posted September 23, 2004 07:57 PM              

but the president wouldnt institute a draft anyway ,a MAJORITY in congress would never authorize it.....

"Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission." -bush dubya http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html

and it would just be IMPLAUSIBLE to suggest that if the SECOND terrorist use of WMD on american soil were to be a devastating chemical,biological, or nuclear tragedy perpetrated by say, some small band of say, saudi's ,working out of some other closeby country like say, pakistan, with more connections to say, al qaeda terrorist killers .....
we wouldnt need a draft because we probably wouldnt respond by invading some OTHER country like say.....IRAN? the OTHER country over there not run by some royal family/dictator....
no that would be too much of a "coincidence".....

nah, couldnt be....the jwhop has spoken.......this draft thing is just a dirty political stunt by the democrats.....

posted September 30, 2004 01:37 PM            

Parents don't "send" their children to war Petron, they never did in America. We have a volunteer military but I perceive there is no emergency, no set of circumstances that would ever move you to put your rear in harms way.

posted September 30, 2004 01:44 PM            

quote:

---

there would be a stampede to the enlistment desks of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines by Americans who are NOT the pants wetting, hand wringing, limp wristed, pantywaisted...

---

I agree, plenty of people would be motivated to fight. Anytime someone attacks us, we're motivated to fight. I think that's what makes Iraq so difficult. Most people will admit Saddam was a threat and needed to go, but without him actually attacking us, many find it difficult to get all riled up against him. But if someone were to attack us, especially using WMDs, I don't think they'd have to implement the draft. I think they'd have absolutely no need.

posted September 30, 2004 02:29 PM              

jwhop evades.....
i said nothing about "parents signing their children up".....

would you want to sacrifice your loved 1 to secure fallujah?

********

Military families make tremendous sacrifices for America, and our nation is grateful for your service to our country ...14 Aug 03 President Bush

Our whole nation respects and appreciates the commitment and sacrifice of our military families 20 Dec 02

Many parents are dealing with the burdens of raising families, while praying for the safe return of a loved one. Our whole nation respects and appreciates the commitment and sacrifice of our military families.20 Dec 02

Events like this one give us the chance to say thank you to our service men and women -- and to their families -- who make great sacrifices on behalf of their fellow Americans May 1, 2004 First Lady Laura Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

but then like i asked....say a group of saudi's working from pakistan hit us with wmd? we should invade iran right? or north korea? lol
i suppose we could do that without a draft??

posted September 30, 2004 03:08 PM            

You seem to be infected with the thinking that infects other liberals. Namely, thinking if you throw enough BS against the wall, some of it will stick and even if none of it does you've managed to change the subject. The subject you can't speak to because your argument is faulty.

We don't send our military personnel to war to sacrifice them. That's an idiots view. It's the congenital idiot Michael Moore's view. Slavery was abolished Petron, maybe you missed that. No parent sends their children into the military or to war or to die.

Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

quote:

---

Now I want you to remember that no *astard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb *astard die for his country.

---

posted September 30, 2004 03:26 PM              

"A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood."-General Patton

posted October 01, 2004 12:28 AM            

What are your recommendations Petron. You want to institute a military draft?

posted October 01, 2004 01:09 AM              

a small,shadowy band of saudi arabian nationals, strikes within the u.s. with an even more devastating attack than 911(use yer imagination)
assuming it isnt really a botched attempt by the military industrial complex to frame islamic terrorists(see above links regarding the ANTHRAX)

you dont see us invading "some1?" (but of course we cant violate saudi or pakistani "sovereignty" still right?)
who else would it be??

are you sure i'm the ONLY 1 talking about it??
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/9/43249.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/13/233654.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/7/154220.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/1/110524.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/2/94208.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/5/115634.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/5/185309.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/23/140332.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/22/221609.shtml

posted October 01, 2004 01:14 AM              

I'm gonna catch some Zs and read up on them tomorrow

posted October 01, 2004 01:42 AM              

actually the REAL conservatives have been criticizing reagan, hwbush, clinton and bush dubya for NOT attacking iran long ago....lol

posted October 01, 2004 02:15 AM            

Bush is using US sanctions, 3rd party diplomacy and the threat of UN sanctions to get Iran to abandon it's nuclear weapons program.

This article talks about air strikes, not a ground invasion. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/9/43249.shtml

This article talks about NO specific action...a line in the sand. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/13/233654.shtml

This article talks about no specific action...does not talk about invasion. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/7/154220.shtml

This article talks about no specific action..does not talk about invasion. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/1/110524.shtml

This article talks about political, economic and diplomatic pressure. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/2/94208.shtml

This article talks about UN sanctions. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/5/115634.shtml

This article does not mention any specific action. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/5/185309.shtml

This article talks about the US selling Israel smart bombs. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/23/140332.shtml

This article doesn't talk about military action against Iran at all. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/22/221609.shtml

posted October 01, 2004 07:27 AM              

Undeterred by the results of pre-emptive war in Iraq, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution May 6 authorizing pre-emptive military strikes against Iran. The vote was 376-3.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/93431

And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution "calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons"" Note the phrase "use all appropriate means"
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm

Q With regard to Iran, more reports have been coming out about their possible links to terrorism and 9/11 and so forth. Is there any second guessing going on in the White House that maybe the administration should have been tougher with Iran and less tough with Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN:We have also spoken about Iran's continued support for and harboring of terrorists, particularly Hezbollah. We've also called on Iran to turn over those al Qaeda leaders that are in their country to their country of origin. So there are a number of ways that we're addressing the issues and concerns we have with regards to Iran. There are serious concerns.That's why I talked about how we're engaged in a broad war on terrorism. It's a strategy that recognizes that we must confront threats before it's too late, before they fully materialize. And that's what we're doing around the world in not only Iran, but North Korea and elsewhere. And we've been pursuing these efforts for quite some time.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040721-6.html#12

DR. RICE:Our problem with Iran is in policies that are so destructive to international politics -- from the support of terrorism around the world to the support of terrorism in the Middle East and, frankly, the un-elected few in Iran who continue to frustrate the hopes of their own people, who repeatedly turn out and vote to throw off tyranny. There are an un-elected few who continue to frustrate the hopes of the people. And we're simply speaking the truth about the nature of Iran.

Now, the truth is we've had some useful interaction with Iran around Afghanistan. Iran is Afghanistan's neighbor. We expect Iran to have good relations with Afghanistan, but they need to be transparent relations, they should be relations that are state to state, not relations that try to play into the complex and difficult politics of Iran.

So I think that our view is that the behavior of Iran at this point would suggest that it is a state that while there may be some positive forces within it, those positive forces are not quite yet capable of changing the nature of Iran's behavior; Iran's behavior continues to be a major problem in international politics. And we watch the developments with great interest, but Iranian behavior puts it squarely in the axis of evil -- whether it is weapons of mass destruction or terrorism or any of those things. It's a complicated situation, but I think the behavior speaks for itself.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020429-9.html

Q On Iran and Syria, do you have any evidence that those countries are directly involved in the latest series of bombings?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not have evidence. But I saw, for example, the Syrians once again walk out of the U.N., when there was a reasonable resolution put forward. That should say something.

And, secondly, I understand the relations between Hezbollah and Iran, and there has been no evidence -- I don't know who's claiming credit for this bombing. I haven't seen Hezbollah's name mentioned. But, nevertheless, that's terror, that's a terrorist organization, and -- but no, I have no direct evidence. Nevertheless, I do know their influence in the region. And if they are interested in a peaceful resolution, they too need to be active about cutting off funds. And, as you may recall, there was a ship, that was intercepted by the Israelis, that came from Iran full of weapons.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020330-1.html

"We will make no distinction between the
terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."-g dubya

posted October 01, 2004 12:25 PM              

VIENNA (Reuters) - It would have made more sense to invade Iran than
Iraq (news - web sites), says a former U.S. counterterrorism adviser
who has already accused the Bush administration of being soft on
terrorism and wasting resources by attacking Iraq.

AFP/File Photo

Richard Clarke, a former adviser to three U.S. presidents and four
administrations, said mere possession of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) did not justify invading a country. This was the U.S.
government's stated grounds for the Iraq war.

"If you take the case of Iran, its nuclear program is far more
advanced than Iraq's was," Clarke told the Austrian daily Der Standard
in an interview translated into German. "There would have been far
more grounds to invade there (Iran)."

The United States believes Iran's nuclear program is a front for
developing atomic weapons. Tehran denies this, saying its atomic
ambitions are limited to generating electricity.

The U.S. military has found none of the caches of Iraqi WMD that
Washington said Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had possessed in
abundance.

In his recently published memoirs "Against All Enemies," Clarke
charged that the administration of President Bush (news - web sites)
did not take the al Qaeda threat seriously enough before the September
11, 2001 attacks and needlessly attacked Iraq.

Clarke's accusations have damaged Bush's reputation for being tough on
terrorism -- a key theme in the president's re-election campaign. The
Los Angeles Times reported in April that 52 percent of Americans
agreed that Bush had been lax on terrorism before September 11 while
40 percent disagreed.

Bush has repeatedly denied Clarke's charges.

In a chapter entitled "That Almost War, 1996," Clarke says former U.S.
President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) almost launched a war
against Iran for what Washington says its support for terrorism
against the United States.

However, Clarke says Clinton chose not to attack Iran but ordered an
"intelligence operation" that seemed to have worked.

posted October 01, 2004 12:33 PM              

End States That Sponsor Terrorism by Leonard Peikoff http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207&news_iv_ctrl=1021

"We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. "-Leonard Peikoff

posted October 01, 2004 01:36 PM              

"Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi (search), also known as Abu Suleiman al-Makki or "the crippled sheikh," apparently turned himself in to the Saudi embassy in Tehran, Iran in response to the amnesty offered last month by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (search) on behalf of his incapacitated brother King Fahd.

He was then flown to Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials told FOX News.