|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
August 13th 05, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Regime change and divisions of ground troops in Iraq are not one in the same. The US has toppled (and supported I might add) many a foreign dictatorship without the introduction of ground troops. Max C. Webster III wrote: > "Joe" > done said: > > wrote: >> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had >>>>to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have >>>>simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go >>>>get him. >>> >>>It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't >>>have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the >>>support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created. >> >>Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much >>conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? > > > > The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the "Iraq > Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). > > A Course Set by Congress > By Colbert I. King > Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23 > The Washington Post > > Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq > didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days > of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. > Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of > 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's > ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a > democratic Iraq. > > Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United > States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam > Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a > democratic government to replace that regime." > > You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats > of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative > Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a > vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the > House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's > regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and > six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill > Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the > time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of > law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership." > > Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world > without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on > Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated > Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by > Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html > > > >>Just checking.. > > > With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts to > separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those amongst us > with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating > partisans tell them. > > > > - Max - > ======= > Would you believe this man has gone as far > as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars, > and he voted for John F. Kerry for President? > http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/ > > Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack! > http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/ > > 
|
| Ads |
|
#12
August 13th 05, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, people are obviously wising up to the 'fine print' as shown by the low receruitment numbers. You'll either have to start reducing troop levels or re-institute the draft... Max C. Webster III wrote: > "351CJ" > done said: > > >>National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down >>for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this >>military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment" >>policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life >>on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their >>own contract. >> >>Santiago v. Rumsfeld >> >>The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the >>administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary >>extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon >>National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an >>illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his >>eight-year enlistment ran out. > > > > There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended > enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract > that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed. > > It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who > sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them. > > > > - Max - > ======= > Would you believe this man has gone as far > as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars, > and he voted for John F. Kerry for President? > http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/ > > Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack! > http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/ > >
|
|
#13
August 13th 05, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That policy goes back at least as far as the Korean War when my father
was extended by presidential order beyond his enlistment. Many of us were dealt the same hand during the Vietnam era... often based on personnel shortages in critical fields. Our automatic transmission specialist was held over in Vietnam for that reason just to work on APCs. Could have been worse. My Vietnamese interpreter, a lieutenant, joined and his contract said 20 years or the duration of the war, whichever comes second. Pretty risky in a country which had been involved in wars for hundreds of years. On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:31:17 GMT, "351CJ" > wrote: >National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down >for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this >military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment" >policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their >life on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by >their own contract. > > >Santiago v. Rumsfeld > >The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the >administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary >extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon >National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an >illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when >his eight-year enlistment ran out. > >A federal appeals court backed the military in keeping thousands of men and >women in uniform and often in combat even though their enlistments are >supposed to be over. Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, failed to >convince the court that the law governing the president's stop-loss >authority allows him to involuntarily extend soldiers beyond their >enlistment time only if they are on active duty -- and not simply notified >of the possibility that they might be called up to active duty. > >Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, about 50,000 soldiers have been >subjected to stop loss, according to Lt. Col Bryan Hilferty, an Army >spokesman. Currently, 14,000 soldiers are affected by stop loss. And 412 >members of the 4,200-member Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade Combat >Team, which recently returned from a year in Iraq, had their enlistments >involuntarily extended. >The courts have recognized that a federal statute authorizing mobilization >of reservists trumps a contrary interpretation of an enlistment document." > >Seems the government has won the battle on this one, but in the process they >may well have lost the war. They may be able to forcibly keep the personal >they have, but in so doing, they are making it damn hard to get new >personnel. > > > > > wrote in message ... >> >> One last thought; >> >> Guard/Army recruitment is down (unless thats another lie). Since you >> believe in what your current administration is doing so strongly, why dont >> you enlist and walk patrol with the rest of the people 'over there'. >> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to go. >> IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said; SH is >> bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go get him. >> >> >> Backyard Mechanic wrote: >> >>> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then >>> sometime has to put up the record. >>> >>> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL >>> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt >>> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus >>> to Rove. >>> >>> No WMD's >>> >>> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use >>> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could >>> keep Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation! >>> >>> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every >>> OTHER >>> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them. >>> >>> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them? >>> >>> See how dum conspiracy theories are? >>> >>> There's NO winning this word-war. >>> >>> So get back to Mustangs. >>> - - - - -- - >>> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out >>> that the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing >>> to do with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault. >>> >>> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it. > Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address
|
|
#14
August 13th 05, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:02:14 -0500, "Max C. Webster III"
> wrote: >"351CJ" > done said: > >> National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down >> for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this >> military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment" >> policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life >> on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their >> own contract. >> >> Santiago v. Rumsfeld >> >> The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the >> administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary >> extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon >> National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an >> illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his >> eight-year enlistment ran out. > > >There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended >enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract >that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed. That's what it says. My nephew just got extended following basic training because there was no opening yet in his technical school, so he was given order to proceed home "without pay" until directed to report. So his time at home apparently does not count toward his enlistment, which means it must be tacked on at the other end. Meanwhile, he gets to go back to his old job. > >It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who >sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them. Many of the Reserves signed up for the extra income and the benefits, like medical, education, points toward a federal retirement, etc, with the apparently deluded belief that they would never be called to active duty. Essentially, expecting something for nothing... or at least placing their bets that way. Time for a reality check. The possibility is why they teach how to shoot guns and give 'em those neat hidey uniforms. What did they think. That was to impress people while active duty military went off to fight wars? There is a draft system, which is why my stepson, like it or not, had to fill out and send in his postcard. It is not activated at present, but it could be. Personally, I think every citizen should serve in some form or other, whether in the military, or in some other format which gives back to the nation. Freedom is not free. It never has been. > > > >- Max - >======= >Would you believe this man has gone as far >as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars, >and he voted for John F. Kerry for President? >http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/ > >Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack! >http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/ > Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address
|
|
#15
August 13th 05, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't think it's wising up to the fine print so much as it is a
reality check. The reality that the benefits of being in the reserves or active military; the educational benefits, extra income for doing very little, the medical,points toward federal retirement, etc; has a price, and that price can be high. In peacetime, and especially during bad economic times, many join up for those benefits. In time of war, and in good economic times the numbers of volunteers always fall off. On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:19:54 GMT, " > wrote: > > Well, people are obviously wising up to the 'fine print' as shown by >the low receruitment numbers. You'll either have to start reducing troop >levels or re-institute the draft... > > >Max C. Webster III wrote: > >> "351CJ" > done said: >> >> >>>National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down >>>for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this >>>military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment" >>>policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life >>>on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their >>>own contract. >>> >>>Santiago v. Rumsfeld >>> >>>The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the >>>administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary >>>extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon >>>National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an >>>illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his >>>eight-year enlistment ran out. >> >> >> >> There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended >> enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract >> that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed. >> >> It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who >> sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them. >> >> >> >> - Max - >> ======= >> Would you believe this man has gone as far >> as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars, >> and he voted for John F. Kerry for President? >> http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/ >> >> Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack! >> http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/ >> >> Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address
|
|
#16
August 14th 05, 02:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe wrote:
> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had > >> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have > >> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go > >> get him. > > It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't > > have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the > > support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created. > Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much > conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking.. Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the things that all came together at the right time: - Saddam always thumbing his nose at the US with the on-again off-again weapons inspections it weaked our image in the Middle East. - 911 - Saddam's widely known support of Palestinian suicide bombers. As tight as we are with Israel, we couldn't have that. - Oil. The US needs a constant and steady access to huge oil reserves. Especially now with China's economy and military might growing by the day. So while the vocals were screaming the rallying cry of WMD, terrorism and 911, the drum beat was oil, oil, oil... Did I answer your question? Patrick '93 Cobra
|
|
#17
August 14th 05, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max C. Webster III wrote:
> >>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had > >>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have > >>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go > >>> get him. > >> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't > >> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the > >> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created. > > Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much > > conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? > The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the "Iraq > Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). > > A Course Set by Congress > By Colbert I. King > Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23 > The Washington Post > > Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq > didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days > of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. > Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of > 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's > ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a > democratic Iraq. > Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United > States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam > Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a > democratic government to replace that regime." > > You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats > of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative > Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a > vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the > House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's > regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and > six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill > Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the > time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of > law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership." > > Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world > without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on > Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated > Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by > Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html > > > > Just checking.. > > With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts > to separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those amongst > us with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating > partisans tell them. Max, The reality is "W" was the one sitting in the Oval with the gun when the trigger was pulled. Patrick '93 Cobra
|
|
#18
August 14th 05, 04:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's a historical time line for Iraq recently posted by the CBC. From good
guys to bad guys. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/index.html. -- Richard '94 GT 'vert Under Drive Pulleys Transgo HD2 Reprogramming Kit High Stall Torque Converter 4:10 Gears Gripp Sub Frame Connectors (welded) FRPP Aluminum Drive shaft FRPP M5400-A Suspension Laser Red <
|
|
#19
August 14th 05, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#20
August 14th 05, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What we drive & politics | B-day boy | Driving | 0 | May 3rd 05 03:27 PM |
| What you drive & politics | BananaRepublican | Driving | 20 | April 30th 05 10:29 PM |
Linear Mode
