Scaring Up Democratic Votes

[wacki]

The anti-bush/pro-kerry people, as well as a democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, are up to some dirty tricks

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000561.htm

e-mail cutout:

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163,to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.

The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election.

Pretty sick trick.

[wacki]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007929.php

UPDATE: It gets worse and worse. ABC reports that during the West Palm Beach appearance, Kerry propogated the absurd lie that, if President Bush is re-elected, the military draft may be re-instituted:

[Daliman]

Are you saying there ISN'T such pending legislation, that Dems are behind the legislation, or some entirely different, cuz i dont see how this looks bad on Dems.

[wacki]

The bill is unpassable, Bush and the majority of congress are going to veto it. It was introduced by a democrat who doesn't even expect it to pass. Look at his quote about the issue he says the bill was meant only as an attention getter. Kerry is also using a draft scare technique against Bush in his campaign. And unsolicited e-mails are being sent to college students saying Bush is responsible for all of this, and intends to draft.

In otherwords, the whole bill is just a charade to get more people to vote against Bush. What's worse, is that not only a congressman is a part of this charade, but so is Kerry. The whole thing was started by democratic Rep. Charles Rangel.

I don't know about you, but that looks like a dirty dirty trick to me.

[jokerswild]

how you expect the war in Iraq to be fought?

You may not want to get drafted, but the Neocons haven't stopped in Iraq. Prepare to fight in Tehran and the Koren peninsula.

Perhaps you believe that guard units will volunteer for more than one consecutive tour in more than one theatre?

The current bill should pass. America should never allow another deserter to become President down the line. No one that states that they had different priorities shouuld ever be granted an exemption, nor allowed to be Vice-President neither.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You may not want to get drafted, but the Neocons haven't stopped in Iraq. Prepare to fight in Tehran and the Koren peninsula.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of who gets elected, we are going to Tehran. I don't think anything is going to happen in Korea though.

Stu

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of who gets elected, we are going to Tehran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's this 'we' you're talking about??? I'm sure not going to [censored] Iran.

Anyway, I don't know if you're right about Kerry going to Tehran, but I doubt we'll get a chance to find out. I do think it's a terrible idea to go there at this point.

This whole draft-scare thing is a crock. It was introduced by a Democrat not just as an attention-getter, but as a protest against the war. I thought a rather good one, actually.

NT

[Daliman]

Yeah, republicans would NEVER use scare tactics to try to win this election.

Right, Mr. Cheney?

[wacki]

Nothumb,

It is a clever trick, but I wouldn't call it a protest. In a protest you know who is on what side, and who is doing what. You can't protest someone for bringing in the draft when they had nothing to do with it. This situation is very deceptive and even decietful. Especially the e-mails.

I give props to their cleverness, but I just can't respect that kind behavior.



Daliman,
Not all democrats are bad. Nor was that my intent to imply. The subject of this thread is the title of the article. I was very carefull when I said:

"The anti-bush/pro-kerry people, as well as a democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, are up to some dirty tricks"

There are plenty of good democrats out there. In fact, I'm a big fan of Joe Kernan (D). My only beef is shady crap like this.

If you have info that's bad about Mr. Cheney, and I'm sure you do, feel free to post. But, no candidate should be doing crap like this. I would like to know who is behind those e-mails, because that is libel.

[Daliman]

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

especially since Rangel has openly stated that he supports the idea of reinstating the active draft.

[wacki]

Kerry can't even pick an opinion. I can see how Cheney would think he wouldn't be able to choose a tough stance against terrorism. Kerry is a dove.

Can Kerry actually do a decent job in Iraq? If he gets elected, only time will tell. Until then, we can only guess.

Honestly, I think Kerry is a ok guy and smart man, but I don't like his track record (post Vietnam) when it comes to anything involving the military. I also don't like how he always says he can get other nations to work together, but doesn't say how. Or how he says he claimed he could peacefully disarm Iraq, but never said how. He still can't say how. No specific courses of action.

You can make arguements that Kerry would be a good peacetime president. But I don't see any concrete basis which you can claim Kerry would be a good wartime president. The only arguement I see is, "he's not Bush".

So I can't fault Cheney for that. Look Cheney has done lots of things wrong, but that's not one of them. I can easily post better stuff against Cheney than that. But that's not the point of this thread. My point is deceit, libel, and slander. This bill/e-mail combo has no purpose but to decieve the general public. The person who wrote the e-mail more than likely knows who endorsed it. And Kerry more than likely knows whats really going on. Big difference.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
especially since Rangel has openly stated that he supports the idea of reinstating the active draft.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that. I googled it, but it looks like he doesn't really support the draft at all. It's hard to figure out what his true intentions are. Does he really want a draft? Or is the real reason he is simply angry at the rich, or angry at the Iraq war, or both?



"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.

Anyone who didn't qualify for military service because of impairments would be asked to perform community service.

The lawmaker has said his measure could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action. The Korean War veteran has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Ugh, I need some sleep. 10 hours in 4 days and 3 nights is not enough.

[pokerjo22]

Can you explain how we can win the war on terror without reinstating the draft? There are a whole sh!tload of countries we need to invade (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Northern Ireland, Northern Spain, Algeria, Syria and Sri Lanka all harbor terrorists as well as Iran and N. Korea) so where will we get the manpower? In fact we should militarize the whole country. We don't want any of those sneaky 'domestic' terrorists having any freedom to get up to their dastardly ways. I can't wait - combat fatigues bring out the color in my eyes.

[pokerjo22]

On the other hand of course, we could just make sure people can't hijack planes with box cutters and then get on with our lives, like other countries do. Terrorists don't really pose a threat. That's why they're terrorists and not armies.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand of course, we could just make sure people can't hijack planes with box cutters and then get on with our lives, like other countries do. Terrorists don't really pose a threat. That's why they're terrorists and not armies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right terrorists don't pose a real threat, unless they get ahold of an airplane full of fuel, VX gas, yellowcake, anthrax, or an ex-russian or Iranian nuke. Or put a bomb on a damn, bridge, powerplant, keystructural points on a building, in a van infront of a Oklahoma city building, etc.



Look the whole situation stinks, and your right, we don't have enough manpower to take out everyone. Even if we did, I don't think we should.

Look, I'm not pretending to know what to do. What I do know is that history has not been kind to people who practice lesse fair in foreign politics.

A good place to start learning is:

The prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli
Civilization and it's Enemies, by Lee Harris
Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas Friedman

Friedman is a left winger and works for the NY times, and he has come up with some interesting alternatives to invading Iraq that might of worked (based on what we knew then). I haven't heard anyone on 2+2 talk about him, Machiavelli, or Harris yet. Which is kind of a shame.

Life isn't fair, and unfortunitally, sometimes good people die. And in other parts of the world, this happens way to often. Even in our own country it happens way to often in DEATH ROW because of innocent people getting convicted!!! Sometimes, even on the US death row, this happens more often then not!


The world isn't perfect, and neither are we. There are times where you have to listen to the lessons of history and make the best decision you can. Because of this, I strongly believe that sitting back and hoping for the best is the wrong answer. I just hope the people in charge are good enough to get the job done. It's not pretty, and it will never be pretty. But with a little luck, it will become good enough.

[wacki]

And my point wasn't about the draft. My point was about e-mails claiming he is pushing the bill when he isn't. Bush doesn't even plan on using a callup right now. Allawi doesn't want anymore troops.

The point of the thread isn't about the draft, it's deception. If the somebody is afraid of Bush having a draft, say it. Don't create a bogus bill and then send e-mail.

This is about deception.

[pokerjo22]

The only one of those threats I'm seriously worried about is the nuke. But how does invading Iraq reduce that risk? Wouldn't co-operating with Russia to help guard their nukes be a better, if somewhat wierd idea?

Looking at the lessens of history is a good idea - it seems most superpowers destroy themselves by not being laissez-faire enough. Roman, French, English, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russia - which of those was too laissez-faire?

[pokerjo22]

Deception is part of politics. A good place to start learning is:

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

[pokerjo22]

I'm such an ass sometimes /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Ed Miller]

Pretty sick trick.

While I agree that it's underhanded, I don't see how it's any worse than Cheney running around saying that terrorists will bomb us more if Kerry is elected.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
especially since Rangel has openly stated that he supports the idea of reinstating the active draft.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that. I googled it, but it looks like he doesn't really support the draft at all. It's hard to figure out what his true intentions are. Does he really want a draft? Or is the real reason he is simply angry at the rich, or angry at the Iraq war, or both?



"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.

Anyone who didn't qualify for military service because of impairments would be asked to perform community service.

The lawmaker has said his measure could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action. The Korean War veteran has accused President Bush and some fellow lawmakers of being too eager to go to war.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Ugh, I need some sleep. 10 hours in 4 days and 3 nights is not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Rangel's bill seems pretty damned principled to me. He fought in Korea, and he's saying instead of enticing poor people into the armed services with college grants etc., and then sending them off to half-baked military operations, let's make everyone serve including sons of congressmen/women, ceos, etc., and we'll see how gung-ho people are to send their sons and daughters off to war. The more I think about it, the better it sounds. No deferments, everybody does their service.

In any case, it's pretty well known that Bush is engaging in a back door draft in using an exemption to require people to remain in the military past their service requirements. I think that's what Kerry was referring to. So who is being devious? Bush for instituting a back door draft or Rangel who says let everyone serve?

[tolbiny]

In the last 10 years fewer that 4,000 americans have died because of terrorists acts. In the past 18 months over 1,000 americans have died as a direct result of the Iraq war, with estimates ranging in the 500-3000 range for every year that we stay there. So far there i little evidence to support the claim that the war in Iraq has actually stopped an attack on amercans, especially those on american soil. It has been a totally ineffective war (as far as its implied and stated purposes) except for taking saddam out of power.

"Look, I'm not pretending to know what to do. What I do know is that history has not been kind to people who practice lesse fair in foreign politics."

Becoming militarily involved in other countries has time and again caused many more problems than it solved.

[pokerjo22]

And lets not forget the 12,000 or so Iraqis who had nothing to do with terrorism.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sick trick.

While I agree that it's underhanded, I don't see how it's any worse than Cheney running around saying that terrorists will bomb us more if Kerry is elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, it's a bad move on Cheney. But the difference is that Cheney proabably believes what he is saying. Kerry tends to be so soft in his opinions, that I can see how people would be afraid of how he would handle the terrorists. I don't agree with either. But I can understand the point Cheney is trying to make. The point the e-mail is trying to make, doesn't even exist! That is a fundamental difference. But I will agree in one aspect Ed Miller, both of them aren't kosher.

As I have said before, Cheney has done worse things than that in my opinion, but that is not the point of this thread. It is intentionally decieving america.

To be fair, what Kerry said isn't that bad. Atleast he said , "I don't know". I will give him points for that. It's the e-mail I have a problem with. The bill, has me a bit confused on what it's intent is.

[wacki]

Ok, Knockwurst. You sold me, Rangel's bill is seems ok.


The e-mail isn't though. I'd like to know who is behind that.

[tolbiny]

yes, but american politicians dont have to get iraqi's to vote for them.
The real problem is that the 4,000 people who died from terroism in the past 10 years died on US soil, and that scares people. And scared citizens are voting citizens (but rarely informed citizens). The 1,000 who died in Iraq are "heros" for fighting for our country, and a reason to be proud.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
And lets not forget the 12,000 or so Iraqis who had nothing to do with terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the average number of Iraqis that died per year during Saddam's reign?

[tolbiny]

Are you going to tell us?

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try Daliman...but you (just like the AP who ran the original story) conveniently snipped Cheney's remarks to make it look like an attempt to scare people into voting for Bush/Cheney. Here's what Cheney actually said - in full context:

[ QUOTE ]
We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole idea of Cheney's remarks were to contrast his administration's treatment of terrorist acts as acts of war vs. Kerry's (and others) idea of approaching them from a straight criminal standpoint (waiting for an attack, then responding with prosecution).

Everybody ran with this story...but was it really even a story? Or was it an attempt to make news out of something on a slow day?

I can see no reason for clipping Cheney's quote at that point other than to "paint" him into a corner that fits your own preconceived view of Cheney/Bush.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm such an ass sometimes /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but that is a good point. So I don't think you were an ass to me.

Machiavelli also talks about people killing their own father in his book, that doesn't make it right. Nor does that mean that anyone should do it. He explains cause and effect relationships, nothing more.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to tell us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google is your friend.

But just this time.
Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2003/december/1212_survey_victims.shtml

Out of a population of 20 million, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their country during Saddam's reign.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/specials/jan2004/atrocities012104.html
http://www.vinod.com/blog/News/MessagefromanExiledIraqi.html


I could find plenty more, but time is short right now. Poker game in a hour!

[wacki]

Ed Miller,

Riverflush made an excellent point. It's still not the best wording, but I guess right now my main beef is with the e-mail and not much else.

[Ed Miller]

As I have said before, Cheney has done worse things than that in my opinion, but that is not the point of this thread. It is intentionally decieving america.

Well, it depends on your definition of decieving. Perhaps the draft rumour is utter fabrication. But that doesn't necessarily make it "worse" or "more dishonest" than Cheney's claim.

The Bush Administration has been playing on irrational fears and trying its hardest to keep the threat of terrorism grossly out of perspective for three years now.

Is terrorism a threat to the lives of Americans? Of course. But Bush could put a defibrillator in every public building and save more lives in both the short and long terms than he can by launching his multi-zillion dollar war on terror.

To be clear, I'm not saying that we should sit on our duffs and do nothing about the situation. Far from it... but the Bushes are clearly intentionally distorting the perspective to help achieve their goals, and I find that to be profoundly dishonest.

Also, as an aside, I think Bush's "I'm tough on terror" line really isn't worth a whole lot. His approach to dealing with the issue is somewhat akin to trying to rid yourself of the stomach flu by punching yourself repeatedly in the gut.

Bush wants to address the symptoms of terrorism without probing the causes. There's a reason so many people are willing to strap on bombs and destroy themselves for the cause. It's because they lead miserable lives. Happy people don't blow themselves up. There are well over a billion Muslims in the world, and many of them live in abject poverty. Any long-term resolution to the "war on terror" must include a Marshall Plan of sorts.

There is no simple solution. But to be successful, we surely must treat both the symptoms and the causes.

(Final aside, I don't think Kerry has a chance to get this right either. So eh...)

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

[/ QUOTE ]


You mean the Bush administration mindset before they could set into play their scheme to gain politcally from it and curry favor for their other ideas, like invading Iraq.


"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism.."

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

"That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it. Maybe the folks in the press ought to be pushing a little bit."

Paul Bremer,Co-Chairman of the national commision on Terrorism. Feb 26, 2001. Neo-conservative who ended up Administrator of Iraq.

From the Horse's mouth, if you will.....

[tolbiny]

With somewhere between 10,000 and 18,000 peple killed as a direct result of the invasion in Iraq over 18 months, that would put a total of 200,000-360,000 people over 30 years (or around the length of time Saddam was in power). The estimates that were in place prior to the war were in the 200,000-500,000 range of people killed by saddam's regime. Since there seems to be no real exit strategy in place in Iraq, and the the violence has been escalating in the past few months, it is difficult for me to believe that the average Iraqi is greatly better off than they were proir to the war.
No i am not unhappy that saddam is out of power, but stuff is still pretty bad in that area.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
His approach to dealing with the issue is somewhat akin to trying to rid yourself of the stomach flu by punching yourself repeatedly in the gut.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[anatta]

I suppose you think tax cuts, with no thoughts of cutting spending, in a time of War and record deficits just before an election is sound public policy and has nothing to do with politics.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, it depends on your definition of decieving. Perhaps the draft rumour is utter fabrication. But that doesn't necessarily make it "worse" or "more dishonest" than Cheney's claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, if Cheney believes what he is saying, then he is being honest. The same with Kerry. A difference of opinion is not being dishonest. The e-mail is libel.

[ QUOTE ]

The Bush Administration has been playing on irrational fears and trying its hardest to keep the threat of terrorism grossly out of perspective for three years now.

[/ QUOTE ]

An opinion, I don't agree with, but I can respect.

[ QUOTE ]

Is terrorism a threat to the lives of Americans? Of course. But Bush could put a defibrillator in every public building and save more lives in both the short and long terms than he can by launching his multi-zillion dollar war on terror.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a rock solid arguement. I cannot disagree with that. The only problem with it is that the terrorists are in my opinion very incompetent right now. If they get more competent, or acquire nukes from Iran, or some other WMD this arguement will no longer be valid. At what point do you draw the line? When the terrorists finally acquire nukes?

But, in general I agree with you, and there are a lot of things I am not happy with Bush about. I will be posting some threads about those topics in the near future. 2+2 is the best discussions!!!!


[ QUOTE ]

To be clear, I'm not saying that we should sit on our duffs and do nothing about the situation. Far from it... but the Bushes are clearly intentionally distorting the perspective to help achieve their goals, and I find that to be profoundly dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you about sitting on the duffs of course, but I don't see how Bush is intentionally distorting the facts. He may want to believe in something too much, or he may of been misled in the past, but I don't see him intentionally and knowingly distorting the facts.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, as an aside, I think Bush's "I'm tough on terror" line really isn't worth a whole lot. His approach to dealing with the issue is somewhat akin to trying to rid yourself of the stomach flu by punching yourself repeatedly in the gut.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this, maybe you can explain.

[ QUOTE ]

Bush wants to address the symptoms of terrorism without probing the causes. There's a reason so many people are willing to strap on bombs and destroy themselves for the cause. It's because they lead miserable lives. Happy people don't blow themselves up. There are well over a billion Muslims in the world, and many of them live in abject poverty. Any long-term resolution to the "war on terror" must include a Marshall Plan of sorts.

There is no simple solution. But to be successful, we surely must treat both the symptoms and the causes.


[/ QUOTE ]

About the Marshall plan, I agree 100%. I have said numerous times that Europe and the US has screwed the middle east. The middle east got screwed in WWI, WWII, lawrence of arabia and the League of Nations, Afghanistan, 1991, and more. They don't trust us, and they shouldn't trust us. We've screwed them way to many times. I don't think Bush is perfect, far from it, but he is the first administration that I know of that is actually implementing something like the Marshall plan (atleast for Iraq) in the middle east. I have to respect that.

As for the symptoms, what do you suggest he needs to do? What symptoms is he not addressing.


P.S. Good discussion Ed.



Poker22,
If you want, I can talk about how appeasement and lesse fair has screwed so many countries in the past. But since it sounds like you've read Machiavelli, you should already know some history on the subject.


AHHHHH, poker game in 10 minutes in my living room, can't talk.... 2+2 is so addictive!!!!!

[wacki]

Yes tolbiny,

stuff is bad there, but atleast there is hope of it improving. And hope is better than no hope at all. It was bad in germany after WWII, but look where they are now. There is hope, and that is an improvement over Saddam.

And I don't think the US will be killing Iraqi's for the next 30 years.... bad arguement.

Also, Saddam came into power in 1979. That's not 30 years.

[Knockwurst]

okay,I'll work with you to get to the bottom of this.

[yzerman18]

[ QUOTE ]
. It was bad in germany after WWII, but look where they are now.

Also, Saddam came into power in 1979. That's not 30 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you can compare Germany after WWII to the Iraq of today.

Germany had fought a half decade long war with the allies in which it was the aggressor in which they were destroyed. The people of Germany had no more will to fight. I wasn't a German in the 1940's but I would wager that the majority of them were ready to get on w/ any type of life that didn't involve air raid sirens and conscription.

There is plently of fight left in Iraq and it's people while living in fear of Saddom's regime had some stablity. The country is headed for civil war the minute the we start to pull out. Some cultures are not ready for democracy or a republic (see Russia, now that's a scary thought, a return to the cold war).

Also I believe that Saddom had been in power prior to 1979, I just believe it was in 1979 that he aquired his title of President of Iraq and eliminated the competition. Watched a documentry on the History Channel a while back and can't remember the details.

[3rdEye]

Charlie Rangel is supporting reinstatement of the draft for reasons other than a desire to play a "dirty dirty trick" on the president.

Those individuals in the military who are likely to be engaged in real combat are disproportionately likely to be members of racial and social groups that tend to rank lower on the socioeconomic ladder. For that reason, Rangel believes that D.C. politicians, who are generally well-off, find it easy to support the war. If the draft were reinstated, politicians would presumably be less likely to endorse war-making, on the grounds that their sons and daughters might be more likely to see combat.

Such logic seems far-fetched to me. I honestly think that Rangel supports reinstating the draft out of spite. I imagine that Rangel thinks that if poor minorities are dying in Iraq then, by god, rich white boys had better be dying beside them.

Of course, it is also conceivable that Rangel's support of the draft is simply designed to increase public awareness of the socioeconomic gap between those who are planning and propagating this war and those who are fighting and dying on the battlefield. In that respect, this could be more like "meta-legislation" than legislation designed under the presumption that it could be passed and, eventually, become law. The fact that this bill is very unlikely to pass, and that Rangel has to know this, indicates that this is probable.

Despite this, I still have little doubt that Rangel would be thrilled if the draft were reinstated.

[tolbiny]

"Also, Saddam came into power in 1979. That's not 30 years."

Right, but saddam has been a major political player since the 60's in Iraq, and if i recall correctly (its been a while since i have read anything on This time period in Iraq) Saddam was in the position of what would essentially be considered vice president for quite some time. I don't know if the "people killed under dsaddm's regime" fall in that time frame or not. So 25 years, not 30.


And I don't think the US will be killing Iraqi's for the next 30 years.... bad arguement.


What we currently have in Iraq is bordering on a civil war, I dont think that the violence is suddenly going to stop when the Iraqi's have "free" elections early next year. US military presense could be pulled out in six months or 50 years (not an exaggeration) but the ramafications of the invasion will last a couple of generations at least (imo). I personally believe that the number of deaths and refugees attributed to our invasion will be lower than those attributed to saddam's regime, but not by a very large extent. I think it is going to be a serious mess for a long time.

[tolbiny]

Germany had fought a half decade long war with the allies in which it was the aggressor in which they were destroyed. The people of Germany had no more will to fight. I wasn't a German in the 1940's but I would wager that the majority of them were ready to get on w/ any type of life that didn't involve air raid sirens and conscription

I believe the real problem in Iraq is the fact that there are 3 distinct ethnic groups that hate each other with a passion, more so than any thing else.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorists don't really pose a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must live in a vacuum.

Jimbo

[tolbiny]

Jimbo,
what percentage of american's died because of a terroist action in the past 10 years?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimbo,
what percentage of american's died because of a terroist action in the past 10 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that relevant to anything at all? A better question might be; what percentage of Americans do I believe will die from terrorism in the next four years if Kerry is elected President. My answer is a much larger percentage than if we keep President Bush.

Jimbo

[pokerjo22]

I'm sorry, but I don't want the government to kill children in my name so that the safety of my sorry ass is increased by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I don't want the government to kill children in my name so that the safety of my sorry ass is increased by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is why America is so great, different opinions are acceptable. Personally I do want all the little Arab terrorists and wannabe terrorists to die rather than a single American civillian, even rather than your sorry ass. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Jimbo

[tolbiny]

Is that relevant to anything at all

(paraphrasing) Pokerjo said that terrism doesnt really pose much of a threat, you responded asking if she lived in a vacuum. I asked you what percentage of americans have died from terroist acts in the past 10 years, trying to determine what percenaage you deam signifigant, nothing about keery or bush what soever.

Anyway there are something like 250 million peoople in the US, around 4,000 have died because of terroist acts in the past 10 years- so about 0.0016% of americans have died because of a terroist act in the last 10 years (actually this number is smaller, but we will stick to this for now). I feel that supports Pokerjo's statement that terroism hasn't posed a major threat to the average american.

[Taxman]

I remember some time ago having some inane discussion after I argued that improving the standard of life in the Middle East could solve many of the problems there. What happened to all of the people that endlessly batted pointless semantics at me back then? I guess Ed Miller is a more intimidating target (BTW, I agree with Ed here).

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that relevant to anything at all

(paraphrasing) Pokerjo said that terrism doesnt really pose much of a threat, you responded asking if she lived in a vacuum. I asked you what percentage of americans have died from terroist acts in the past 10 years, trying to determine what percenaage you deam signifigant, nothing about keery or bush what soever.

Anyway there are something like 250 million peoople in the US, around 4,000 have died because of terroist acts in the past 10 years- so about 0.0016% of americans have died because of a terroist act in the last 10 years (actually this number is smaller, but we will stick to this for now). I feel that supports Pokerjo's statement that terroism hasn't posed a major threat to the average american.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Jo wrote [ QUOTE ]
Terrorists don't really pose a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you see no difference the conversation is over. For that matter compared to car accidents cancer and aids don't pose much of a threat either. See how silly your percentage of deaths becomes? Plus who is to say that they won't kill 3 million Americans with a nuclear weapon in the next decade? Can you state this with any degree of certainty? Perhaps you are willing to take that chance but fortunately President Bush and many forward looking voters are not neither am I.


Jimbo

[pokerjo22]

Lifetime risk of getting cancer = 40%
Lifetime risk of dying of cancer = 20%

Those numbers dont look silly to me.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I do want all the little Arab terrorists and wannabe terrorists to die rather than a single American civillian, even rather than your sorry ass. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should edit your profile - the "hippie inside of you" must have died /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Lifetime risk of getting cancer = 40%
Lifetime risk of dying of cancer = 20%

Those numbers dont look silly to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to your lifetime risk of being in an auto accident they are. Also you made those percentages up but nice try.

Jimbo

[tolbiny]

I am sorry Jimbo, apparently your interpretation of what Jo wrote was dead on. When she wrote "Terrorists don't really pose a threat" i interpreted the "really" as meaning that compared to many other problems in the world today terroism doesnt warrant an 87 billion dollar war. Please pokerjo,if i misinterpreted, correct me and i will apologise.

"lus who is to say that they won't kill 3 million Americans with a nuclear weapon in the next decade? Can you state this with any degree of certainty? Perhaps you are willing to take that chance but fortunately President Bush and many forward looking voters are not either."

Goddamn it, read a [censored] history book. When the english used violence to try to stop the IRA the IRA grew in number and their attacks on england claimed more lives. Russia has attempted to stem the attacks from Chechnya with violence and that has also lead to an increase in violence from chechen seperatists. The military actions against the drug cartels in south america haven't stemmed the flow of drugs at all. So please pull your head out of your ass when you claim that violence is going to stop future terroist actions. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN RECORDED HISTORY.

Plus who is to say that they won't kill 3 million Americans with a nuclear weapon in the next decade.

Iraq has 0 nuclear weapons. Prior to the invasion Iraq had 0 nuclear weapons. North Korea is publicly announcing their intentions to create and use nuclear weapons (including plans to build delivery systems capable fo reaching the US). On the other hand how many Iraqi's hadbeen involved in terroist actions against the US prior to the invasion of Iraq?
How many Saudi's?
Don't keep trying to sell me this crapola about needing to go into Iraq to stop terroism there is no evidence that either
A. Iraq was any kind of threat to us or
B. Invading has mande any any safer.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should edit your profile - the "hippie inside of you" must have died


[/ QUOTE ]

It was wounded in Nam and finished off by liberals.

Jimbo

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
Also you made those percentages up but nice try.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link to cancer statistics:

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8096/8767.html

[tolbiny]

Hey Jo (now i can't get that Hendrix song out of my head i just know it)
i can't find the statistics you quoted on that site, can you expediate a bit?
thanks

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
So please pull your head out of your ass when you claim that violence is going to stop future terroist actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

English must not be your first language. I have made no such claim. I just think it is a good idea to kill terrorists. How can that be a bad thing? Who knows if it will work or not? You certainly cannot prove that it won't or that giving up will work any better. History is just that, the past. I am a bit more concerned about our future.


Jimbo

[pokerjo22]

Down at the bottom - 'lifetime risk'

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think it is a good idea to kill terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the "wannabe terrorists" as well.

[nothumb]

Hi wacki,

You could make the argument that Iraqis have, on average, gotten better off due to the deposing of Saddam. (In other words, we have killed less than he would have). However, the argument that Saddam was going to kill them anyway is a piss poor excuse for our killing innocent Iraqis, and I think you know that. The whole idea of invading (at least now, since there are no WMD's) is that we are liberators and we are improving their lives. You can't improve someone's life by blowing them up, or shooting them, or setting of DU munitions in their area and exponentially increasing cancer rates and birth defects.

Brushing off thousands of deaths because they were already in jeopardy is terrible. Suppose an armed robber took twenty people hostage and killed one. The police firebomb the building and kill the robber, along with ten of the hostages, and they badly injure three others. Do you think they wouldn't get crucified? But because it's another country, another people and people who aren't visible to us, it gets written off.

NT

[tolbiny]

Thanks... ive been drinking a fair amount tonight, and i haven't had a thing to drink in months... forgot how fun it was/how easy it is loose my concertration, also remembering why i quit somewhat.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think it is a good idea to kill terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the "wannabe terrorists" as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reminder. I will also now add terrorist sympathizers.

Jimbo

[tolbiny]

So please pull your head out of your ass when you claim that violence is going to stop future terroist actions.


I have made no such claim. I just think it is a good idea to kill terrorists. How can that be a bad thing?

I dont know, how can that be a bad thing? I mean, its not as if i gave examples of how violently attacking groups of terrorists gave rise to more terroists who killed more people (thisis what you are against, right?).

"History is just that, the past. I am a bit more concerned about our future."

Yes, history has nothing to teah us. I am sorry i brought that one up.

"You certainly cannot prove that it won't or that giving up will work any better"

I never once mentioned the words "give up". And you are right, i cannont create a parralell universe where we invade a country here, and there we, oh i dont know, say- invest in education/infrustructure/their economy so that the people who are most likely to grow up angry at our western infidel ways are now fairly happy with their lives and aren't watching friends/family being killed by what they percieve as western causes.

Once again i invite you to pull your head out of your ass and think about the situation. There are actual decent reasons for the current war on terroism, but
"I just think it is a good idea to kill terrorists. How can that be a bad thing? Who knows if it will work or not? You certainly cannot prove that it won't or that giving up will work any better. History is just that, the past. I am a bit more concerned about our future."
none of them fit in these catagories.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Down at the bottom - 'lifetime risk'

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are not measured statistics pertaining to Americans, it is a statement by an insurance company that insures worldwide. Even if correct you are essentially saying that a few Americans being killed by terrorists is alright because more people die of cancer.

My plan of killing them all should also have the beneficial side effect of reducing the worldwide deaths due to cancer. Thanks for another good reason to kill all the fu*kers.


Jimbo

[Jimbo]

tolbiny, perhaps we can continue this conversation when you are sober. Your posts are becoming repetitive and incoherent.

Jimbo

[tolbiny]

tolbiny, perhaps we can continue this conversation when you are sober. Your posts are becoming repititive and incoherent

No, i dont think that we can continue this conversation. As best as i understand it you wrote that killing all terroists was a good idea.
My reply was that history has shown that violence against these groups has lead to more violence from them.
Your reply was something along the lines of, that was the past, i am not worried about the past, i am worried about the future.

This conversation cannot continue, we are at an impass. If you truly believe that following a course of action that has never been proven to work (unless you could provide some exaples when it did), will suddenly work now, and that there is no reason to learn from similar situations, well there is nothing i can say to that.
Wait, i got it,
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

If you want to post an example of why you think killing all terrorists is a praticle/workable/good idead, i will do my best to debate it with you.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
i will do my best to debate it with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely unqualified to do so.

Jimbo

[tolbiny]

Really?
knowing nothing about my qualifications is bad enough.
The fact that the only argument that you seem to favor is based upon the "lets kill them all, i cont see how thats wrong" ideal makes it just a wee bit worse.
However you may be right, i may very well be unqualified to debate you, of course then you are leaving all relevent evidence (anacdotel and otherwise) out of your posts as a favor to me.
thanks, i appreciate it.

[MMMMMM]

"If you want to post an example of why you think killing all terrorists is a praticle/workable/good idead, i will do my best to debate it with you."

Not an ideal example or a parallel model, but didn't the Roman model of killing all terrorists work for something like 600 years?


Anyway I tend to agree with Jimbo here. IF terrorists are being created faster than we kill them, the reason is simply that we aren't killing them nearly fast enough.

Prime examples of not killing them fast enough (when we could have):

1) Letting a huge contingent of al-Qaeda and Taliban escape Tora Bora, during "negotiations"

2) When Fallujah was surrounded and locked down and the women and children were out of the city, we let those inside Fallujah off the hook instead of going in and killing everyone who shot at us. The town should have been totally disarmed after it was locked down, with every terrorist dead or at least captured. If they sniped at us from a house we should have bombed that house into oblivion with one good bomb. Etc.

3) When that little goon Muqtada al-Sadr was holed up in the mosque, and a great many of his fighters were taking shots at US servicemen and Iraqi security forces from the giant graveyard, we should have just dropped a Daisy Cutter (or several) on that graveyard. Poof: no more hundreds or thousands of Mehdi Army militants taking shots from that giant graveyard--or from anywhere else this side of Paradise.

We are fighting all these wackos with one hand politically tied behind our backs. I believe should pull out the stops and go after them for real.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I love Rangel's take on the military

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

What's wrong with that? Last I checked, about 30% of the US was not white non-hispanic.

Rangel's an idiot.

[tolbiny]

"Not an ideal example or a parallel model, but didn't the Roman model of killing all terrorists work for something like 600 years?"

The probelms with this parrallel are numerous (but i am sure you are anticipating most of these).
To begin with it really wasn't 600 years, the roman empire was deteriating fairly severly for around 300 years, during this time the "terroists" that they had been killing started pushing into roman terrotories, and basically byt the end it was the very people whom the Romans were continually oppressing who rose up and dismantled the empire.
The long period of time that they were able to continue to hold them off was largely due to the fact their opponents still had to farm/hunt to survive and could not spend their entire life as a terroist. Thanks to oil/drug profits this is not the case for today's terrorist.

"2) When Fallujah was surrounded and locked down and the women and children were out of the city, we let those inside Fallujah off the hook instead of going in and killing everyone who shot at us. The town should have been totally disarmed after it was locked down, with every terrorist dead or at least captured. If they sniped at us from a house we should have bombed that house into oblivion with one good bomb. Etc."

You do understand that this is a city, where people live? Exactly how much of it would be left if we demolished every house where we believed a sniper may be? Destroying people's homes is not going to make them like us, it won't even make the tolerate us, it will make them hate us more so. This hate is the breeding ground for even more terroism.

"3) When that little goon Muqtada al-Sadr was holed up in the mosque, and a great many of his fighters were taking shots at US servicemen and Iraqi security forces from the giant graveyard, we should have just dropped a Daisy Cutter (or several) on that graveyard. Poof: no more hundreds or thousands of Mehdi Army militants taking shots from that giant graveyard--or from anywhere else this side of Paradise."

Yes destroying important religious shrines is going to stem the tide of religious zeolots againts us. Also the people in 2 of your examples were not currently fighting us before we invaded Iraq. Actions like the invasion of Iraq have increased the number of people who want to kill Americans.

As for your fist example, yes i agree, if you are going to attack a terroist network in this manner you shouldn't slow down untill it is destroyed. But i believe that your other two suggestions will simply lead to more terrorism.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i will do my best to debate it with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely unqualified to do so.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

As said by a person who stated about 10 posts or so ago maybe all terrorist sympathizers should die too...

Hippie on the inside. (Cue Nipsy Russell) RIIIGGGHHHTTTTT!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I don't want the government to kill children in my name so that the safety of my sorry ass is increased by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Do you actually think we are killing children? Maybe a few died, but the streets of Iraq were so safe during "Shock and Awe" that people didn't even stop walking around. GPS bombs are very accurate. Also, do the numbers on how many children the US might of killed, worst case, and compare it to Saddam. Pokerjo22 if you want me to take your posts seriously your going to have to supply some links to backup a claim like this.


If the childrens safety is your biggest concern, then we should actually be in there right now. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Do you have any idea how many Prepubescent Uday raped?

The fraction of a fraction of increase of safety is a good arguement as I said before. Well, right now it is. That may change, but I hope not.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I love Rangel's take on the military

According to Rangel's office, minorities comprise more than 30 percent of the nation's military.

What's wrong with that? Last I checked, about 30% of the US was not white non-hispanic.

Rangel's an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL agreed, thank you Kurn, son of Mogh

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember some time ago having some inane discussion after I argued that improving the standard of life in the Middle East could solve many of the problems there. What happened to all of the people that endlessly batted pointless semantics at me back then? I guess Ed Miller is a more intimidating target (BTW, I agree with Ed here).

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxman, you are right. I was short on time, and didn't attack Ed Millers happy claim. I agree with his Marshall plan, and we are rebuilding Iraq. I don't think Ed Millers claim that "Happy people don't blow themselves up" holds water.

The middle east is were all the suicide bombs occur. I will respond to this claim by citing two books:

Civilization and it's enemies - by Lee Harris
Lexus and the Olive tree - Thomas Friedman

They analyze the mindset of the people over there, and if you read those books you will understand why "being nicer to them" simply will not work. In fact, what most of the "we must be nicer" people want us to do will only make the situation much much worse.

I won't explain anymore than that to anyone who hasn't read those books, I simply don't have that much time.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

3) When that little goon Muqtada al-Sadr was holed up in the mosque, and a great many of his fighters were taking shots at US servicemen and Iraqi security forces from the giant graveyard, we should have just dropped a Daisy Cutter (or several) on that graveyard. Poof: no more hundreds or thousands of Mehdi Army militants taking shots from that giant graveyard--or from anywhere else this side of Paradise.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that would of been the best idea. We could of surrounded them and waited a week or so for them to run out of water. Maybe that wouldn't work, I don't know the setup of the graveyard, but they take their shrines very seriously over there. Destroying religious artifacts is a bad bad move.

You did have alot of other valid points. Alot of important people are claiming we are being too soft, and it won't get better if we stay this soft. I personally don't know, I am not educated in military science.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
As said by a person who stated about 10 posts or so ago maybe all terrorist sympathizers should die too...


[/ QUOTE ]

And you think they should live? Hardly an intelligent perspective.

I have a clue for you, hippies hate terrorism too. While getting high in the 70's it never bothered anyone I knew for the bad guys to die, only the innocents.

Jimbo

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi wacki,

You could make the argument that Iraqis have, on average, gotten better off due to the deposing of Saddam. (In other words, we have killed less than he would have). However, the argument that Saddam was going to kill them anyway is a piss poor excuse for our killing innocent Iraqis, and I think you know that. The whole idea of invading (at least now, since there are no WMD's) is that we are liberators and we are improving their lives. You can't improve someone's life by blowing them up, or shooting them, or setting of DU munitions in their area and exponentially increasing cancer rates and birth defects.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think Saddam was satisfied with the 1 million mark? What about Uday?

And yes you can improve the general populations lives by invading. The Romans were very good at this. They did some horrible things, but they improved alot of lives as well.
I don't think we should make a habit, but I think a stable democracy in the middle east(right next to Iran), and no more Saddam is a very good thing.

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose an armed robber took twenty people hostage and killed one. The police firebomb the building and kill the robber, along with ten of the hostages, and they badly injure three others. Do you think they wouldn't get crucified? But because it's another country, another people and people who aren't visible to us, it gets written off.
NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad example. And no, I don't think it gets written off. We wouldn't be writting this thread if it had. I thought the million deaths during Saddams era, and the genocide in Sudan are being written off by the general public and UN. Nothing is being done in the Sudan right now. How many threads have you seen about that?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not suggesting blowing up the mosque; just dropping Daisy Cutters on the militants in the enormous graveyard. The militants would have been killed because, if I recall, a Daisy Cutter sucks all the air out of an area the size of several football fields. The graveyard itself would not have been completely obliterated but the militants would have been.

Besides, what the frick is with them being able to attack us from "sacred" places but we can't shoot back at them there? Hell, THEY put those places into military play in the first place! Time to tell them the bullsh!t is over.