring supplies as a logistics officer. in either case, i would still be Drafted and be doing something I had little choice in doing, because the politicians felt that they needed more soldiers for their war. I was a kid, once. Playing "war" was fun. Then I grew up and realized, it wasn't fun. Now I know better.

>You've already shown what it has to do with 9/11 so I'm telling you from now,
> don't post about it again.

we're clearly not seeing eye-to-eye here. Oh well. At least its aired. People will decide on their own, what they believe. You can't belittle everyone in hopes of getting them to shut up about something you disagree with. It has the reverse effect when the available data supports the assertions.

Time will tell.

DontBeAfraid

May 13th, 2004, 2:26 PM

Ok, I dont want to seem rude but I KNOW its more effort to quote the way you are than to do it like everyone else. You can still copy/paste the entire post and parse through responding to certain text and deleting others but for the parts you want to respond to just highlight them and then click on the quote icon and it will wrap it automatically.... You dont need to be a special member. For reference the quote icon is the last one on the right in the quick reply box...
It goes:
B I U | quote

Emerald_Dragon

May 13th, 2004, 2:48 PM

> I dont want to seem rude but I KNOW its more effort

np, i don't see it as rude.

its how i'm responding that makes this '>' route easier.
after losing many responses with the browser/site after submissions [ask VR], i've started to copy/paste into notepad, to put together my replies. i can reply to more than one poster/post, save my responses, and work on it throughout the day [or tomorrow]. i write here when i have time. I do have things to do and don't want to lose what i'm going to say.

>You dont need to be a special member.

i know, not here. it was ezboard(?) i had AO confused with. We migrated from there to this new format. i was mistaken.

lazserus

May 13th, 2004, 3:02 PM

after losing many responses with the browser/site after submissions [ask VR], i've started to copy/paste into notepad, to put together my replies. i can reply to more than one poster/post, save my responses, and work on it throughout the day [or tomorrow]. i write here when i have time. I do have things to do and don't want to lose what i'm going to say.
That problem was resolved months ago (I believe it was mentioned in the Problem Reports forum), thus the post losing is not a problem anymore. Plus, I know plenty of other people who use notepad to respond to posts and still manage to use the quote button. All of your posts are extraordinarily long and you should at least attempt to make it easier on those you want to take your posts seriously. People tend to just skim over poorly formatted posts. :sardonic:

i know, not here. it was ezboard(?) i had AO confused with. We migrated from there to this new format.
That migration was last year. I think that's more than enough time to get used to the forums setup. :smokin:

playmaker88

May 14th, 2004, 5:50 AM

Did the decent thing and joined the Air Force (UK) in 1989, did 8 years, took redundancy when offered because the cold war was over and we didn't appear to be needed anymore. Still had to spend six years on a reserve list but once that was over (2002) they couldn't call me back.

Had a small part to play in the first Gulf War but that was oh so minor in comparison. I got lucky, joined while it was quiet, left with a whimper. I'm sure a lot of the guys (and gals) out there joined for the career, a trade and to see the world, even when this crisis started, many, myself included thought that it would have been like the last one. Heavy bombardment, quick surrender, few allied casualties. Bush had seen his father do it that way and was off to finish the job.

The British PM (Blair) joined in for two reasons, one because the British would do anything to remain best buddies with the US and two, because he thought it would be over in two weeks, we'd do an eighth of the work and get half the credit.

These people are well trained and have a lot of guts, guerilla warfare, on the streets is something that I'd rather keep in the realms of combat training. These are brave men and women who put their lives on the line every minute, I'm sure many of them never thought it would be that way. Now that it is they are calling on all their resources of strength and will and in the case of prisoners we can only hope restraint (though as I mentioned in the thread regarding prisoner abuse, that is easier said than done in the circumstances), (please read that thread before jumping down my throat) just to get through day by day. Their leaders sent them in blind and a whole lot of naivety from politicians has led to a total mess. :nono:

DarkAce

May 15th, 2004, 11:45 AM

And even after I admitted making the mistake of repeating what was said by you, I seem to be credited with its origins. Keep repeating it, it will become the truth because I'll be too tired and over it, to dispute it. if you choose to substitute/change my words,

I agree that you've never clearly came out and said the exact wording in some posts that we've credited you with saying, but it's the angle your obviously pushing.

I'm not even gonna bother posting about your other points. We've been through this before. I've once read "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason...is like administering medicine to the dead. "
On that note, I'm done. I cease to continue this redudant arguement over and over again.

Defiant Noquisi

May 19th, 2004, 3:08 AM

I say I don't want to be Drafted because its not for me. I say I don't want to be brainwashed and desensitized as an after-effect of Basic training. Is that BS? Laz and DN say I have a misconception, am misinformed about the military, and have no basis in my assumptions. You say they are right and that I have no basis because I haven't been thru training. Further, you add that my opinions about why we are in Iraq are wrong. Am I painting a clear enough picture here? Are we in agreement thus far?
.You left out the part about being clueless. How would you become "desensitized" or brainwashed, how? You make grand claims that turn into whimpering deceptions since you have virtually nothing to prove it with and then complain and take cheap pot shots when someone calls you on it. There is absolutely NO REASON why someone would become how you claim unless they were so weak of mind that they would let another do their thinking for them. In other words, those people would have to have given their permission in order for this to occur. You know your comments to be true because of others you know and what you have heard, yet have NO EXPERIENCE to back up what you post. If you hadnt repeated the same rhetoric over and over again I might be inclined to think otherwise.

Its not hard to understand how you could believe the way that you do since you seem to easily prove laziness by the manner in which you post. You will never prove this wrong until you change how you post. I use Word then copy/paste and it doesnt take me much time at all to make the needed edits for an easy to read post. Unless you are posting as a matter of boredom and selfishness one would think you would post in a manner that would befit all, rather than just amaze yourself.

Taking cheap shots at me or anyone else shows how low you will stoop to get attention and feel all smug and self-important. If a draft was reinstated I would be damn near impatient wanting to read your post about your opinions of Basic, especially about brainwashing.

If you were brainwashed, how would you know that you were? :dunno:

At any rate, it looks like you dont have to be scared for awhile yet.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_irs_051804,00.html

Emerald_Dragon

May 19th, 2004, 12:29 PM

>How would you become "desensitized" or brainwashed, how?

the 'brainwash' part comes in during the discipline training. the ability to follow orders and pursuing objectives, above all else. you can't be mindless, you must ponder and overcome. its part of the training, is it not? to assess a situation and react accordingly? If someone were to tell you to "take that hill", would you? now if you were properly trained, you'd get your squad/platoon to take positions, plan an attack to obtain the objective. you are willingly submitting to obtain someone else's objectives. you aren't necessarily given the reason, you wouldn't need it, you're "trained".

the desensitization comes when you are trained to take down a target. hostile neutralized. enemy eliminated. objective completed. mission accomplished. etcetera. nevermind that it may have taken a life or 2 to succeed. can anyone, not properly trained, complete such a task? your way of thinking has to change, in order to do so.

yeah, i'm clueless [/sarcasm].

>That problem was resolved months ago...
>thus the post losing is not a problem anymore

that's nice to know, however, I don't believe your method allows me the convenience of answering multiple people's posts nor to take more than a moment to reply. call it lazy, but i don't spend more than a few minutes a day, reading what is said, then writing a reply a day or more later, when i'm not busy. i don't sit around for days to think of an answer, that would be pretty lazy, IMO.

>People tend to just skim over poorly formatted posts.

then move along. you don't acknowledge/evolve from what i say anyway.
its more convenient for me to post, the way i do. so don't read it.

my message isn't meant for you. neither is it getting to you.

>Taking cheap shots at me or anyone else shows how low you will stoop

was that or was that not, in reply, to similar remarks, originated/initiated by you?

>If you were brainwashed, how would you know that you were?

that's just it, you wouldn't, someone else would notice.

>At any rate, it looks like you dont have to be scared for awhile yet.

i was thinking i had until Spring 2005, post-election. am aware of the IRS re-activation idea. it only makes sense to recall all the "laid off" military during Clinton's term. Those guys wanted to be in the armed services.

Call me unreasonable, but I believe the military is better off with people who want to be part of it, not those drafted because they happen to know how to speak more than one language and use a computer. [half-assed assumption]

Ever wonder if such people, choose not to enlist, because they know better? Just a thought.

DontBeAfraid

May 19th, 2004, 12:43 PM

alright, ED, after you have pasted your posts into the box take the 30-60 seconds to find all the lines that start with '>', highlight them one section at a time and click on the quote bubble. thats all it takes and nobody will complain about it anymore. you dont have to type anything just a few clicks.

And tell me youre not implying that only dumb people join the military with your last line.

Defiant Noquisi

May 19th, 2004, 1:42 PM

was that or was that not, in reply, to similar remarks, originated/initiated by you?That was in reference to a cheap and groundless shot you made asking if I know about email.

Your refusal to post using quotes is quite assinine considering you claim to be a database analyst. Arent you people beyond analytical and anal retentive thinking? Dont you go insane if all the ducks arent in a row? Do you even have a life or are you one of those pocket protector wearing nerd/geek types that wear highwater pants and are terrified of sexual conversation and "below level" thinking?

Im asking this since I am not one, nor have I ever done it. But considering the ones I do know are like this, that means, according to you and how you base your opinions, I am correct in believing that EVERY database analyst on the planet is NOT married, doesnt have any children since getting it up is a concept they dont have time for and they would never talk with a "grunt" like me since I am so far below their education level. :crashpc:

Ever wonder if such people, choose not to enlist, because they know better? Just a thought.I was just thinking that in all my life I NEVER cast in stone the opinion of someone else. Since I am not the same as them, my experiences in life could very well be completely different. The only thing I do know is that they will not be the "same". Therefore, it is much more astute to experience things for myself and have my own opinion.

Only then can I discuss intelligently the topic in which I am involved in whether I agree with it or not.

BTW, being that you really dont know the military since you have never served, arent you what you accuse soldiers of being? Your opinions are baseless and MINDLESS since you have allowed others opinions to form this assumption you have about soldiers. Without investigation, experience and rational thought, rather than assumption, being a sheeple and guessing, how can you possibly form an educated and unbiased opinion? :yikes:

MetalMilitia

May 19th, 2004, 1:58 PM

Reinstated military draft would equalize sharing the load in Iraq
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/173848_means19.html

... among all those who are not the children of Presidents, Governors, Legislators, or corporate executives...

-MM- :crs:

Defiant Noquisi

May 19th, 2004, 2:25 PM

Now MM, supposedly it would equalize everything.

He sees it as a way to bring all classes and races together under a shared burden, maximizing public support and ensuring steady troop levels Sounds like that perfect utopia thing again....stay tuned.

Emerald_Dragon

May 19th, 2004, 5:57 PM

>And tell me youre not implying that only dumb people join the military with your last line.
sorry DBA, it was 'just a thought' and i caught the implication when you mentioned it. i'll clarify, but i think you'll still be irked by my answer. i was thinking people had better opportunities elsewhere with those skills, not that they were dumb or smart. you can speak multiple languages and know how to configure PCs, but still not know how to "pick up a chick" or compare/contrast Einstein's relativity and Oppenheimer's(?) quantum mechanics.

dumb people aren't the only ones that join. smart people too. their exist families with histories of being active in the military. i find that very honorable. However, depending on which service you are talking about, you find that the people enlisting aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. I like the Air Force because it seems like, _only_ the well educated are allowed to fly, and even then, you have to be in near perfect physical condition. And on the other hand, the Army. Is it true that their applicant limit for admitting GED-holders, is about 10x higher, than that of the Air Force? Why is there a admission limit? [rhetorical]

I'm of the opinion, that most people who enlist in the Army, do so, because they don't have anywhere else to go [no funds/interest for college, no job, no purpose, no skills]. That most people who enlist in the Air Force, do so, because its the only place they want to be [and nothing else matters]. Both could be said of the Navy/Marines, but you get to travel more. Its a lifestyle that people choose to be part of. I have no problems with that. I have a problem with people telling me I should because its good for me. Good for my country that I fight in a foreign country so we can have 7-11s at every other intersection in a contrived war for oil [/embellishment]. Its the politics i have a problem with, not the soldier.

I may be off-base [speculation], but I feel that our nation is being eased into an economic recession, to free up human resources, which could be used to fill the ranks of the military. Why? because there are no jobs and the ones we've got, can be done cheaper overseas.

>...highlight them one section at a time and click on the quote bubble.

alright already. but if it takes too long, i'm not gonna do it, so hate me now.
BTW, this quote option is better than the quote reply option, may actually use it. Thanks.

>Your refusal to post using quotes is quite assinine

why does that irritate you? if it bothers you so much, stop reading?
i'm not perfect nor claim to be. I do this because its easier.
why should it be an issue of discussion?
:D

>That was in reference to a cheap and groundless shot you made asking if I know about email.

i thought that mine was a pretty witty response, considering early email systems utilized the '>' feature. if you took offense, you should have. i thought you were referencing the shooting range comment. that was a cheap shot. which i felt was well returned.

>Do you even have a life or are you one of those pocket protector wearing nerd/geek types
>that wear highwater pants and are terrified of sexual conversation and "below level" thinking?

yeah, that would be me, or a close approximation. no pocket protector, but should use one. sexual conversation in public is indecent/vulgar/rude and "below level" thinking irritates me. unfortunately, i fit the stereotype. better dressed and mild-mannered, but still a geek. am going to be married soon though. to a jobless, electrical engineering graduate.

> I am correct in believing that EVERY database analyst

i wouldn't say "EVERY", i'd say, most likely. My co-workers seem to fit your stereo-type as well. the ones that don't, shouldn't be doing this job.

>Your opinions are baseless and MINDLESS since you have allowed others opinions to form
>this assumption you have about soldiers.

that's a good point.

[metaphorically...or analagously(?)]
If people tell me that the Sahara Desert is hot, dry, and full of sand, I tend to perform the due diligence to verify it. After all, i've been to the beach and watched Indiana Jones a million times. But after talking with people who have actually been there and back, sharing my limited views on beach sand vs. desert sand, I'm more likely to see a different picture and come to a differing conclusion, without ever having been to the Sahara. I'm sure there are many oases of paradise there, but if i believe the desert is full of them, would i be wrong? [yes].
Why else would it be called a desert?

Who knows, I might even like the desert if I went. But from what I know, I don't. Sand gets into every crevice. I'd rather be cold than hot (one can put on a sweater). The desert isn't for me. Don't make me go because I speak 3 languages and know how to architect a network.

VegasRonin

Jun 2nd, 2004, 10:24 PM

Its not the Draft but its bordering on "Non-Volunteer".
AP) - Thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will be required to stay if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan. The announcement Wednesday, an expansion of a program called "stop-loss," affects units that are 90 days or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. "Buster" Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders can make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances. I would understand if we we're in a War such as WWII but I don't think its necessary for this type of war.

lazserus

Jun 3rd, 2004, 2:07 PM

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

It looks like they're going through the motions to set it in stone. They're even taking steps to avoid draft dodgers.

the 'brainwash' part comes in during the discipline training. the ability to follow orders and pursuing objectives, above all else
You've already formed your opinion on how the military works and no matter how many people who know the reality of the matter tell you otherwise, you continue to stick by these assertions. It is you who say, "if you tell a lie enough times it becomes truth" when telling other people their fact based opinions are wrong, yet you do this yourself. I guess it doesn't apply to you.

Following your logic on the above quoted, you too are brainwashed. You follow the "orders" of your supervisor on a daily basis. You trust in the more experienced and higher authority on matters every day in life, but if that's done in the military it's called brainwashing. Soldiers are allowed to think freely and make personal decisions every day. If one decides not to do what he's supposed to do then there are consequences, just like if you decided to not do what you were supposed to do. You still think the instilled discipline is solely for the purpose of carrying out orders like a mindless robot. You're sorely mistaken.

the desensitization comes when you are trained to take down a target. hostile neutralized. enemy eliminated. objective completed. mission accomplished. etcetera. nevermind that it may have taken a life or 2 to succeed.
It was you who said the military was a fighting force and not a police force. Fighting equals to violence. It comes with the territory. Do you consider all law enforcement officers as desensitized? They have to kill people as well. Where do you draw the line?

then move along. you don't acknowledge/evolve from what i say anyway. its more convenient for me to post, the way i do. so don't read it.
Most people DO move along. That's the point everyone is trying to make, but you're being stubborn about it. The point people are making is that if you want people to take your opinions seriously then it helps to consider their comfort in a discussion. If you're talking to your friend you're not going to attempt to speak too fast so he can't understand you, or speak in a language he can't understand. The principle is the same. No one's saying you HAVE to use the tools that are given to you, we're all just saying that it's more considerate. If you want people to see your opinion, then why make it tedious for them to? If you don't care if people see your opinion, then why waste the time at all? I think this horse has been kicked to death. You're going to do what you want. Everyone was just trying to inform you on an easier and more viewing friendly way to do it. Well, some people were just using it as fuel to insult you, but some of us weren't. No harm done. Just trying to be helpful is all. That's part of my job here. :crashpc:

Taking cheap shots at me or anyone else shows how low you will stoop...

was that or was that not, in reply, to similar remarks, originated/initiated by you?
ED is right. From what I've been reading he hasn't been initiating cheap shots, only responding to them. You can't insult someone and then complain because they come back insulting. Hypocrisy is not our friend.

VegasRonin

Jun 3rd, 2004, 7:49 PM

I agree with ya MickMeister. It may become such a war. It wouldn't take much for the landscape of the current war to evolve into a Global conflict.

Bigsky770

Jun 3rd, 2004, 8:06 PM

. . . "Global Conflict". . . .Hhhhmmmm.....How astute an observation. You feel it as well, eh? :dead:

Joe (Bigsky770)

VegasRonin

Jun 3rd, 2004, 8:13 PM

Aye Joe. One would have to be blind to not see how this ME situation is dividing the world. If things don't get better in a hurry, I fear a match will hit the tinderbox.

DontBeAfraid

Jun 3rd, 2004, 8:30 PM

Oh well.... I got nothing better to do.

Emerald_Dragon

Jun 4th, 2004, 1:39 AM

>You trust in the more experienced and higher authority on matters every
>day in life, but if that's done in the military it's called brainwashing.

I see what you mean. The corporate executive hierarchy vs. an armed forces hierarchy.

In a sense, I would agree that I’m brainwashed as a white collar yuppie. The only difference being, my job description doesn’t include the taking of lives. That may be why I decided against enlistment and against the draft. And though I could be drafted to be a computer engineer, I’d still be part of an organization whose goal is to eliminate the opposition. In that sense, I’m a pacifist. Yet, I will still take arms to defend my life and liberty. Just not at anyone else’s say so, due to prevailing politics which were based on faulty intelligence. Who is to say the current policies are not due to faulty intelligence? I don’t know.

>Do you consider all law enforcement officers as desensitized?

Yes. Not as severely, but yes. In their line of work, they get to see how ugly/ignorant/stupid society can be, everyday, for as long as they show up for work. The stories they’ve told, prolly don’t match what a war veteran can try to tell, but they are still gruesome. And the children of these officiers can become desensitized also. That would require more detail, I know, but I’m keeping it brief.

>They have to kill people as well. Where do you draw the line?

...when the politicians write legislation that “volunteers” me to become part of an organization I choose not to be part of, because it’s the new domestic policy.

But if you mean the line where a person becomes desensitized to human atrocities vs. not? Harder to say. I daresay today’s videogames [ref: Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Half-Life, Counterstrike] are desensitizing the gamers to death and mayhem by making it fun. Whereas, to those who have never played them, they’d be outraged at the casual portrayals of death. Kids are being conditioned that [virtual] killing is fun. Look at the popularity of these games.

But its an argument close to saying that listening to Ozzy Osbourne makes kids suicidal, or whatever that controversy was. So again, its hard to say. Everyone is different. Some people will take the videogames too seriously, others play for a week then move on.

I believe, much the same can be said of the military. Some enlist, serve, and move on. Others are Lifers. Some are really messed up mentally, before they enlisted, and can make the military look bad [ref: torture scandal].

But all are still given the corporate/military line. Do what we tell you and you will be rewarded. Don’t, and there will be conseqences. At least in one career, I’m allowed a choice. The other, is being debated, due to a military resource shortage, even though quota are met. Can you see my consternation?

>You still think the instilled discipline is solely for the purpose of carrying out
>orders like a mindless robot. You're sorely mistaken.

No. I see the discipline [mental conditioning] instilled as a sort of focusing ability. The ability to tune out everything except the job at hand, nevermind anything and everything else. If its not relevant or could prevent you from achieving the objective, go around it, ignore it, overcome it, by any means necessary.

It is both a strength and a weakness. Fortunately or unfortunately, it can affect other areas of a person’s life, because it is part of them after training.

>Most people DO move along….
>That's part of my job here.

I don’t mind it, most readers are kids around here anyways [ref: Micky Mouse] and shouldn’t be exposed to things they are not ready for. I’m happy this forum is here to unload what’s on my mind and even help debunk some of it [ref: Planet X]. I never knew I cared, until I had to explain why I felt, what I felt.

>ED is right…..Hypocrisy is not our friend.

Thank you. I try not to insult anyone. I’m here to learn. But sometimes, some people, ask to be.

>ED always takes cheap shots--that's all his kind know or understand.

Case in point.

>>>. . . "Global Conflict". . . .Hhhhmmmm.....How astute an observation.
>>If things don't get better in a hurry, I fear a match will hit the tinderbox.
>Oh well.... I got nothing better to do.

GEEZ! You guys, had better be wrong! I know no amount of disagreement from my end can change your gut feelings, but so long as I can, I will disagree! There is still hope, hope that this does not escalate, that the U.S. does pull out quietly, that the War in Iraq will diminish the threat of terrorism, that I am misinformed about this deceptive administration, that we have more oil resources than anyone’s already reported, etc.

I mean, even now, the CIA director’s resigned [for the sake of his family], OPEC is upping production to meet demand [after it cutback]. Good things are happening [right?]….ehh who am I kidding.

I've met 3 people [at some parties I was at], who were planning on permenantly leaving the States. For Canada, for Europe. I sense another “rats leaving a sinking ship” scenario. Prolly just paranoia.

Time will tell.

DontBeAfraid

Jun 4th, 2004, 5:26 AM

You REALLY have something better to do? [getting deep now] I mean whats life all about? peace is boring. fighting for fun is evil. but fighting for peace.... thats the sweetspot. You're not bored and you're not evil. Sure, be a network admin or an architect and get married, have some kids grow old and die.... there is no point to that, no meaning. For any story (like the story of ones life) there must be a conflict for it to have a meaning. The purpose is to resolve the conflict.... Several people relatively close to me felt the same as I do, They were unable to find their purpose and this caused them to die young. The system tried to blind them into being slaves and producing more as is the way during peace and as it does successfully to many but they would have none of it.[/back to the shallow end of the pool].

lazserus

Jun 4th, 2004, 3:06 PM

Yet, I will still take arms to defend my life and liberty. Just not at anyone else?s say so
I agree 100%. I am not for the draft at all. Keep the military a volunteer military. That way people who want to be there are there. It's a safety concern when you have people who don't want to be there. That person doesn't care and will not perform. It's a risk. Drafts are terrible. I wouldn't only believe in the draft if we were literally being invaded. However, if that were the case I doubt we'd have any problems getting people to enlist.

I daresay today?s videogames [ref: Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Half-Life, Counterstrike] are desensitizing the gamers to death and mayhem by making it fun.
I understand where you're coming from with this, but I disagree. The main reason for my disagreeing is that other societies have more violent media and are much more peaceful than we are. A good example is the Japanese. They have extremely violent media for entertainment and they're an extraordinarily peaceful people. Studies showed that because they were able to get their violent tendencies out with games and manga, that they were less likely to commit the real thing. Tokyo is one of the largest cities in the world and most populated and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I think it depends on the society. I mean, I don't believe it's the games warping children, I think it's the children and parents. Americans just have a habit at using scapegoats instead of taking responsibility for themselves.

Anyhow, I'm anti-draft. I'm going to write my congressman and stuff poop in the envelope.

NouveauBanjo

Jun 5th, 2004, 2:20 PM

The new draft proposal was put before congress last year before the "conflict" in Iraq began. Do you know what happened? It was shouted down, even laughed at. Those in congress are all old enough to remember what happened the last time there was a draft, it was called Vietnam, and a lot of kids came home in boxes. Every time someone has brought up the idea of the draft in congress, it has been overturned. The only one who would want a draft is soon to be out of office.

40oz

Jun 5th, 2004, 2:31 PM

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I disagree. The main reason for my disagreeing is that other societies have more violent media and are much more peaceful than we are. A good example is the Japanese. They have extremely violent media for entertainment and they're an extraordinarily peaceful people.

So if they had pong b4 pearl Habor, theeeeeen?? ;)

lazserus

Jun 5th, 2004, 5:51 PM

The new draft proposal was put before congress last year before the "conflict" in Iraq began. Do you know what happened? It was shouted down, even laughed at.
Did you follow my link? Congress is pushing the bill forward. They're agreeing now.

Emerald_Dragon

Jun 8th, 2004, 5:18 PM

>For any story (like the story of ones life) there must be a conflict for it to have a meaning.

not for me. i believe in some Chinese proverb that goes something to the effect, "a quiet life is a good life". "Meaning", for me, is growth and knowledge. What we eventually leave behind helps define who we were, whether you're a developer or a destroyer. I want to be remembered as a bridgemaker, not the one that took it down to prevent an enemy from using it. War is politics.

on the other hand, i think what you mean to say, is that life has no meaning, unless there is an event worth living through and remembering, occurs. am i close? Sounds like we're looking for the same thing and have different answers. What is the meaning of life? My/your/our life? IMO, the answer is different for everyone, but not so different as to cause conflict. Unless, of course, you want what's mine, in which case, i may have something to say about that. :vbroll:

>The system tried to blind them into being slaves and producing more as is the way during peace

and that is our society. some cannot fathom why we are, the way we are, yet we exist. some see that we are indeed, part of a machination, and cannot do anything about it. sorry about your friends.

i know i'm a slave to this society. and so long as i can buy my toys and pursue my interests, i will remain a faithful servant of the machine.

>However, if that were the case I doubt we'd have any problems getting people to enlist.

:grin you got that right. my ideology would be tossed aside in exchange for an AK-47 as soon as a foreign military force were to occupy the US of A. My only hesitation would be, if it were a U.S. Embassy, that were occupied. Then, I'd need more data to make a decision.

>I understand where you're coming from with this, but I disagree.

i don't believe it was point of contention. Your Japanese example exemplifies what I was trying to say, the source of my ambivalence. I found it hard to believe that Ozzy's music drove kids to kill themselves or others. I cited violent videogames to support my belief that they desensitize kids/gamers to death and dying on a "Battlefield: 1942", not that they would encourage them to go on shooting sprees.

>I think it depends on the society.

now that makes alot of sense. The Japanese are not American. Neither are the British. The society chooses. So now, we're back to, how do you affect society and its choices...which is another can of worms.

>The only one who would want a draft is soon to be out of office.

...so it won't be mentioned until after they're elected. Even GB2 was pro-education and pro-environment before steal-ahem-taking the White House. How much are people paying for college tuition? [up 17% nationwide]

Didya know that FDR initiated Selective Services in 1940? Well before the U.S. entered WWII? Was it an orchestrated preparation or a political coincidence? It was later dropped in 1973 (?) because of Vietnam (?) when
the Military's top thinkers decided/realized that a volunteer military was more effective [in cost and tactical ability] than conscripts.

Anyways, by Spring 2005, we should see alot of out of work politicians if what you say is true. Or sooner.

>>They have extremely violent media for entertainment and they're an extraordinarily peaceful people.
>So if they had pong b4 pearl Habor, theeeeeen?? ;)

well, IMO, if Pong' was that labyrinthine tank game from the early 80's,
then we [U.S.] would have developed better tanks than the Sherman. The Pershing would have been the MBT, earlier, to keep up with the Panther/Panzer. We'd prolly still lose to the Tiger, but hey, they couldn't keep them fueled anyway because the Russians kept the Caucasus Oil Fields.

But if they [Japan] had violent video games before Pearl Harbor, they would have still attacked because they were all over China/Philippines. They had to go into Indonesia [for oil] because of our oil embargo which effectively castrated their Imperialistic aspirations. We were neutral during Japan and Germany's early expansions, but that doesn't mean their spies weren't keeping tabs on us. How else did they know to refit their torpedoes with fins to account for the shallow waters of the harbor?

McCollum's memo was the smoking gun that tells us we were preparing for war, wanted Japan to attack us, and use the Tri-partite Pact to wage war against Germany. We only needed the support of the American people and a Draft policy in place.

FDR won his election by promising to keep America out of Europe's war. But he wanted to be involved. The Lend-lease of 50 destroyers, the allocation of volunteer soldiers, humanitarian and military aid, sinking German ships; and yet, Hitler did not declare war on America. The American people didn't want to be part of another European war. WWI was enough "over there".

So what can you do? You orchestrate an infamous attack, knowing your enemy would use standard tactics from previous decades which were instrumental in its success.

In 1907, the Russo-Japanese war was decisively won by the Japanese when they wiped out the Russian fleet in a surprise attack. So why not bait them by re-locating the bulk of the Pacific fleet from San Diego/San Francisco to Oahu? It makes strategic sense. But to keep all the ships docked for extended periods and reprimand the Admirals who tried to mobilize them, during the tenuous times? We all knew an attack of some sort was coming, so why did we sit our forces there like ducks? Was radar something which was commonly available then?

Again, these revelations, proven by FOIAs of FDR memos and de-classified documents, came out 50+ years (1992) after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20. And the whistleblowers of the period were painted as looneys, unpatriotic, Dewey stooges/supporters, etc.

>>The new draft proposal was put before congress last year before the "conflict" in Iraq began.
>Did you follow my link? Congress is pushing the bill forward. They're agreeing now.

There's a Senate and a House bill. Nothing is firm yet [as in, including women, upping the max age to 35, drafting techies and multilinguals]. Its not too late to voice opposition to it. Even Rumsfeld has stated he's against it. A few Generals seem to be against it too. But its the politicians who are pushing it.

It could be a political ploy. I can't put my finger on it. I think the Democrats are behind this one. The Republicans want to wage war, so the Democrats [and some repubs] who are against the war, are saying, sure, lets go to war, but if we do, we should reinstate the draft [so people would be against the war, because they're against the draft, like during Vietnam].

In either case, political ploy or plan of action, its not a good policy for those who would have to live by it. We've seen how well politicians can wage war from their armchairs [FDR], they don't do it outright, they plan for it. Strategic plan vs. Tactical application.

War is political, let the Generals deal with the details. And if they need more resources to do their job, get it for them or get another General that says what you want to hear [Shinseki/Franks].

VegasRonin

Jun 29th, 2004, 11:00 PM

They are now doing an INVOLUNTARY TROOP CALL-UP. Soldiers that have recently been discharged are being recalled to Service. This is one step below the Draft. I have a hard time believing this is all for Iraq. The Draft is actually being talked about again. :ohmy:

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 30th, 2004, 6:19 AM

I have a hard time believing this is all for Iraq. The Draft is actually being talked about again. :ohmy: Cant institute martial law in the US without it.

MetalMilitia

Jun 30th, 2004, 6:38 AM

The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday.

The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries.

Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.

The defense official said that while soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve have served their voluntary obligation in the Army they still can be mobilized involuntarily for several years after returning to civilian life.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5536115

Is the "volunteer" army is tapped out, and what (and who) is next...

-MM- :crs:

stewey

Jun 30th, 2004, 6:41 AM

Well if you sign up for the reserves, and you get called up, you should know that part of the reserves is possibly being called up.

But I agree, having a draft for Iraq would be total bs.

DontBeAfraid

Jun 30th, 2004, 6:45 AM

They arent really signed up for the reserves.... What it is is they can call you back a for a few years(up to eight from your enlistment date) after you have been discharged from an active duty enlistment. These guys are out of the military and are being brought back in. They are REAL volunteers.

mysticalzoe

Jun 30th, 2004, 3:52 PM

I just saw on fox news about the draft and people who have been called up to duty to get a response in the mail on July 6th. I was wondering since my husband got out of the military 6 years ago do you think he would be called in? If so that would suck as he has three young children and he is married. Thoughts?

Jessica

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 30th, 2004, 4:06 PM

I dont know but I will hazard a guess that age might keep some from being re-called. But again I dont know. This is a very unique situation and nothing like the old days when alot of the policies regarding being called back were put into place.

MetalMilitia

Jul 1st, 2004, 7:23 AM

Sen. Chuck Hagel, an influential moderate Republican from Nebraska, sharply criticized the Bush administration in an interview here Tuesday, saying that the war in Iraq appears to have hurt America in its battle against terrorism.

Hagel, a politician sometimes mentioned as a future presidential contender, also said the United States is going to have to consider restarting the draft to maintain its many military commitments abroad.

In a sharp critique of the leader of his own party, Hagel said he believes the occupation of Iraq by the American military was poorly planned and has spread terrorist cells more widely around the world.

Hagel, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, said he agrees with President Bush that the duration of the war on terror might be measured in generations and that to sustain the badly overstretched military for the struggle, a new draft may be needed.

"We are seeing huge cracks developing in our force structure," he said. "The fact is, if we're going to continue with this, we're going to have to be honest with the American people."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/30/MNGTS7E5RK1.DTL

Being that I am 18-24, I tell all the warmongers right now to "go volunteer themselves."

-MM- :crs:

stewey

Jul 1st, 2004, 7:44 AM

We should withdraw our troops from non-threatened countries like S Korea, Germany and Japan.

MetalMilitia

Jul 1st, 2004, 8:04 AM

Oh yeah, 'cause it's not like North Korea isnt' threatening at all, and germany hasn't been directly invloved in 2 previous world wars.

:rolling:

-MM- :crs:

bbbv3.5

Jul 1st, 2004, 10:53 AM

Help me with the whole draft situation......this isnt WW3???? Just help me with this whole draft thing.

bbbv3.5

Jul 1st, 2004, 11:03 AM

And if the draft will pass when will it end???? I do not get why everyone is worrying about this to enter a WW3. I think, personally, WW3 will never come because there is no power like Germany was that could withstand the countries of NATO. Plus with Nato they would have to be alot stronger. Unless one country goes mad (sort of like DBA). If you pray that middle east will start fighting and try to rule the world then the next WW will not have as much paranoia as the previous 2 and will be alot shorter. I think we can only be pushed into a draft if one of the following countries goes mad (like DBA): UK, Japan, France, Russia, Israel (but has to really go crazy), India and China. As for the rest of them....they could try but still....the rest of the world will kick their ass. To me stop worrying about what war is coming next....worry about money and oil and other "worthless" shit like that.

BBB

DontBeAfraid

Jul 1st, 2004, 11:09 AM

LOL, Is that just cause we are on at the same time or is it because I dont have anything better to do?

bbbv3.5

Jul 1st, 2004, 11:10 AM

Dont have anything better to do....lol

stewey

Jul 2nd, 2004, 6:49 AM

Well, S Korea has an army of their own, and Germany is pretty pacifist now.

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 2nd, 2004, 11:05 PM

Well, S Korea has an army of their own, and Germany is pretty pacifist now. SK's military doesnt have near the amount of troops nor training that NK's does, add to that the enourmous amount of manpower coming from NK's biggest ally, China. Removing troops from SK would be a disaster waiting to happen. :ohmy:

VegasRonin

Jul 2nd, 2004, 11:44 PM

SK's military doesnt have near the amount of troops nor training that NK's does, add to that the enourmous amount of manpower coming from NK's biggest ally, China. I agree with the amount of troops and the China ally thing but training. I've trained with ROK soldiers and let me tell you. They are some of the finest trained soldiers in the world. You may now return to your regular scheduled programming. :devsmoke:

prezhorusin04

Sep 19th, 2004, 10:45 PM

US Preparing for
Military Draft

by Adam Stutz

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin as early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin as early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
http://www.peoples-voice.com/draft/

prezhorusin04

Sep 19th, 2004, 10:46 PM

JUST IN! HR163 DRAFT TO INCLUDE *ALL* MEN/WOMEN 18-26

Posted By: Freedom4ever <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 9 September 2004, 8:51 p.m.

I LOVE my Country. I would fight to the death to defend my Country from INVADING forces (which might not be too much longer now, the way we are going!) I am Conservative and I am Constitutional. I do not believe the government has the right to make me fight for them. Are there people fighting for us, to try to make our country free again? YES. Is this Government abiding by the Constitution? NO! If the Government were Constitutional and run by the people for the people THEY WOULDN'T NEED A DRAFT! I believe in our military, and I believe in our country. But I do not believe there is enough of a stalwart in the Congress or the Senate against the NWO to prevent our military from being used in a manner unfit for what the USA is at heart. I would get the word out, our future is uncertain and who knows what the outcome of the election will be. Will we even have an election? Do you want to be forced to fight for an unknown entity? Like the United Nations? Please get the word out and let them know we WILL NOT BE FORCED!

Thanks to Wayne for sending this to me!

************************************************** **************************
Actions:

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you
know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents. .
. And let your children know - - it's their future, and they can
be a powerful voice for change!

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail
at this website:

http://thomas.loc.gov/ Just enter in "HR 163" and click
search and will bring up the bill for you to read. It is less
than two pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL WOMEN
from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action. In addition,
college will no longer be an option for avoiding the draft and
they will be signing an agreement with the Canada which will no
longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay
within it's borders. This bill also includes the extension of
military service for all those that are currently active. If you
go to the select service web site and read their 2004 FYI Goals
you will see that the reasoning for this is to increase the size
of the military in case of terrorism. This is a critical piece
of legislation, this will effect our undergraduates, our
children and our grandchildren. Please take the time to write
your congressman and let them know how you feel about this
legislation.

www.house.gov www.senate.gov

Please also write to your representatives and ask them why
they aren't telling their constituents about these bills and
write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why
they're not covering this important story.

The draft

$28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service
system budget to prepare for a military draft that could start
as early as June 15, 2005. Selective service must report to Bush
on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for
decades, is ready for activation.

Please see www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the
Selective Service System annual performance plan, fiscal year
2004. The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill
all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots
nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic,
military experts and influential members of congress are
suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog"
in Iraq and Afghanistan (and permanent state of war on
terrorism) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to
draft.

www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp
entitled the Universal National service Act of 2003, "to provide
for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age
18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period
of military service or a period of civilian service in
furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and
for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the
committee on armed services. Dodging the draft will be more
difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada
will not be options. In December, 200 1, Canada and the U.S.
signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep
would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of
foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security
director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30 point plan
which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance
agreement" of people entering and departing each country.
Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender
and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter.
Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the
end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end
of the academic year.

What to do: Tell your friends, Contact your legislators and
ask them to oppose these bills

Just type "congress" into the aol search engine and input
your zip code. A list of your reps will pop up with a way to
email them directly. We can't just sit and pretend that by
ignoring it, it will go away. We must voice our concerns and
create the world we want to live in for our children and
grandchildren.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=55305

RavenWhitefang

Nov 9th, 2004, 7:44 PM

It is beginning

http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/110504/b10w05wartalk.html

Reinstatement of the draft is imminent, war correspondent and author Christopher Hedges told a crowd of more than 120 students and residents yesterday at Manhattanville College.

lotrfan55345

Nov 12th, 2004, 7:40 PM

Question: Would a person with athsma still have to undergo the draft? (like me)

humanhybrid

Nov 14th, 2004, 6:50 PM

Oct. 5th they voted and it did not pass! "draft" Relax everyone. good day!

humanhybrid

Nov 14th, 2004, 7:23 PM

But don't allow this to be an excuse you use to weasel out of serving your country. Mickeydoolittle, curious! Do you question authority? Or do you blindly follow?

Gizmo

Nov 14th, 2004, 8:39 PM

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

MetalMilitia

Nov 19th, 2004, 6:13 AM

Powell is now accusing Iran of making both nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them. Citing foreign sources for the new intel (read Israel), Powell is once again starting a Bush Campaign to drum up enthusiasm for yet another invasion and a third war.

And you really don't suppose the draft is coming?

Any new conflict involving the US and deployment of troops and it's draft time.

playmaker88

Nov 19th, 2004, 6:33 AM

But don't allow this to be an excuse you use to weasel out of serving your country.

When exactly did you serve your country? You'd have enjoyed it, they often prance around the woodland wearing green you know... :strt:

Some people talk, others do...

2cool4stats

Nov 19th, 2004, 12:50 PM

Looking at an even bigger picture, is the concept of armageddon. Thing is, 6+ billion people will be involved in this anticipated event. If that is the case, we all better prepare for a world draft, because that's how bad it's going to get.

Death Rattle

Nov 19th, 2004, 1:36 PM

2cool4stats

Nov 19th, 2004, 2:34 PM

Even if your government is suspect to a sinister agenda? Not to say this is true. But by making an early commitment like that, you have affirmed that your country's administration is clean. Yes, it is your duty to serve and protect your country. That is why you must never cease to question your government's motives first.

There is an old saying I heard many times, "A man goes to knowledge as he goes to war, wide awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it will live to regret his steps."

lotrfan55345

Nov 19th, 2004, 2:52 PM

If i am drafted i will serve my country proudly. I will not run like a coward to canada or get some medical excuse. It is our duty to serve and protect our country or we would not have one in the first place.

So even if I don't pass the physical, I should go anyway? Even if someone has a broken leg they should "serve their country" anyway? How about if someone has mental retardation?

DontBeAfraid

Nov 19th, 2004, 7:38 PM

The army seemed to define very few people as retarded..... As far as I could tell anyways.... As long as you can fake a little english you're in.

2cool4stats

Nov 20th, 2004, 7:02 AM

If you're capable of serving, don't puss out.

That is your opinion. However, many people in your country as well as from around the globe will undoubtedly oppose your standpoint considering that Bush is not well liked around the world. Why is that? It is obviously clear that the U.S. administration is under growing suspicion as to being complicit with 911. There are serious questions and speculations circulating throughout the internet about your administration's real plans.

Your quote is very simplistic and it is because of that kind of thinking that so many people are in support of Bush's war stance. "We must beat the bad guys. We're the good guys. If you don't fight, you're a coward. I'm patriotic only if I serve in the army. America is freedom, we must protect our freedom." Those are examples of the kinds of cliches that are simplistic yet very deceptive because of the lack of necessary detail and facts to support their claims. Basically they are quotes that are made to sound good and many people will fall for it.

After reading your quote "If you're capable of serving, don't puss out", I ask you this very simple question. Your friends offered you a ride to a party. One of them said that you must go and if you don't they will never be your friends again. Do you accept the offer?

It takes a great deal of courage to say "no" in certain situations. Sometimes simplicity puts an effective damper on the true meaning of patriotism and courage. It is absolutely essential to recognize that courage, patriotism, strength and honor don't necessarily have to come in the form of soldier.

humanhybrid

Nov 20th, 2004, 2:36 PM

That is your opinion. However, many people in your country as well as from around the globe will undoubtedly oppose your standpoint considering that Bush is not well liked around the world. Why is that? It is obviously clear that the U.S. administration is under growing suspicion as to being complicit with 911. There are serious questions and speculations circulating throughout the internet about your administration's real plans.

Your quote is very simplistic and it is because of that kind of thinking that so many people are in support of Bush's war stance. "We must beat the bad guys. We're the good guys. If you don't fight, you're a coward. I'm patriotic only if I serve in the army. America is freedom, we must protect our freedom." Those are examples of the kinds of cliches that are simplistic yet very deceptive because of the lack of necessary detail and facts to support their claims. Basically they are quotes that are made to sound good and many people will fall for it.

After reading your quote "If you're capable of serving, don't puss out", I ask you this very simple question. Your friends offered you a ride to a party. One of them said that you must go and if you don't they will never be your friends again. Do you accept the offer?

It takes a great deal of courage to say "no" in certain situations. Sometimes simplicity puts an effective damper on the true meaning of patriotism and courage. It is absolutely essential to recognize that courage, patriotism, strength and honor don't necessarily have to come in the form of soldier. Good Post! And when has it become UN-patriotic to question the motives and outcomes of ones goverment. Do we just follow without questioning authority. Blindly we follow as if we are a flock of sheep. good day!

Strife

Nov 20th, 2004, 8:48 PM

"There is no definitive answer to the question of whether or not the U.S. will reinstitute a draft. Obviously some thought has been given to the issue, but the possibility that such thoughts will be turned into reality appears rather small at this point, and President Bush has stated that there will be no resumption of the draft during his presidency. Still, conditions and attitudes can change very quickly — another event of the magnitude of the September 11 attacks could prompt some rapid shifts in government policy and public opinion. "

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

2cool4stats

Nov 21st, 2004, 9:30 AM

As an AMERICAn, I don't have to care about what the foreigners think or feel outrage over. When ppl threaten you with bodily harm, you're obviously doing something right--I'm sure Bush believes that very statement to be more true than ever before.

What makes you think that just because you're American, that you have the right to ignore the concerns of the rest of the world? Whoever said that Americans are above the law of conscience? Is it some manufactured self-proclaimed title that Americans are sovereign over all people around the globe?

There are those of us who are willing to be true to our commitment to our individual country and there are those who will puss out.

If my goverment was under suspicion of a major crime I would think twice before answering its call to arms. However this doesn't mean I'm not serving my country. You mean to tell me that any American who questions the President's call to arms is a coward? What if the war itself is driven by a cowardly motive? Can you please provide me with significant proof of the goodwill and sincerity of Bush's plans. Or do you believe everything he says on T.V. ?

To generalize the level of valor associated with fighting for your country and those back home with a ride home with one's friends indicates your lack of appreciation and your complete absence of pride in what these soldiers are sacrificing. How dare you compare a car ride to the deaths of valiant soldiers and the impending deaths of those who have the cobbles to do what you apparently are unwilling to do. Who the fuq are you to downplay the heroism of soldiers? STFU.

See how deceptive simplicity can be. I gave you a simple scenario. I purposely left out details. Notice I had stated that one of them gave your character an ultimatum. He said they wouldn't be your friends again if your character didn't attend the party. Yet you jumped to the conclusion that I was downgrading
American soldiers by relating them with those party friends.

Now look at this- What if I added certain details like the reason an ultimatum was made is because that party was about honoring a friend's dying father with terminal cancer? What if this father had saved your character's life earlier. Furthermore, what if I added that your character kept on refusing previous parties to honor that person- and that you he had refused to thank him earlier. If I added those details, would you still dismiss these friends from being in the same honorable category with American soldiers? My point is that because simplicity lacks detail, it can be used as a weapon of deception. Just like many simplistic political cliches.

No, it takes no great amount of effort to run.

"Run"? You mean resisting the call to arms made by a highly suspicious administration [Again, provide evidence that your government is clean if you wish to contest this].

You hang on to the notion that just because somebody is in a battlefield with a helmet and a gun that he is more courageous than the rest of society-that he is the reason we are all enjoying "freedom". Your American soldier is doing his job. I don't contest that. Never did. Unfortunately, with this age of commercialism and mass media, your American soldier is being used as a marketing tool in many magazines such as Time to present to the world as the image of "Freedom". Kids will grow up thinking that in order to be recognized as a hero, they must join the army. That this becomes their ideal and anything less is cowardly - a "runner" if that's how you put it.

If it weren't for the soldier which you apparently hold a great amount of disdain for, you wouldn't be able to be abusing the freedoms you currently are, ingrate.

Because I question your government's motives, you automatically conclude that I disrespect your soldiers. I'm not questioning the soldier. I'm questioning the motives of war and I am trying to point out to you that simplistic cliches have been used effectively to condition the American public about what "patriotism", "courage", and "honor" should be.

One more thing, as I go back to your quote - "If you're capable of serving, don't puss out". A person [truly committed to his/her country] who is capable of serving in the army enlists with the mindset that he or she is willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the country. He or she does not join the army not to feel cowardly.