Oiling Up the Draft Machine?

The Pentagon is quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html

Holy shit, it'd be just like this administration full of chicken hawks to start up the draft again, to feed another war for the military-industrial complex. A great way to pick the leaders of the next generation (those that most skillfully dodge the draft) and it'd take care of the recession!

Wow...!

>Holy shit, it'd be just like this administration full of

>chicken hawks to start up the draft again, to feed another war

>for the military-industrial complex. A great way to pick the

>leaders of the next generation (those that most skillfully

>dodge the draft) and it'd take care of the recession!

>

>Wow...!

>

This doesn't surprise me at all, as a matter of fact, many saw it coming. Word is that within 5 months, our military readiness based on troop strength will be at a level that will require fresh cannon fodder for Iraq, and for any other military adventures that Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz decide to engage in. And since enlistment is projected to drop off due to the way reservists have been screwed over, I fully expect the draft to be reinstated. Of course, Dubya and company will probably need to stage something to raise the threat level and justify the action so they don't take a political hit for it.

Well...... if they DO bring back the draft, just think how usefull

their "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy will be for those who do not want to serve.

I think refusal to serve if your country is under direct attack is unconscionable. But you are under no moral obligation to turn yourself into cannon fodder to gratify the war mongers (especially Old Rummy) that are running your country into bankruptcy. As a friend of mine used to say... "there are crazies at the helm of our ship"

Clinton's gutlessness might prove to be usefull after all!

One more reason why I'm glad to be a Canadian. I can't see our "crazies" going that far.

fukamarine

I see where they are projecting to call up 30,000 Reservists by the begining of the year. And some troops home now on leave are going AWOL!

If the draft does in fact come back, I wonder how many will just walk-in and say "I'm a fag" for 4F status?

>I think refusal to serve if your country is under direct

>attack is unconscionable.

Ever heard of 9/11? Is that enough of a "direct attack" for you? How about the other countless, smaller, but still fatal, attacks on U.S. and Western property and human beings by Islamic fundamentalists in the last 10 years? Are those "direct attacks?"

>But you are under no moral

>obligation to turn yourself into cannon fodder to gratify the

>war mongers (especially Old Rummy) that are running your

>country into bankruptcy. As a friend of mine used to say...

>"there are crazies at the helm of our ship"

How appropriate that advice that citizens have the right to ignore the draft should come from our soft, lovely little friends North of the Border. So each citizen has the right to decide for himself if a war is justified before obeying the law to join and fight? Why, if we adopted that "principle," in no time, we'd be . . . . . Canada.

>One more reason why I'm glad to be a Canadian.

One more reason I'm glad you're a Canadian, too.

>>I think refusal to serve if your country is under direct

>>attack is unconscionable.

>Ever heard of 9/11? Is that enough of a "direct attack" for

>you?

No. If after Pearl Harbor Congress had instituted a draft for the purpose of raising an army to attack Mexico, I doubt many people would have wanted to serve. The relationship between 9/11 and the Iraq war is roughly the same.

How about the other countless, smaller, but still fatal,

>attacks on U.S. and Western property and human beings by

>Islamic fundamentalists in the last 10 years? Are those

>"direct attacks?"

"Direct attacks" by whom? The 9/11 attacks were planned by Muslim expatriates in Germany and financed with money from Saudi Arabia. Are we going to bomb Hamburg or Riyadh?

>How appropriate that advice that citizens have the right to

>ignore the draft should come from our soft, lovely little

>friends North of the Border. So each citizen has the right to

>decide for himself if a war is justified before obeying the

>law to join and fight?

If people can pick and choose when it comes to obeying the laws against prostitution and narcotics, why not the laws on military service?

I note that reviving the military draft was proposed earlier this year by Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel, a decorated hero of the Korean War, and soundly rejected by Republicans. I saw Rangel debate a Republican congressman (also a veteran) on Crossfire. The Republican insisted that the complex tasks of today's military can't be performed by draftees who have had only a couple of months of training and who don't really want to be there in the first place.

>No. If after Pearl Harbor Congress had instituted a draft for

>the purpose of raising an army to attack Mexico, I doubt many

>people would have wanted to serve. The relationship between

>9/11 and the Iraq war is roughly the same.

If you don't see the connection between battling the enemy which perpetrated 9/11 (which, in case you don't know, are hateful Islamic Fundamentalists from the Middle East, on the one hand, and deposing a vicious dictator and establishing a thriving democracy in the middle of the Middle East on the other hand, then it's only because you don't want to see the connection.

You may think that doing so is not the best way to battle Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East - and those who oppose Bush's attempt to wage this battle never say what they think is the best way -- but to pretend that this project has as little to do with 9/11 as Mexico has to do with Pearl Harbor is sheer intellectual dishonesty.

>"Direct attacks" by whom?

By Islamic Fundamentalists - which recruit people in the Middle East who hate the U.S. If the U.S. successfully overthrows a murderous Arab dictator and brings democracy and prosperity to 25 million Muslims in the middle of that region, only an imbecile would deny that this accomplishment can only help to lessen the anti-U.S. sentiment in that region which gives rise to this terrorism.

Also, having a Western-oriented democracy filled with Muslims smack dab in the middle of the Middle East just might be helpful in combatting Islamic terrorism, wouldn't you say?

The 9/11 attacks were planned by

>Muslim expatriates in Germany and financed with money from

>Saudi Arabia. Are we going to bomb Hamburg or Riyadh?

The Bush Administration's failure, thus far, to stand up to Saudi Arabia - out of fear of creating oil instability - is a great failure of this Administration.

>If people can pick and choose when it comes to obeying the

>laws against prostitution and narcotics, why not the laws on

>military service?

I think it's a little more important to a country's stability, security and future that its citizens fight for their country when called upon than it is that they refrain from paying someone $150 to fuck their hole or smoke a join or snort a line.

It's like saying: "how can you condemn murderers when you yourself jaywalk? You're both law breakers." Typical woodlawn vomit.

>If you don't see the connection between battling the enemy

>which perpetrated 9/11 (which, in case you don't know, are

>hateful Islamic Fundamentalists from the Middle East,

>on the one hand, and deposing a vicious dictator and

>establishing a thriving democracy in the middle of the Middle

>East on the other hand, then it's only because you don't want

>to see the connection.

Dougie:

Your ignorance is only excusable because you're a moron. The reason Dubya/CheneyCo. went after Iraq instead of the real villain, Saudi Arabia, is because the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are old business chums, and Junior hates Saddam because supposedly he tried to have Poppy Bush killed. Of course, you share Bush's black/white worldview, so you don't have a clue when it comes to the realities of Islam and Middle Eastern culture. The notion of creating a "thriving democracy" in Iraq is incredibly naive. Try reading something about the subject (like Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East} not written by the neocon ideologues and you might just figure it out. Of course, that's not likely to happen, because you only read what reinforces your Neanderthal worldview.

Again, Woodlawn said it exactly right, so get over it!

>Your ignorance is only excusable because you're a moron.

Anyone who spouts trite liberal digma is brilliant. Anyone who is a conservative is a evil or stupid. I hate woodlawn and think he's a mean-spirited asshole, except when he spouts trite liberal dogma, and then I love and worship him.

>The

>reason Dubya/CheneyCo. went after Iraq instead of the real

>villain, Saudi Arabia, is because the Bush family and the Bin

>Laden family are old business chums, and Junior hates Saddam

>because supposedly he tried to have Poppy Bush killed.

The Repiglicans are evil. Shrub wants Poppy's approval. No war for oil. No justice, no peace. Give peace a chance. I'm "Bucky" - and I can't stop talking in adolescent cliches in lieu of adult political thought. HELP ME!!!!

>The notion of creating a "thriving democracy"

>in Iraq is incredibly naive.

I am Bucky - I pretend to be liberal and hate racism, but I think that Muslims are too stupid and primitive to ever have democracy. The only thing good for them is dictatorships and theocracies. I am Bucky and I spout what my liberal gods say.

> Of

>course, that's not likely to happen, because you only read

>what reinforces your Neanderthal worldview.

This shows what a stupid whore you are. I am a subscriber to the Nation. I read Josh Marshall and Eric Alterman's blogs on a weekly basis. I just finished reading a compilation of Noam Chomsky interviews on East Tibet and Cambodia.

I read a diversity of opinions precisely because I think that the lowest forms of human life are found in brainless, mindless partisians who wilfully sacrifice their critical faculties at the altar of petty politics - like you, for example.

>Again, Woodlawn said it exactly right, so get over it!

You should really try taking your tongue out of woodlawn's asshole. It's old, uptight, puckered and shrivled, and it really can't be good for you.

>If you don't see the connection between battling the enemy

>which perpetrated 9/11 (which, in case you don't know, are

>hateful Islamic Fundamentalists from the Middle East,

>on the one hand, and deposing a vicious dictator and

>establishing a thriving democracy in the middle of the Middle

>East on the other hand, then it's only because you don't want

>to see the connection.

No, it's because the connection is a theory, not a reality. No one knows if or to what extent supplanting the Saddam regime with a democracy will undermine the forces that have produced Islamic terrorism because the establishment of such a democracy hasn't happened yet and may never happen.

Long before you began posting here (in your current incarnation), I commented on this board on the deeper rationale for the war. This was at a time when Bush was still telling everyone that the point was getting rid of WMD's. About that "connection" of yours I said, and I stand by these words, that it is a tremendous gamble. It's a bit like taking your mortgage payment to the track and betting it on a longshot. If it works, you'll be sitting pretty. If not, you may be homeless. If Bush's gamble works it may have a salutary effect on the course of history, just as the reconstruction of Japan and Germany did. If it doesn't, we may be a lot worse off than we are now.

>You may think that doing so is not the best way to battle

>Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East - and those who

>oppose Bush's attempt to wage this battle never say what they

>think is the best way

I said what I thought about it long before you began posting here (again). And those who oppose Bush's gamble HAVE said what they think is the best way: get rid of the devil's bargain we've made with the Saudis in which we buy their oil and they use our money to support terrorism so that they can keep their phoney baloney kingdom going. Make a real commitment to end our dependence on Mideast oil. Stop meddling in the politics of that region -- you'd have thought our leaders would have learned from the Iran fiasco what happens when we prop up rulers who are hated by their people, but apparently they have learned nothing.

The U.S. used to have a good name in the Mideast, it used to represent freedom and democracy -- until we took over the colonial role formerly played by the European powers there, first for the sake of fighting Communism and then to keep the oil market stable. We need to go back to what we used to represent. We need to be true to what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.

> -- but to pretend that this project has

>as little to do with 9/11 as Mexico has to do with Pearl

>Harbor is sheer intellectual dishonesty.

No. Saddam had nothing to do with fomenting Islamic terrorism. The Saudis did and still do. So we attack Saddam and ignore the Saudis. Very logical.

>If the U.S. successfully

>overthrows a murderous Arab dictator and brings democracy and

>prosperity to 25 million Muslims in the middle of that region,

>only an imbecile would deny that this accomplishment can only

>help to lessen the anti-U.S. sentiment in that region which

>gives rise to this terrorism.

Yeah? Sounds kind of like what we did for South Korea. And yet anti-Americanism there seems to be at an all-time high. Anyone who counts for his protection on the gratitude of human beings is beyond reckless.

>Also, having a Western-oriented democracy filled with Muslims

>smack dab in the middle of the Middle East just might be

>helpful in combatting Islamic terrorism, wouldn't you say?

The operative word is "might." I don't know whether it is going to work, and neither do you.

>The Bush Administration's failure, thus far, to stand up to

>Saudi Arabia - out of fear of creating oil instability - is a

>great failure of this Administration.

It is? I guess it's just a coincidence that Bush's dad has made a lot of money doing favors for a certain Washington investment firm that does a hell of a lot of business with the Saudi royals.

>I think it's a little more important to a country's stability,

>security and future that its citizens fight for their country

>when called upon than it is that they refrain from paying

>someone $150 to fuck their hole or smoke a join or snort a

>line.

That what you think? Obviously today's Republican party thinks exactly the opposite. They oppose the draft and champion the war on drugs. And didn't Bush just issue a proclamation calling on people to reject pornography? Yup.

>It's like saying: "how can you condemn murderers when you

>yourself jaywalk? You're both law breakers." Typical

>woodlawn vomit.

It's typical of you that you equate the drug trade, which has ruined countless lives and created a vast amount of mayhem and destruction from one end of the Americas to the other, with jaywalking. It's comforting to know, however, that you and your ilk are a tiny, despised minority.

>Anyone who spouts trite liberal digma is brilliant.

Digma? God, you're just like Dubya, making up words as you go along.

Anyone

>who is a conservative is a evil or stupid. I hate woodlawn

>and think he's a mean-spirited asshole, except when he spouts

>trite liberal dogma, and then I love and worship him.

I'd hardly call you a conservative.....you're a foaming at the mouth reactionary.

>

>

>>The notion of creating a "thriving democracy"

>>in Iraq is incredibly naive.

>

>I am Bucky - I pretend to be liberal and hate racism, but I

>think that Muslims are too stupid and primitive to ever have

>democracy. The only thing good for them is dictatorships and

>theocracies. I am Bucky and I spout what my liberal gods

>say.

You and Bill O'Reilly really ought to get together......amazing how you put words in other people's mouths. Let's see some evidence where I said that "Muslims are too stupid and primitive to ever have democracy". Of course, you'll fail, because I never said such a thing, and believe nothing of the kind. You, on the other hand, believe the fiction that the Iraqis are turning gleeful cartwheels over the fact that a country of infidels invaded their land, killed a lot of their citizenry, and brought chaos to their lives, all in the name of democracy. Of course, you've never heard of the right of self-determination. In your "Father knows best" world, you assume you and your ilk know what's best for everyone else on the planet, and are willing to use force to impose your will, regardless of the consequences of your actions upon the recipients of your supposed wisdom and largesse. You, like Bush, are a cultural and military imperialist. You could really give a shit how many U.S. soldiers die or how many Iraqis die, as long as you can grab the oil and open a McDonald's in Baghdad.

>This shows what a stupid whore you are. I am a subscriber to

>the Nation. I read Josh Marshall and Eric Alterman's blogs on

>a weekly basis. I just finished reading a compilation of Noam

>Chomsky interviews on East Tibet and Cambodia.

Yeah, sure. And we all believe in the tooth fairy.

>

>I read a diversity of opinions precisely because I think that

>the lowest forms of human life are found in brainless,

>mindless partisians who wilfully sacrifice their critical

>faculties at the altar of petty politics - like you, for

>example.

Partisians? As your old god Ronnie Reagan would say, "there you go again."

>

>>Again, Woodlawn said it exactly right, so get over it!

>

>You should really try taking your tongue out of woodlawn's

>asshole. It's old, uptight, puckered and shrivled, and it

>really can't be good for you.

It really bugs you that Woodlawn is intelligent and you're just a pretender. My how that must just eat you up inside. I'm just glad to play a small part in seeing you get your bowels in an uproar. Maybe it's time for you to take your Immodium.

>

>No, it's because the connection is a theory, not a reality.

As I said, you're free to disagree with the theory or think that it's invalid, but the fact is that there IS a viable, legitimate rationale - whether you agree with it or not - for connecting the enemies who perpetrated 9/11 with the benefits which can flow from the overthrow of Saddam. There is no such rationale for linking Mexico to Pearl Harbor.

And by the way - the views of the majority which you so love to cite when they're on your side - overwhelmingly see the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, because the understand that the enemy that we're fighting in each is more similar than different, and that the benefits from Iraq are direct benefits in our war against Islamic fundamentalists.

>No one knows if or to what extent supplanting the Saddam

>regime with a democracy will undermine the forces that have

>produced Islamic terrorism because the establishment of such a

>democracy hasn't happened yet and may never happen.

You're right about the uncertainty. It remains to be seen: (a) if we will be successful in establishing a viable democracy in Iraq and (b) whether it will generate the benefits that some think. But after 9/11 (and scores of other similar attacks on a smaller scale), it was clear that whatever we were doing before wasn't working, and drastic, new measures were imperative.

>Long before you began posting here (in your current

>incarnation), I commented on this board on the deeper

>rationale for the war. This was at a time when Bush was still

>telling everyone that the point was getting rid of WMD's.

>About that "connection" of yours I said, and I stand by these

>words, that it is a tremendous gamble.

To be fair, while Bush emphasized WMDs as the central rationale, he and his top officials always emphasized a multitude of other reasons to justify the invasion, including the benefits of bringing democracy to the Middle East.

It's a bit like taking

>your mortgage payment to the track and betting it on a

>longshot. If it works, you'll be sitting pretty. If not, you

>may be homeless. If Bush's gamble works it may have a

>salutary effect on the course of history, just as the

>reconstruction of Japan and Germany did. If it doesn't, we

>may be a lot worse off than we are now.

Yes, this is true, but go look at the 16 acre gaping hole sitting at the bottom of Manhattan where the WTC used to be if you don't understand why bold, novel, assertive action was necesssary. The Middle East is a cauldron of nasty weapons, extreme contempt for the United States, and a religious ideology that enables the weapons to come together with the hatred without any limitations on the consequences.

The truly reckless thing would be to sit by and not do anything significant.

>I said what I thought about it long before you began posting

>here (again). And those who oppose Bush's gamble HAVE said

>what they think is the best way: get rid of the devil's

>bargain we've made with the Saudis in which we buy their oil

>and they use our money to support terrorism so that they can

>keep their phoney baloney kingdom going. Make a real

>commitment to end our dependence on Mideast oil. Stop

>meddling in the politics of that region -- you'd have thought

>our leaders would have learned from the Iran fiasco what

>happens when we prop up rulers who are hated by their people,

>but apparently they have learned nothing.

But this solution is far from 100% sure either, and has its own huge risks.

First, weening ourselves - and Western Europe, with which our economy in inextricably linked -- off of Mideast oil is years away. That won't happen overnight. What do we do in the meantime? Pull out of the Middle East and leave our economic survival in the hands of those who hate us? Stay in the Middle East and do what about Islamic terrorism? Your solution, if it's one at all, is years away. What do we do until then - sit around and hope that the next 9/11 isn't apocalyptic?

Second, our oil-driven influence peddling in the Middle East is only one - and perhaps not the most signficant cause - of the hatred of Muslims towrads the U.S. Only the rankest Zionist denies that our steadfast support for Israel fuels a lot of that hatred. Weening off of Mideast oil won't solve that cause of hatred. So what do you propose be done about that?

Third, the weapons in the Middle East, including the nuclear ones in Pakistan and Israel, aren't going anywhere. We do what - just pull out, and hope that they don't fall into the hands of people who want to destory our country?

Your soultion is far, far from risk-free. In fact, it sounds just like betting your mortgage payment at the track.

>The U.S. used to have a good name in the Mideast, it used to

>represent freedom and democracy -- until we took over the

>colonial role formerly played by the European powers there,

>first for the sake of fighting Communism and then to keep the

>oil market stable. We need to go back to what we used to

>represent. We need to be true to what this country is

>SUPPOSED to stand for.

Don't you think that deposing a vicious dictator and installing a truly democractic government in its place is consistent with the values of the U.S.? I do.

>Yeah? Sounds kind of like what we did for South Korea. And

>yet anti-Americanism there seems to be at an all-time high.

>Anyone who counts for his protection on the gratitude of human

>beings is beyond reckless.

How about in Japan? And Germany? It worked pretty well there. And it worked well in South Korea for decades - which has been and reamins a steadfast ally.

>It is? I guess it's just a coincidence that Bush's dad has

>made a lot of money doing favors for a certain Washington

>investment firm that does a hell of a lot of business with the

>Saudi royals.

No, it's not a coincidence. As I made clear, we haven't confronted the Saudis for exactly the reason you said. That's why so many real conservatives have abandoned this Administration - because its economic and even foreign policies are so corroded by the most corrupt forms of cronyism.

>That what you think? Obviously today's Republican party

>thinks exactly the opposite. They oppose the draft and

>champion the war on drugs.

Actually, far more people who I read who opppose the miserably failed war on drugs are found on the right and not the left. See e.g., William Buckley.

And the fact that Republicans (and most Democrats) oppose the draft isn't inconsistent at all with what I said - I simply said that it is disastrous for a country if its citizens think they have the right to disobey conscription. What does that have to do with whether we should have a draft or nor?

>And didn't Bush just issue a

>proclamation calling on people to reject pornography? Yup.

Wow - a proclamation. How fascist.

>It's typical of you that you equate the drug trade, which has

>ruined countless lives and created a vast amount of mayhem and

>destruction from one end of the Americas to the other, with

>jaywalking.

Actually, jaywalking is quite dangerous. It causes lots of accidents and harm to people other than those who choose to jaywalk. Mere drug usage, by contrast, harms those who take the drugs. I care if you jaywalk because you may walk in front of someone else's car - but I don't give a fuck if you stay at home and shove bumps in your hole all day - although you should be careful when you do this, because Bucky's tounge may get in the way.

>It's comforting to know, however, that you and

>your ilk are a tiny, despised minority.

Sort of like you and the people who think that the solution to 9/11 is just to abruptly pull out of the Middle East and run home - just like the terrorists want us to do.

"go look at the 16 acre gaping hole"

At first I thought Doug was talking yet again about my asshole, which he also has described in a previous post as a gaping hole. Does he know ANY holes that are not gaping? Or is he just fascinated with gaping holes?

Funnily enough, the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of Defence have all said at various times that Iraq was NOT responsible for 9/11. There is NO connection between the war in Iraq and 9/11, other than in the minds of 70% of US voters, according to the opinion polls.

Iraq was a secular state run by people whose political training had been socialist. In fact, Saddam Hussein didn't publicly visit a mosque, for example, until he thought it might help his popularity in the first Gulf War. Iraq stood for almost all the things to which al-Qaeda was opposed.

To suggest a connection between the two is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the political leaders who have most to gain from being able to prove a connection.

once again, pyell is incorrect.

saddam gave checks to the families of islamikaze bombers in israel & israeli-controulled areas. ergo, there is a connexion between saddam/iraq and islamic terrorists. did iraq have anything to do with 11 september? no. but to say that saddam wasn't involved in terror is ridiculous. try telling that to the families of the innocent people blown up at a pizzeria. those families grieved, while the family of the murderer handed out candy & celebrated the arrival of a $25,000 cheque from saddam.

and i managed to use both "check" and "cheque" in the same post. i've been in the US too long. the spelling is rubbing off on me!

>This shows what a stupid whore you are. I am a subscriber to

>the Nation. I read Josh Marshall and Eric Alterman's blogs on

>a weekly basis. I just finished reading a compilation of Noam

>Chomsky interviews on East Tibet and Cambodia.

Oh really! - Too bad you have not been able to grasp the true meaning of what your somewhat little pea brain has absorbed.

Thank God you were not around at the time, to read what Hitler wrote. Then again, maybe you were, if you name is an indicator of your year of birth. I always thought it was you IQ score.

>get your tongue out of woodlawn's

>asshole. It's old, uptight, puckered and shrivled, and it

>really can't be good for you.

You mean it's rather like your face?

And speaking of assholes - bet they could march the entire American forces through yours, including the tanks and jets.

fukamarine

>>I think refusal to serve if your country is under direct

>>attack is unconscionable.

>

>Ever heard of 9/11? Is that enough of a "direct attack" for

>you? How about the other countless, smaller, but still fatal,

>attacks on U.S. and Western property and human beings by

>Islamic fundamentalists in the last 10 years? Are those

>"direct attacks?"

>

>>But you are under no moral

>>obligation to turn yourself into cannon fodder to gratify

>the

>>war mongers (especially Old Rummy) that are running your

>>country into bankruptcy. As a friend of mine used to say...

>>"there are crazies at the helm of our ship"

>

>How appropriate that advice that citizens have the right to

>ignore the draft should come from our soft, lovely little

>friends North of the Border. So each citizen has the right to

>decide for himself if a war is justified before obeying the

>law to join and fight? Why, if we adopted that "principle,"

>in no time, we'd be . . . . . Canada.

>

>>One more reason why I'm glad to be a Canadian.

>

>One more reason I'm glad you're a Canadian, too.

Douglit: I'm wrong - Your right - Now... don't wait for the draft to come, volunteer - immediately. Can't wait to hear that you had your putrid nuts blown clear off in some far flung country and that the field hospital you were taken to was decimated by friendly fire and poor Douglit is no more.

Oh the tragedy of it all.

fukamarine

fukamarine

>>No, it's because the connection is a theory, not a reality.

>As I said, you're free to disagree with the theory or think

>that it's invalid,

Actually, I'm free to treat it and everything else you say in any manner I please. You can make up whatever rules you wish for your own behavior, but not for mine. Do try to keep that in mind.

but the fact is that there IS a viable,

>legitimate rationale - whether you agree with it or not - for

>connecting the enemies who perpetrated 9/11 with the benefits

>which can flow from the overthrow of Saddam.

The phrase "but the fact is" is the signal for your usual tactic of declaring that your opinion is a "fact" that we must all accept for the purposes of this discussion. No matter how many times you use that phrase, it's still just your opinion, not a fact.

> There is no such

>rationale for linking Mexico to Pearl Harbor.

And in MY opinion, supplanting Saddam is about as likely to end Islamic terrorism as attacking Mexico would have been to beating the Japanese.

>And by the way - the views of the majority which you so love

>to cite when they're on your side - overwhelmingly see the

>connection between 9/11 and Iraq,

That is because Bush and Cheney have repeatedly and deliberately used the terms "9/11" and "terrorism" in discussing the threat, real or imaginary, proposed by Saddam so as to mislead people into thinking the two situations are related. But when pressed, both men have been forced to admit that there is no evidence linking the two problems.

>after 9/11 (and scores of other

>similar attacks on a smaller scale), it was clear that

>whatever we were doing before wasn't working, and drastic, new

>measures were imperative.

It was clear that what we were doing wasn't working, but for some reason we have continued to do exactly the same thing -- giving the Saudis huge amounts of money and allowing them to use it to finance Islamic extremists.

>To be fair, while Bush emphasized WMDs as the central

>rationale, he and his top officials always emphasized a

>multitude of other reasons to justify the invasion, including

>the benefits of bringing democracy to the Middle East.

To be fair, you would have to admit that Bush made a number of speeches about the threat posed by Saddam's WMD designed to terrify the country -- remember the one in which he said we must not put off dealing with Iraq until we see a "mushroom cloud"? What kind of weapon produces a "mushroom cloud"? Well?

To be fair, you would have to admit that he spoke of the danger of Saddam's WMD in such apocalyptic terms that no one could be expected to pay much attention to whatever else he said about the situation.

>It's a bit like taking

>>your mortgage payment to the track and betting it on a

>>longshot.

>Yes, this is true, but go look at the 16 acre gaping hole

>sitting at the bottom of Manhattan where the WTC used to be if

>you don't understand why bold, novel, assertive action was

>necesssary.

After looking at Ground Zero, go look at the nearest freeway and take note of the number of SUV's you see. The people whose ashes are buried at Ground Zero died, not in a noble cause, but as a result of our meddling in Mideast politics so that we could enjoy these wasteful driving habits. They didn't die in a fight for freedom, they died in our fight to prop up petty dictators who gave us cheaper oil.

And we have yet to take any bold, novel, assertive action in this matter. The source of this problem, our devil's bargain with the Saudis, remains untouched.

>The Middle East is a cauldron of nasty weapons,

>extreme contempt for the United States, and a religious

>ideology that enables the weapons to come together with the

>hatred without any limitations on the consequences.

All of which is financed by our money and that of our European allies, because that is the bargain our leaders agreed to in order to get themselves re-elected.

>The truly reckless thing would be to sit by and not do

>anything significant.

As I pointed out, sitting by and not doing anything significant is exactly what we are doing now.

>And those who oppose Bush's gamble HAVE said

>>what they think is the best way: get rid of the devil's

>>bargain we've made with the Saudis in which we buy their oil

>>and they use our money to support terrorism so that they can

>>keep their phoney baloney kingdom going.

>But this solution is far from 100% sure either, and has its

>own huge risks.

If we are going to take risks, they should be the risks of being true to the principles we claim to stand for, not the risks of abandoning our principles, as we are doing now.

>First, weening ourselves - and Western Europe, with which our

>economy in inextricably linked -- off of Mideast oil is years

>away. That won't happen overnight. What do we do in the

>meantime? Pull out of the Middle East and leave our economic

>survival in the hands of those who hate us?

Nonsense. The world has changed since 1973, and the sort of oil embargo that occurred then is no longer possible. Whether the Saud family control Arabia's oil or Osama does, it must still be sold on the world market in order to keep that country's economy from collapsing. In 73 they had a choice -- but they no longer do.

And what makes you think the Sauds love us any more than Osama does? They don't deal with us because they like us or share our values, they deal with us because they have to. So would Osama.

>What do we do

>until then - sit around and hope that the next 9/11 isn't

>apocalyptic?

9/11 happened because we involved ourselves in a quarrel over who is going to run the Arab world and how it will be run. Do you actually believe that INCREASING our involvement in that quarrel will LESSEN the likelihood of another attack?

>Only the rankest

>Zionist denies that our steadfast support for Israel fuels a

>lot of that hatred. Weening off of Mideast oil won't solve

>that cause of hatred. So what do you propose be done about

>that?

I propose we start acting in accordance with the principles we keep proclaiming. If it's wrong for Iraq or Syria to have WMD, why is it okay for Israel? If it's wrong for Iraq to defy the UN, why is it right for Israel to do it? Do you really think Muslims are so stupid they can't see that we have one set of rules for the countries we like and a different set for everyone else? This is why we have a bad name there now. It must stop.

>Third, the weapons in the Middle East, including the nuclear

>ones in Pakistan and Israel, aren't going anywhere. We do

>what - just pull out, and hope that they don't fall into the

>hands of people who want to destory our country?

How are we improving the situation by supporting a dictator in Pakistan who helped the Taliban, helped Islamic terror groups in Kashmir, and helped his country get nukes?

>We need to be true to what this country is

>>SUPPOSED to stand for.

>Don't you think that deposing a vicious dictator and

>installing a truly democractic government in its place is

>consistent with the values of the U.S.? I do.

But supporting dictators in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uzbekistan because they do our bidding is NOT consistent with those values. Do you really think the rest of the world is too blind to notice our hypocrisy?

>How about in Japan? And Germany? It worked pretty well

>there. And it worked well in South Korea for decades - which

>has been and reamins a steadfast ally.

Yeah? So where are the Japanese, German and South Korean troops helping us bear the burden in Iraq?

>No, it's not a coincidence. As I made clear, we haven't

>confronted the Saudis for exactly the reason you said. That's

>why so many real conservatives have abandoned this

>Administration - because its economic and even foreign

>policies are so corroded by the most corrupt forms of

>cronyism.

Is that right? Maybe you could mention the names of some of the conservatives who have abandoned this administration for the reasons you cite. I certainly haven't heard about any.

>Actually, far more people who I read who opppose the miserably

>failed war on drugs are found on the right and not the left.

>See e.g., William Buckley.

Could you please give me the names of any Republican members of Congress who voted AGAINST the most recent appropriation for the DEA?

>I simply

>said that it is disastrous for a country if its citizens think

>they have the right to disobey conscription. What does that

>have to do with whether we should have a draft or nor?

If we DON'T have a draft, then what does it matter whether people think they should comply with it if we ever do have one? Well?

>>It's typical of you that you equate the drug trade, which

>has

>>ruined countless lives and created a vast amount of mayhem

>and

>>destruction from one end of the Americas to the other, with

>>jaywalking.

>Mere drug usage, by contrast, harms those who take

>the drugs.

Go to a meeting of Synanon or to family day at a rehab clinic and you will quickly realize just how absurd your statement above is.

Or talk to family members of some of the judges and law enforcement officials who have been murdered by the drug cartels in Latin America.

>>It's comforting to know, however, that you and

>>your ilk are a tiny, despised minority.

>Sort of like you and the people who think that the solution to

>9/11 is just to abruptly pull out of the Middle East and run

>home - just like the terrorists want us to do.

You're wrong again. The latest CNN poll shows that a majority now disapprove of Bush's Iraq policy.

And please give up that tired, stale tactic of labeling whatever you don't like as "what the terrorists want us to do." No one takes that crap seriously any longer.

Well, I've read and re-read Oren's contribution, and I'm still trying to see the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

We all know that Saddam sent cheques to the Palestinians who died in attacks on Israel. But what, if anything, does this prove? It made him very popular with the Palestinians, and it made him popular with many Arabs around the Middle East. But it says absolutely nothing about a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, who was behind 9/11. Lots of people support the Palestinians who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Ironically, a connection with Iraq is now growing because with the downfall of Saddam, the Iraqi borders have become fairly porous and the security machine far less pervasive, and it is now suspected that al-Qaeda terrorists are infiltrating Iraq and may even be behind some of the attacks on American interests.

>Well, I've read and re-read Oren's contribution, and I'm

>still trying to see the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

you said there is NO connexion between 11sept and iraq. i say you're wrong. the perpetrators of 11sept were islamic fundamentalist terrorists. saddam provided monetary compensation to the families of islamic terrorists elsewhere. is there a connexion? yes: islamic terrorism. does that mean that saddam had anything to do with 11sept? absolutely not.

>We all know that Saddam sent cheques to the Palestinians who

>died in attacks on Israel. But what, if anything, does this

>prove?

it proves that he is/was connected with terrorism.

>But

>it says absolutely nothing about a connection between Saddam

>and al-Qaeda, who was behind 9/11.

i never said it did. i said it ties him to islamic terrorism.

>Lots of people support the

>Palestinians who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

support one terrorist & you support them all. either you condemn terrorist tactics or you don't. apparently you think that flying a plane into a building is wrong, but blowing up babies and grandmothers at a pizzeria is ok. clever, that. i would ask why you make a distinction between the two, but i honestly no longer care.

>Ironically, a connection with Iraq is now growing because with

>the downfall of Saddam

so, saddam was a brutal thug but should have been kept in power because at least he kept al-qaeda out, notwithstanding his avowed support of other terrorists?

you're worse than axe.

Give it a break, oren! You're smarter than the nonsense at the end of your most recent post.

Supporting the Palestinians does not equal supporting Palestinian terrorists, any more than supporting Zionism in 1948 meant supporting the Haganah. Not all Palestinians are terrorists, and you can support a free and independent Palestine without supporting the means used by extremist terrorists.

I said it was "ironic" that Iraq now had al-Qaeda. Where do you jump the chasm that divides that statement from "come back Saddam, all is forgiven".

I don't mind a decent argument, but the crap you and axe come up with in trying to blacken those who dare post anything against you is just unbelievable.

>once again, pyell is incorrect.

>saddam gave checks to the families of islamikaze bombers in

>israel & israeli-controulled areas. ergo, there is a connexion

>between saddam/iraq and islamic terrorists.

How does supporting families whose homes and posessions have been blown up in a form of collective punishment proscribed by the Fourth Geneva Convention amount to support for terrorism? Are you now going to argue that standing up for the Fourth Geneva Convention and its protections of civilian populations is an act of terrorism?

RE: Draft the jewish neocons

This is a good thing. If the jewish neo-con jews want to take the U.S. to war, they and their children should be forced to fight and die in it too. One thing is clear, the jewish cons will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to fight this war themselves. They would rather pay others to do it for them by proxy. Can anyone imagine Perle, Wolfowitz, Peretz et al to fight for themselves?