The return of the Draft

[tasty]

ha, thats like the idea that the president will be assasinated every 20 years. unfortunately for that theory, looks like bush is going to live through his term? at least lets hope he does, because i cant imagine how much it would suck to have dick cheney as our president.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Hal's Opinion on the Matter

<>We should not attack Iraq. We have WMD lots of countries do so why cant they? Because bush wants to clean up daddies mess and get the rich so more oil. Nothing      has changed about Iraq over the last 10 years its just Bush's presidency is being uneventful and has a sluggish economy. Its his sick way of trying to win re-election at     the cost of hundreds of American lives which is miniscule compared to the thousands of iraqi's that will be killed. And if you fucking tell me thats a sad occurence of war         then I tell you to get a heart, we are all human.
       Secondly Our rights should not be suspended. Someone said will fine tap my phones I have nothing to hide, well few do but its more the princepal, who knows what CIA agents are whacking off while listening to you sweet talk you girlfriend. Well thats an example for those less knowledgeable but still its not like Iraqi's can gain information from carefully reading the progress or listening to Liberal demonstrations against war. Our agencies should be more creative then violating my secrets.

ABOVE ALL: The U.S. states "innocent until proven guilty" does it not. So lets set an example for other countries and not go on a bloody rampage until we have more evidence then just a Hunch and a yearning to clear the family name. The Iraqi army has 6 digits to it and so lives are bound to be lost and is it worth it? TO a pre-emptive unilateral strike I say NO!

[jn.loudnotes]

Ben, why can't your friends stay home?  If you don't support war, which it sounds now like you don't, why do your friends?  Perhaps your loyalty is misplaced.  As several people have said, it is admirable.  But ultimately you're more likely to kill others and/or advance an unjust war than you are to save anyone.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Kami, don't act like that...I rarely miss the point and I wouldn't miss the point on such a stupid thing such as number games. Anyway, a generation is every 30 years or so with the birth of a new child.

Lothario: Yeah yeah  

Hal's Opinion on the Matter

<>We should not attack Iraq. We have WMD lots of countries do so why cant they? Because bush wants to clean up daddies mess and get the rich so more oil. Nothing      has changed about Iraq over the last 10 years its just Bush's presidency is being uneventful and has a sluggish economy. Its his sick way of trying to win re-election at     the cost of hundreds of American lives which is miniscule compared to the thousands of iraqi's that will be killed.
       
TO a pre-emptive unilateral strike I say NO!

I have gripes with this 'Hal' person...

A) Yeah, we do have lots of WMD...but the difference between us and the many other countries that have it is that we wouldn't use it unless absolutely necessary (think of a Russian or Chinese first strike scenario)

B) How is he cleaning up "daddies mess?" Funny thing is that you can blame the Liberal All-Star Jimmy Carter for his Presidential order against state sponsored assassinations. If not for that, you can bet your ass that Saddam would be dead and there would be no excuses for going into Iraq.

C) Actually, Iraq has been improving their weapons platforms and potency of their arsenals over the past 10 years while lying about it to the UN...most of you were too young to remember or look it up, but weapons inspectors in previous years found stockpiles of illegal weaponry. He has had four years to hide the rest of his crap after he kicked out the weapons inspectors the previous time...probably because they were getting close to finding something huge.

D) Yeah, economies tend to be sluggish when the heart of the economy came tumbling down on 9/11. Don't start telling me that Clinton made the economy well because he was actually reaping the benfits of Reagan era policy, German reunification, and Japanese collapse. If you look at the economy, it actually started to tail off near the end of Clinton's second term.

E) We would be striking with the British, Iraqi Kurds, and Iraqi exiles...so that isn't exactly unilateral. I ask this Hal person to get a dictionary.

That is all for now - how the hell did we stray from the draft topic?

Added on: Forgot to mention part E  

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Its just wierd to me (Hal) that all of a sudden Iraq is a threat and we hate them and yaddi yaddi yaddi. I mean Is it just coincidental that this happendd when we have a slow economy and Bush's presidency is fairly un eventful. We are part of treaty organization and we should act like it for once and listen to other countries. Obviously exiles would fight with us and maybe even tony blaire but millions dont think we should and although I wish the loss of life to be minimal I also wish Bush looks bad. Why should I trust Bush's will any more then Saddam's? Its called collateral protection and its what kept us out of the cold war. I dont like Jimmy Carter that much and its none of our fucking business to assisanate Saddam although weve tryed everyone from gangs to an australlian assult squad to do it, its illegal, and its injust unutil we have clear evidence. You can talk abuot Nuclear platform all you want but we dont have shit but a hunch and theyve complied thus far.

[DEA-GOD]

Who the fuck cares, the guy is a fuckin nut and hes got nasty weapons, if he doesnt get what he wants, we got a problem, and sooner or later hes gonna want something.  hes faught with just about every boardering country to iraq and probably feels invincible.  Take him out, irregardless of the reasons of oil and influence.  I'd feel much better with him gone.  In 1 year i'll be in the army and id rather not have to deal with this down the road when its much worse.  just support an exiled iraqi force and kick his ass out, we need a good war anyways.

[DEA] GOD

[Mr. Lothario]

     OK, we march in to Iraq with our quadrillion-dollar army and wipe every trace of Hussein off the planet. Then what? Sure, it's all well and good to grunt, "Yeah, he's a baaaaaad man and we need to kick his ass!" but after the ass-kicking is completed, what happens? Does America do as it always does and install a hand-picked puppet regime--er, that is, a "friendly government"? Has that EVER worked? Twenty years down the line, if not less, revolutionaries will be spitting on America's name because of our interference. Or, maybe we just walk away. In that case, peace will last for about a picosecond before every Iraqui with a private army is at civil war for the position of top dog. Soon, everyone who didn't win (and maybe the guy who did, too) will be spitting on America's name because of our interference. OK, we hang around in perpetuity, ensuring by force of arms that things don't get out of control and that the country's policies stay friendly to us. Within a couple of decades, revolutionaries will be spitting on America's name because of our interference.

     Huh, interesting. It looks to me like America is once again going to neglect to learn from history, and make a mistake that will simply cause another war (or "conflict" or "police action") in twenty to thirty years. It's about damn time that the American people put a stop to this. America needs to mind its own damned business. Not to say that America shouldn't pay attention to what's going on in the world, because that's just as stupid as what we're doing now. But America needs to butt out a hell of a lot more often. Force of arms does not indicate sufficient amounts of enlightenment and knowledge to be the world's stern father figure.

[kami]

Right on Loth!

Assassin, I was just trying to interpret what Zait said, couldn't find a better word than ?generation?.

GOD, that's fucking rediculous, there's nothing called a good war, what we need is peace.

[alaric]

Okay I'm gonna step a little futher off topic here and ask: What's the difference is between war and peace? Ethics and Morals aside, not much. When at war a country focuses on destroying or imparing an enemy's infastructure and human recources. When at peace a country focuses on destroying or imparing an enemy's economy. Both can cause mass suffering and death, one's just a little more Politically Correct, though I can't really decide which. Anyway, I don't really believe in what I just said, it's just something to think about.

[jn.loudnotes]

Yeah, alaric. . .your peace is a rather shaky one.  If it's a true peace, the countries aren't going to be fighting to destroy each other's economies.  Certainly, they will compete to some extent, but that's simple capitalism and market forces.  To me that's more than just PC, it's a great deal more benign that bombing craters all over the place.

For example, if we leave Iraq alone, it will be at peace with us, and neither of our economies or people will be destroyed.  Likewise, we are at peace with the EU, and we aren't destroying each other.

Your peace sounds like more of a passive aggression, and it might as well be war.

[Bondo]

Well, regardless of a draft, I'm moving to Canada.  I would have no problem fighting in a good war...something like World War II (the last purposeful war), but they couldn't make me fight in such a wrongful war as this one.

[(SiX)Ben]

I'm too tired to rebuttle or argue, so ill just answer your above questions for me with one word. "No"

Ben

[ALEX TREBEC]

HA HA RUN TO CANADA, RUN.  HIPPIE

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Well, Bush wasn't fabricating anything...

*Breaking News*

CHEMICAL WARHEADS FOUND.

[kami]

They weren't really chemical warheads, they were old emptied ones. Atleast that's what I heard.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

They found 11 emptied warheads and 1 that might have stuff in it. The point is that they were just proven to have lied on their report to the UN. The warheads, in good condition, could have easily been refitted with their intended payload...and that was probably the only reason why they were hidden.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this...

Its just wierd to me (Hal) that all of a sudden Iraq is a threat and we hate them and yaddi yaddi yaddi. I mean Is it just coincidental that this happendd when we have a slow economy and Bush's presidency is fairly un eventful. We are part of treaty organization and we should act like it for once and listen to other countries. Obviously exiles would fight with us and maybe even tony blaire but millions dont think we should and although I wish the loss of life to be minimal I also wish Bush looks bad. Why should I trust Bush's will any more then Saddam's? Its called collateral protection and its what kept us out of the cold war. I dont like Jimmy Carter that much and its none of our fucking business to assisanate Saddam although weve tryed everyone from gangs to an australlian assult squad to do it, its illegal, and its injust unutil we have clear evidence. You can talk abuot Nuclear platform all you want but we dont have shit but a hunch and theyve complied thus far.

Alright Zait, Hal, or whatever you want to call yourself...

A) 9/11 is uneventful? Afghanistan is uneventful? The world isn't Disneyland.

B) We are part of a traety organization that has nothing to do with Iraq (NATO)

C) WTF is collateral protection? Nothing kept us out of the Cold War seeing that we were one of the two main combatants for the better part of 40 years.

D) Iraq didn't just become an issue. It was an issue with the Clinton administration also in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox, but he didn't take it all the way fearing that he would fuck up again with troop deployments (Somalia, Rwanda, etc.)

E) The inspections are about 3 types of programs - Bio, Chem, and Nuclear...not just Nuclear. On that front, they just discovered emptied Chemical shells in good condition probably meaning that they were intending to use them, which for you geniuses out there means that they probably have a Chemical weapons program.

Corrected: Quotes

[kami]

Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that he was meant to use them, it is known that he has used chemical weapons before, why couldn't they just be remains of that?

It's sad that this could lead to that Bush could finally go to war... such a small thing.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Kami, because he was ordered to destroy all things related to his WMD programs. Just the fact that he still has these shells is a giant red flag about what he is really hiding.

[Cossack]

Tangible proof is what I want Sin! You find a nuke, you find some chemical weapons, or papers confirming their existence. Then we march to Mesopatamia. An empty chemical shell may be hard enough proof for action, even in my opinion, although I would prefer there to be hard proof.