You called me "Chicken Little"

[Tiger Al 0]

Back in October I posted this little article I ran across talking about the selective service trying to fill draft boards and entitled the topic "Here comes the...draft???"

The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board.

Local Board Members are uncompensated volunteers who play an important community role closely connected with our Nation's defense. If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines.

Well, needless to say, some of the regular posters here wanted to call names instead of discuss the issue of the draft and whether it was likely to happen, desired or even necessary.

Yesterday, Senator Chuck Hagel drew the short straw and was sent out to float the idea publicly.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and influential member of the Foreign Relations Committee, wants the United States to consider reviving the draft as part of a broader effort to ensure that all Americans "bear some responsibility ... pay some price" in defending the nation's interests.

At a committee hearing Tuesday and in subsequent interviews, the Nebraska Republican said he was not advocating reinstatement of the draft, although he added he was "not so sure that isn't a bad idea."

His main interest, he said, is to ensure that some kind of mandatory national service is considered so "the privileged, the rich," as well as the less affluent, bear the burden of fighting wars of the future.

So a big congratulations goes out to all of you Operation Iraqi Liberation hawks who haven't managed to find that United States Marine Corps recruiting station yet...it may just find you!

[Ranger12 46]

Geez, TA, you sound a little bitter. Who said you were a "chicken little" at the time? Why do you make the assumption that this has to do with Iraq only when the first time it was brought up by two democratic senator, it was right after 9/11. Here you are pointing the finger at those who support the Iraq war, which was also origininally supported by liberal democrats, but you also forget the draft was originally brought up by democratic senators. So please tell me how this is a republican thing? Also, please give the war of oil thing a rest. That is so overdone and full of bs. I guess your tune would be different if you were the one living in Iraq under Saddams tyranny and it was your family that was tortured or threatened if you did not do as Saddam asked! I bet then you would have no problem with him being out of power then. It is a whole lot easier to look at it otherwise when we live in a democracy while others suffer at an evil man's hands. So cut the crap about it all being about oil, because I can guarantee you that the free Iraqis that want democracy don't see it that way.

As far the draft, I have no problem with that. I have alwasy believed that all males should at least go through basic training upon graduating high school or when they turn 18. A years worth of service would be even better. The proposed draft I have read about is similiar to that and not like a draft during Vietnam. It may solve alot of problems we have with young men these days!

[Tiger Al 0]

ranger, ranger, ranger...you're always the good little republican soldier standing ever ready to defend the party against all threats, both foreign and domestic! If you'd ever follow the links I provide, many of your questions would be answered and you wouldn't get carpel tunnel syndrome from typing scattershot diatribes.

I never pointed any fingers at anyone, Democrat or republican, and I never said that Iraq was the only reason the draft might be brought back. Those are boogeymen of your own making. I think it would be silly to try to argue the facts that Iraq has presented, though. There are approximately 135,000 troops there now with more needed, according to John McCain among others. Gen. Abizaid has called for contingency plans to increase the number. 40% of the ones there now are national guard and most have been there for a year or more and 20,000 just got extended to stay three more months.

Now, Spain announced it will be removing troops as well as Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Poland and Ukraine are sending mixed signals. Although they haven't said they're leaving, Australia and Italy said they won't be sending anymore troops to Iraq. Back in November, W was talking about scaling back 50,000 by May. Fat chance of that. April saw the most casualities since the US attacked March 20, 2003. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" in May.

In Feb. 2003, Gen. Shinseki said before a Congressional hearing that post-war occupation forces would need to be "several hundred thousand." Paul Wolfowitz said Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" and that the actual number of occupation forces would be closer to 100,000 troops. As we've seen time after time, people who disagree with this administration are smeared publicly but Wolfowitz, it turns out, was the one "wildly off the mark."

So, the fighting seems to be escalating as the military presence is declining. We have units available here to send over there, but where do the replacements come from. Retention among national guard is lower than it has been in a long time. Bodies have to come from somewhere.

As for the Iraqi's under Saddam, I am reminded of LBJ's words, slightly updated, "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys ought to be doing for themselves." In both cases we did when we should've heeded our words. If the Iraqi's wanted so much for Saddam to be gone, revolutions happen all the time. America was born of one. They could've asked for our help, but they should've been doing the heavy lifting.

This war was about liberation, alright...liberation of Iraq's oil from UN sanctions. You get a bunch of oil men together with a bunch of warmongers and throw in a third world, oil-rich nation with an unsavory leader and you have a recipe for empire. We could talk about this for days and get nowhere. Google "war for oil" and read the hits. Consider this, though; after the fall of Baghdad, every Iraqi government building was looted and vandalized except one. Three guesses which one it was. That's right, very good...the Iraqi Oil Ministry! It was well guarded with no fewer than four tanks which were moved from the National Museum of Iraq. Hospitals had everything from computers to medical equipment to beds stolen. But, the Oil Ministry was safe. Hmm.

[CCTAU 3,369]

I've called you much worse. It just got ******'ed out!!!!!

[Ranger12 46]

ranger, ranger, ranger...you're always the good little republican soldier standing ever ready to defend the party against all threats, both foreign and domestic! If you'd ever follow the links I provide, many of your questions would be answered and you wouldn't get carpel tunnel syndrome from typing scattershot diatribes.

I never pointed any fingers at anyone, Democrat or republican, and I never said that Iraq was the only reason the draft might be brought back. Those are boogeymen of your own making. I think it would be silly to try to argue the facts that Iraq has presented, though. There are approximately 135,000 troops there now with more needed, according to John McCain among others. Gen. Abizaid has called for contingency plans to increase the number. 40% of the ones there now are national guard and most have been there for a year or more and 20,000 just got extended to stay three more months.

Now, Spain announced it will be removing troops as well as Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Poland and Ukraine are sending mixed signals. Although they haven't said they're leaving, Australia and Italy said they won't be sending anymore troops to Iraq. Back in November, W was talking about scaling back 50,000 by May. Fat chance of that. April saw the most casualities since the US attacked March 20, 2003. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" in May.

In Feb. 2003, Gen. Shinseki said before a Congressional hearing that post-war occupation forces would need to be "several hundred thousand." Paul Wolfowitz said Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" and that the actual number of occupation forces would be closer to 100,000 troops. As we've seen time after time, people who disagree with this administration are smeared publicly but Wolfowitz, it turns out, was the one "wildly off the mark."

So, the fighting seems to be escalating as the military presence is declining. We have units available here to send over there, but where do the replacements come from. Retention among national guard is lower than it has been in a long time. Bodies have to come from somewhere.

As for the Iraqi's under Saddam, I am reminded of LBJ's words, slightly updated, "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys ought to be doing for themselves." In both cases we did when we should've heeded our words. If the Iraqi's wanted so much for Saddam to be gone, revolutions happen all the time. America was born of one. They could've asked for our help, but they should've been doing the heavy lifting.

This war was about liberation, alright...liberation of Iraq's oil from UN sanctions. You get a bunch of oil men together with a bunch of warmongers and throw in a third world, oil-rich nation with an unsavory leader and you have a recipe for empire. We could talk about this for days and get nowhere. Google "war for oil" and read the hits. Consider this, though; after the fall of Baghdad, every Iraqi government building was looted and vandalized except one. Three guesses which one it was. That's right, very good...the Iraqi Oil Ministry! It was well guarded with no fewer than four tanks which were moved from the National Museum of Iraq. Hospitals had everything from computers to medical equipment to beds stolen. But, the Oil Ministry was safe. Hmm.

I expected a better response from you then that TA.

[AURainman 6]

Chicken little.....

[Tiger Al 0]

ranger, ranger, ranger...you're always the good little republican soldier standing ever ready to defend the party against all threats, both foreign and domestic! If you'd ever follow the links I provide, many of your questions would be answered and you wouldn't get carpel tunnel syndrome from typing scattershot diatribes.

I never pointed any fingers at anyone, Democrat or republican, and I never said that Iraq was the only reason the draft might be brought back. Those are  boogeymen of your own making. I think it would be silly to try to argue the facts that Iraq has presented, though. There are approximately 135,000 troops there now with more needed, according to John McCain among others. Gen. Abizaid has called for contingency plans to increase the number. 40% of the ones there now are national guard and most have been there for a year or more and 20,000 just got extended to stay three more months.

Now, Spain announced it will be removing troops as well as Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Poland and Ukraine are sending mixed signals. Although they haven't said they're leaving, Australia and Italy said they won't be sending anymore troops to Iraq. Back in November, W was talking about scaling back 50,000 by May. Fat chance of that. April saw the most casualities since the US attacked March 20, 2003. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" in May.

In Feb. 2003, Gen. Shinseki said before a Congressional hearing that post-war occupation forces would need to be "several hundred thousand." Paul Wolfowitz said Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" and that the actual number of occupation forces would be closer to 100,000 troops. As we've seen time after time, people who disagree with this administration are smeared publicly but Wolfowitz, it turns out, was the one "wildly off the mark."

So, the fighting seems to be escalating as the military presence is declining. We have units available here to send over there, but where do the replacements come from. Retention among national guard is lower than it has been in a long time. Bodies have to come from somewhere.

As for the Iraqi's under Saddam, I am reminded of LBJ's words, slightly updated, "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys ought to be doing for themselves." In both cases we did when we should've heeded our words. If the Iraqi's wanted so much for Saddam to be gone, revolutions happen all the time. America was born of one. They could've asked for our help, but they should've been doing the heavy lifting.

This war was about liberation, alright...liberation of Iraq's oil from UN sanctions. You get a bunch of oil men together with a bunch of warmongers and throw in a third world, oil-rich nation with an unsavory leader and you have a recipe for empire. We could talk about this for days and get nowhere. Google "war for oil" and read the hits. Consider this, though; after the fall of Baghdad, every Iraqi government building was looted and vandalized except one. Three guesses which one it was. That's right, very good...the Iraqi Oil Ministry! It was well guarded with no fewer than four tanks which were moved from the National Museum of Iraq. Hospitals had everything from computers to medical equipment to beds stolen. But, the Oil Ministry was safe. Hmm.

I expected a better response from you then that TA.

In what way would you have liked for it to be better?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Chicken little.....

lol

[Ranger12 46]

Going by your philisophy TA, we should have never tried to stop Hitler. Women being raped and children being tortured is not enough? You use a quote from LBJ trying to say that the Iraqi men should have risen up and taken out Saddam, but you forget, we even needed help for our Amercian Revolution. It is kind of hard to revolt when you can't get your hands on the tools necessary to make it successful. As a matter of fact, they tried that one time in Iraq and it did not turn out so good. Did you not mention before that you were SF at one time? Where you ever involved in any overseas operations where you had to see atrocities being committed to innocent people, especially children? I have and it leaves a sickening feeling in your stomach when your hands are tied to do anything about it. If you have ever seen the same thing, I can't see how you could think that getting Saddam out of power for that reason alone is not good enough. Those sights are permanetly stuck in my head, and I think God every day that my kids live in a country that I don't have to worry about some soldiers coming to drag them off in the middle of the night and torture them or imprison them because I will not fight for a ruthless, evil dictator. So again, the war for oil thing is full of bs and it pisses me off to hear people put politics over the suffering of children!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Going by your philisophy TA,

What exactly is my philosophy as you understand it?

we should have never tried to stop Hitler.

First, WWII had been underway for two years before we did anything more than provide arms. Do you really believe that stopping Hitler was the reason we entered it? I'm thinking the primary reason might've had something to do with being attacked by Japan. Second, to compare Iraq 2003 with Germany 1938 is inaccurate, so to compare "philosophies" in dealing with them is inaccurate as well. Iraq 1991 could more closely compare with Germany 1938, I believe. Third, human rights violations are not the reason we are there, nor were they in the top ten of stated "reasons" we needed to attack Iraq. We attacked Iraq because we were told it was an imminent threat to us. Fourth, are you saying that according to YOUR philosophy the US needs to militarily ouster every bad guy leader in the world, that what is going on in Iraq should be occurring in multiple countries?

You use a quote from LBJ trying to say that the Iraqi men should have risen up and taken out Saddam, but you forget, we even needed help for our Amercian Revolution.

I thought I addressed this four sentences later when I said, "They could've asked for our help, but they should've been doing the heavy lifting." That means we would've given them necessary supplies, training, etc., and maybe even some troops to be advisors or whatever, but the Iraqi's should've been doing their own fighting for the liberation of their own country.

Did you not mention before that you were SF at one time?

No, I never said that. I said that I was assigned to the 20th Special Forces Group in Auburn training to go to SF selection when my wife got pregnant in 1999. As a result, I asked to be relieved of my obligation to the Guard because the training was to last over two years, all of it out of state. They were kind enough to oblige my request. I hate that I wasn't able to complete the training because I've always believed that Green Berets perfectly lived up to their description as the "Quiet Professionals". I have been on IRR status since.

[WarTim 3,463]

"chicken little".....again........

[Ranger12 46]

"chicken little".....again........

Looks like you have a friend TA.