Government

by **TiNM@N** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:47 pm

Originally posted by Ldsmith104
Back on the topic, I think... If they were to bring back the draft should women be included?

owww this is a toss up... served with a few women.... and i was on a lot of missile/bomb loads with these women and i felt like i was lifting a lot more than them.... but going back to the Spanish-American war... the D.O.D. http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf

has calculated that 524,361 Americans have died for this country actually add another 2,100 for the current campaigns.

i checked the navy.mil, usmc.mil, army.mil, af.mil, uscg.mil and none of them (to my searching) listed women on active duty.... since it is 2005 i would ASSUME that there are more women particiapting in the armed forces than ever before? With the lack of women in the U.S. military, any report of them being injured / killed is highlighted in the news... ex PFC jessica Lynch (tv movies/book deals/ tv interviews) and locally in WI. Michelle Witmer was the first women killed (air nation guard) in action in our states history, they are making a full sived bronze bust of her.
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=tct:2004:11:11:393120:FRONT

Some people make a big stink that women are held down, disadvantaged, robbed....

If they want the same "good ole boy club" if you will, then send them off to battle and when 500,000 women die for this country.. then i guess we can call it even?

by **TiNM@N** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:06 pm

Originally posted by CodeRed68
War in Iraq = preventative maintenance

serious... ??? if so he should of been building a better wall around America in the first place... We share the largest unguarded border in the World (canucks) and with all the illegals crossing over in the south.... and human smugglers boating in people... don't you think he should of been wondering how to keep out.. or at the least track these people? no no... thats TOO expensive... instead lets start 2 'un-winable' wars and spending at least 6 BILLION dollars a MONTH in Iraq alone....

by **SkiloDog2000** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:31 pm

were not in need of a draft because there are tons of people willingly funding the war effort with their own lives
if we were ever forced to defend ourselves aka homeland invasion, i would fully support the draft

by **RCglider** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:20 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
yeah, I much prefer short-sighted rightwing extremists. A lot more entertaining.

"Handguns kill people. That's why they exist. They are taking too many Canadian lives." -The logic of a famous Canadian Liberal, although he doesn't cite the sexual preference of the guns.

"The internal combustion engine's cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront... "- The logic of a famous American Liberal. If the 911 terrorists only knew this.

The trouble is, both of them believe what they say.

I would like to know your definition of a rightwing extremist, but have a good idea. You see, by electing Liberal presidents, thereby appointing Liberal judges to the Supreme Court, and them believing the Constitution is a "living document", a landmark decision just this year states Americans can now have their property confiscated not for public highways and bridges (eminent domain as provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution), but by corporations and municipal governments for malls, marinas, hotels and whatever they want. This is clearly unconstitutional, but that's what you get with Liberal government. Then again, in Canada the government gives and takes away Rights as they see fit. You don't have certain inalieanable Rights, or maybe you haven't read clause 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

For those who keep calling Bush a dictator, where are the internment camps? The gulags? Give examples instead of spouting off your obvious hatred for the man and linking to Bush bashing websites that hate the U.S., and that includes the NYT.

Speaking of the NYT, both the author of the story and the person who leaked the NSA information should be imprisoned. It's no coincidence the story was published at the same time the author is pushing a book. The story was held for just that, and timed to do the most damage to Bush. This is a national security breach and is putting Americans at risk. Quite obviously a number in this forum must have blinders on. The NSA bugging was not a secret (members of Congress knew), nor was it illegal, but you'd never know that by reading the NYT rag.

There is an organized effort within our country at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and their media accomplices to destroy our ability to wage war against the enemies whose stated goal is to kill as many Americans as possible.

Now we have an idiotic "torture" bill that will basically announce to all enemy combatants of the world that they have nothing to worry about and as an added bonus will have the U.S. court system to tie up for the next ten years. Why not just call it the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights. John McCain is a complete moron, and although Rep. Sam Johnson spent 7 years at the Hanoi Hilton and suffered much more than McCain, he is against such a bill, but I doubt nobody here even knows who he is. They could have named the bill 'The resolution to end all death and disease' with the same verbage and achieved the same vote results. There are already laws on the books about torture, a new one wasn't needed. Anyone want to define "torture" based on this new law?

It's almost humorous if it weren't so serious reading posts about Bush being a dictator and trumpeting the virtures of the "last good war", World War II. Nothing like what is happening today would have been tolerated during that period. In fact, paraphrasing, "anything the enemy would like to have" was strictly forbidden and habeous corpus was nearly virtually suspended. It was war, but we have been so spoiled since that time, treason has no meaning anymore. There were no Michael Moores and the NYT would have been shut down during World War II. Nowadays even Congressman openly give aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S., and in turn puts all Americans at risk.

Now that the Patriot Act appears to be shelved, we will again be in a vulnerable position as was before 911.

3000 Americans were murdered on September 11, 2001, or maybe that's not a big deal? Unlike World War II, the enemy doesn't need to have a standing army. A five pound bag of Anthrax or other biological agent will kill far more than any number of tanks and planes or uniformed soldiers. Personally I don't give a shit about how a terrorist is treated if it means saving the lives of my kids..

BTW, whoever said they had the right to refuse to go to war as if were honorable, you have the same right to dodge the draft as you do to rob the local 711. It's not a Right.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:54 pm

Although your speech seems heartfelt it is based on innaccuracies. Unless of course you're calling Republicans and the Bush White House 'Liberal'? I think that would be a stretch to say the least. Since when did Iraq have a damn thing to do with the attacks on 9/11?
If there are no loopholes and there is no wriggle room in the current laws then why oppose a law banning torture of suspects? If they support torture, they should come out and say it instead of dancing around the issue and making justifications as you appear to be doing.
There simply is NO comparison WHATSOEVER between the current war in Iraq or even the other forgotten 'War on Terror' and World War II.
If you feel like signing yourself up to be scrutinized with no judicial oversight, feel free to submit yourself to the nearest police station/FBI office for such. The only thing patriotic about that act is it's name.
None of what I wrote was a personal attack. I am disagreeing with your speech so I don't expect a personal attack in return. No. For the record I don't consider myself a 'Liberal'. I consider myself a thinking human being. I dislike labels.

by **=ender=** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:10 am

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
I consider myself a thinking human being. I dislike labels.

Well, I think you're a swell guy, PA, even if you don't want that label.

by **SkiloDog2000** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:45 am

your a liberal, dont dance around it :-)

by **Ruci** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:29 am

There simply is NO comparison WHATSOEVER between the current war in Iraq or even the other forgotten 'War on Terror' and World War II.

If you're talking about the "War on Terror" meaning the war in Afghanistan you're totally off base we entered world war 2 when we were bombed by a surprise attack and we entered the war on terror when we were bombed by a surprise attack. The only difference is that civilians were the ones being attacked in september 2001.

Also in reguards to torture what we're doing with these terrorists hardly even qualifies as torture. Oh my god they made him stay away for a REALLY REALLY LONG TIME? Why oh thats right he's killing women, children, and civilians by having people drive planes into buildings or run into big areas full of people and blow everyone into tiny bits. It's a war the people over in Iraq are not fighting by any conventions they are fighting to the death because if you get captured you get your ass decapitated on film and sent out so that all the punks can cheer in the streets and light off fireworks. Imho the terrorists don't deserve rights afforded to citizens of america or even rights afforded to PoWs since the terrorists aren't fighting under a nation or a flag or even by any strech of decency.

by **TChicken** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:53 am

Originally posted by RCglider
although he doesn't cite the sexual preference of the guns.

Don't know what else you said, but i lost interest right about there. Why include that?
It seems to have very little to do with 'government'.

by **CodeRed68** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:59 am

Originally posted by TiNM@N
serious... ??? if so he should of been building a better wall around America in the first place... We share the largest unguarded border in the World (canucks) and with all the illegals crossing over in the south.... and human smugglers boating in people... don't you think he should of been wondering how to keep out.. or at the least track these people? no no... thats TOO expensive... instead lets start 2 'un-winable' wars and spending at least 6 BILLION dollars a MONTH in Iraq alone....

Yes.. I am serious. We should build a wall around the US and stop all immigration into the country. *note sarcasm* This will never happen but you wish they could especially when you hear the stories of terrorists or other foriegners coming to the US for it's superior education, then going home and screaming how much they hate the US and want to bring it down. ??
I am not the only one. Others in this thread have agreed that Saddam needed to go. He was brutal. He was a dictator. His people suffered for it. I really believe he was up to something anti-US. And if he wasn't, he was turning a blind eye to the rest of the country where there were anti-US breeding grounds and terrorists camps.
BTW, we have 'won' the war. I think it took like a week. Today we are dealing with insurgent murderes and criminals that are intent on creating chaos and wrecking the dawn of a new government ruled by the people of Iraq.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:11 pm

Too much watching of FOX news going on with you guys. They don't tell the truth, they tell the Republican administration's version of events which is usually NOT the truth in regards to the war.

Lets examine the Facts.
The World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
The terrorists were Al Queda.
The Afghanistan Government was harboring Al Queda as they were also an extremist Muslim government. Afghanistan allowed terrorist training camps.
We went to war in Afghanistan, kicking the Taliban out but missing an opportunity to capture/kill Bin Ladin who escaped into the mountains where he is suspected to be hiding to this very day.
There was a case made to go to war with Iraq based upon known false information. Most of this 'intelligence' has been proven false since. In fact, at the time, many experts said much of it was false then but were ignored.
There was no connection to Al Queda or terrrorist training camps in Iraq. There were no WMD's. Period. End of story.
After the US invasion lots of terrorists did come into Iraq. They are currently operating there in addition to the expected home-grown Iraqi insurgency. They were not there before the US invaded. They were there BECAUSE the US invaded. They are there to kill Americans and to buy a country with the blood of 'martyrs' so they can have an extremist Muslim country.
Torture may be OK in other countries but it is expressly forbidden by law in the US and by international treaties which the US has signed. There is the law and due process of that law to which everyone is entitled. You are arrested, charged, tried and sentenced. To hold anyone for years without trial is a travesty and perversion of law and justice. It makes the supposed great and powerful United States look like a petty dictatorship.

Thank you Ender.. I think you're a swell guy too.

I miss seeing you in BF2. Maybe someday you'll come back?

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:21 pm

I bet if you offered a fraction of the cost of the war as a bounty on his head one of saddamns generals would have offed him anyway. Then you could have given him the rest of the cost to make the country democratic...

by **shockwave203** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:00 pm

Originally posted by RCglider
[B]"Handguns kill people. That's why they exist. They are taking too many Canadian lives." -The logic of a famous Canadian Liberal, although he doesn't cite the sexual preference of the guns.

Stupid, yes. Entertaining? Certainly not.

"The internal combustion engine's cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront... "- The logic of a famous American Liberal. If the 911 terrorists only knew this.

Who might this "famous" American Liberal be? Doesn't really matter; sounds like a wacko.

The trouble is, both of them believe what they say.

I would like to know your definition of a rightwing extremist, but have a good idea. You see, by electing Liberal presidents, thereby appointing Liberal judges to the Supreme Court, and them believing the Constitution is a "living document", a landmark decision just this year states Americans can now have their property confiscated not for public highways and bridges (eminent domain as provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution), but by corporations and municipal governments for malls, marinas, hotels and whatever they want. This is clearly unconstitutional, but that's what you get with Liberal government. Then again, in Canada the government gives and takes away Rights as they see fit. You don't have certain inalieanable Rights, or maybe you haven't read clause 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Right wing extremists = people like Anne Coulter. She spews pure shit from that hole in her face, but like I said before, it's entertaining and gives me a laugh.

Section 33 of the charter- the notwithstanding clause- please educate yourself on it's intended use. It exists to protect parliamentary sovereignty. If, by chance, the courts misinterpereted the charter in a case, parliament wouldn't be bound by an incorrect decision and be unable to change it. This country elects a government, we do not elect supreme court judges, so we place the rights of citizens in the hands of our ELECTED officials- who we choose to represent us in the house of commons. Section 33 isn't used to strip rights (on a 5 year limitation), it's used to protect the country from incorrect rulings by unelected judges of the court.

Besides- your president is the guy who is authorizing the monitoring of phone calls of American citizens. Don't preach to me about the possibility of a Canadian government stripping rights when we see it happening in the united states right now.

by **TiNM@N** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:23 pm

Originally posted by CodeRed68
Yes.. I am serious. We should build a wall around the US and stop all immigration into the country. *note sarcasm* This will never happen but you wish they could especially when you hear the stories of terrorists or other foriegners coming to the US for it's superior education, then going home and screaming how much they hate the US and want to bring it down. ??
I am not the only one. Others in this thread have agreed that Saddam needed to go. He was brutal. He was a dictator. His people suffered for it. I really believe he was up to something anti-US. And if he wasn't, he was turning a blind eye to the rest of the country where there were anti-US breeding grounds and terrorists camps.
BTW, we have 'won' the war. I think it took like a week. Today we are dealing with insurgent murderes and criminals that are intent on creating chaos and wrecking the dawn of a new government ruled by the people of Iraq.

Isnt the current campaign called 'Operation Enduring Freedon' or 'The war on terror' My question is.... were not fighting a convential army with a chain of command, with uniformed troops. How do you fight something that lurks in the hearts of men and women, you can be a brillaint actor and show smiles and open hands for weeks/months hiding your true intentions?

And some might not like/realize this is christians vs muslims vs jews.

its interactions between the US and isreal that pisses of so many, its the Us in other Muslim states, its the US global presence that scares so many into the idea that were conquering the world and gonna make their children disavow muhhamed..... then there are a few (myself) who hope and wish that we could just get along with all the religious extermists christian, muslim, jewish, etc.....

by **Chacal** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:28 pm

This is more and more wandering off-topic.

Government

Should the government bring back the draft?

Who is online