Oiling Up the Draft Machine?

you give it a break!

providing financial or material support to the familiy of someone ONLY BECAUSE that person has committed an act of terrorism IS supporting terrorism.

the monies were given before houses were blown up and were given even if the houses weren't blown up.

>providing financial or material support to the familiy of

>someone ONLY BECAUSE that person has committed an act of

>terrorism IS supporting terrorism.

But Ethan, the money goes to the families after your zionist thugocracy destroys their homes and posessions, not before. Where is your evidence that their is support for terrorism, rather than the victims of the Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention in opposing colective punishment on innocent family members? Did this form of assistance pre-date the Israeli policy of targeting civilian populations as collewctive punishement? Of course, the answe is yes and that is why most Europeans when polled say that Iarael is the greatest threat to world peace, and why Isarael can only count on support from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and the U.S. in the UN General Assembly.

>the monies were given before houses were blown up and were

>given even if the houses weren't blown up.

Good luck fdinding any proof of that. Not even the Israelis make that case, but nice try, Ethan.

>But Ethan, the money goes to the families after your zionist

>thugocracy destroys their homes and posessions, not before.

The fact that you lie about this shows that even you don't believe what you're saying.

The money was given by the Iraqi government to ANY FAMILY whose son or daughter blew themselves up in a terror attack on Israeli citizens. There was no requirement for these funds that their house be bulldozed or anything else.

The ONLY REQUIREMENT to get this money was to have a child become a suicide bomber.

Now, it's perfectly logical (even it's disgusting) to say that you see nothing wrong with this becasue such terrorism is justified, and it's also perfectly logical to say (as I believe) that even if Saddam did support Palestinean terrorists, that's no business of the United States, and our military (as opposed to the Israeli military) should not be used against Saddam for that reason.

But it is just outright false to deny that Saddam's government paid money to ANY family members whose child blew himself up, without there being any other conditions or requirements for the money.

>The money was given by the Iraqi government to ANY FAMILY

>whose son or daughter blew themselves up in a terror attack on

>Israeli citizens. There was no requirement for these funds

>that their house be bulldozed or anything else.

If you have any evidence that Saddam's policy or that of the Saudis predates the 30 year policy Of Israel of blowing up houses and posessions of innocent family members of Palestinian freedom fighters, and was not in response to those grave Israeli breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convntion, put it on the table or shut up.

>>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.

* * *

>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.

This is the only part of your endless post that matters. The reason I always ask those who oppose the Administration's efforts to crush Isalmic terrorism in the Middle East to move beyond criticism of what is being done -- and instead articulate what their policy would be -- is because that exercise always reveals that the current policy, for all its imperfections, is the best one.

The policy you favor in lieu of the one we have can be summarized in 3 words: Complete, Unconditional Capitulation.

Al-Qaeda and brethern have made clear their demands in order for them to stop attacking the U.S.:

Al-Qaeda's demands on the U.S.:

(1) Stop meddling in the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries;

(2) Stop supporting and arming Israel;

(3) Get the fuck out of the Middle East completely.

What is YOUR plan to stop Islamic Terrorism?

THE WOODLAWN PLAN for stopping terrorism

(1) Stop meddling in the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries;

(2) Stop supporting and arming Israel;

(3) Get the fuck out of the Middle East completely.

Oh my gosh, your plan is exactly the same as Al Qaeda's demands. Your view - as your own posts make clear - is that, rather than fighting to transform the Middle East or eradicate terrorists and their infrastructure, we should, instead, just do everything Al Qaeda demands of us - comply with all of their demands - and then they wo'n' hate us and won't attack us anymore.

That's called capitulation and surrender. You're right - surrender does end wars. It also ensures endless future wars, since if we follow the Woodlawn Surrender Plan, any country or group that doesn't like our policies can, from now on, engage in terrorist attacks and kill our citizens and then woodlawn will step in and say: "I know how to make them stop doing this - do everything they demand of us."

And don't bother trying to pretend that exposing your views this way constitutes the "tired, stale tactic of labeling whatever you don't like as "what the terrorists want us to do."

That "tired stale tactic" is when people argue against some policy totally unrelated to Al Qaeda's demands -- such as approval of the Patriot Act - and then say: "If we do this, the terrorists will have won."

That has nothing to do with what I've said. The terrorists have 3 basic demands in order for these attacks to stop. Your plan for stopping terrorist attacks is to comply unconditionally with each of their demands.

No wonder your get so upset that this Administration doesn't get along well with the French. You share their great love of the flag - the white flag.

>>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.

>This is the only part of your endless post that matters.

Translation: It's the only part to which you can think of an answer. What else is new.

>because that

>exercise always reveals that the current policy, for all its

>imperfections, is the best one.

Oh yes, we can all see how much terrorism has DECREASED since Saddam was overthrown. Marvelous!

>The policy you favor in lieu of the one we have can be

>summarized in 3 words: Complete, Unconditional

>Capitulation.

Which is exactly what the right wing said about Vietnam. If we pulled out we'd be giving in to Communism. We'd lose the Cold War. The world as we know it would end. Would you mind pointing me to any occasion on which the people who took that position have apologized to the nation after history demonstrated just how wrong they were all that time? Other than McNamara I can't think of a single one of the architects or proponents of that policy who has ever admitted his colossal blunder.

>THE WOODLAWN PLAN for stopping terrorism[/u]

>

>(1) Stop meddling in the internal politics of Middle Eastern

>countries;

>(2) Stop supporting and arming Israel;

>(3) Get the fuck out of the Middle East completely.

The first item is correct -- and it bears emphasis. Who the fuck ever told you that our country has some God-given right to meddle in the internal politics of other nations?

The last two items are just more of your right-wing propaganda, lies invented by you and your ilk because you don't have any real arguments.

We don't need to end our alliance with Israel -- but we do need to end our hypocritical policy of remaining silent when Israel behaves in exactly the same manner for which we have loudly lambasted Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria. Even you ought to be able to figure out how shabby that makes us look in the eyes of the world.

Who said we need to "get out" of the Mideast? But to the extent we are "in" the Mideast our activities there need to be in support of democracy, not in support of petty tyrants and crooks whose only difference from Saddam is that they do what we want while he did not. Again, do you really think the rest of the world can't see that?

>do everything Al Qaeda demands of us - comply with all of

>their demands - and then they wo'n' hate us and won't attack

>us anymore.

Maybe you can explain to me what it is about Osama we don't like? After all, his philosophy of government is not too different from that of the people who are running Saudi Arabia right now -- where do you think he learned it if not from the clerics they support? He and his mujahadeen seemed like a great bunch of guys when they were fighting the Soviets, right? Like Saddam, it's only when they stopped doing our bidding that we suddenly "discovered" what an "evil" group they are. What a surprise that was!

>And don't bother trying to pretend that exposing your views

>this way constitutes the "tired, stale tactic of labeling

>whatever you don't like as "what the terrorists want us to

>do."

Of course it does. It's the same tired, stale tactic the right has always used -- smear anyone who doesn't agree with you by associating him with the "enemy." Martin Luther King was a Communist agitator. People who opposed the Vietnam War were dupes or collaborators of the Soviets. With the Commies gone, you had to find a new "enemy" with which to associate your critics, and you have -- anyone you don't agree with is helping Osama and the terrorists. Do you really think no one can see what you're doing? You are so transparent!

And it's time for you to stop lying about the fact that the "real" goal of this war was to rid the world of a tyrant. Such an obvious lie, too. You think no one can remember that Reagan and Bush were perfectly happy with Saddam -- so long as he was doing what America wanted him to do? We never had any problem with his WMD programs or his "rape rooms" -- until he stopped being our "boy" in the region. Surely you are not going to LIE and deny that undeniable fact?

That, and our long history of support for the other tyrants in the region, is why America has lost all credibility as an exemplar of democracy. Your PR campaign to try to make people believe otherwise would work only if the whole world suddenly developed amnesia. Can you really fail to see that?

The only way we will EVER regain that credibility is to start walking the walk as well as talking the talk. That obviously is not part of your agenda or Bush's.

Boy, that would be tragic, wouldn't it?

Bush and Rumsfeld said absolutely there will not be a draft," said Dustin Langley, a former Navy officer and organizer for the No Draft, No Way campaign.

"This is the man who said that 'we know where the WMDs are', 'I will restore dignity to the White House', and 'we will be greeted as liberators in Iraq'

>>WILL YOU STAND FOR IT?

>>

>>I pledge allegiance to the flag

>>Of the Corporate States of America,

>>And to the Republicans for which it stands;

>>One nation, under debt, easily divisible,

>>With liberty and justice for oil.

LYRICS

[CHORUS]

The terrorists have heard about me

And now they complain to Allah over me

And I will crush this insurgency

With a motherfucking D.R.A.F.T.

[REPEAT CHORUS]

Now saddam he in the jail and he know that we done it

I'm re-elected. Beat the liberal. That's what Jesus wanted

Despite the deficit and the big old corporate scandals

I had my team of thugs. There ain't nothin' we can't handle.

I got the name. I got the look. They got me re-elected

I thank my boys for all the corporate money they collected.

Yeah the corporate world was dirty, so we gave you Martha.

Then I turned our focus on Saddam just like my father.

We had to go and stop the nucular proliferation

Oops. Don't got dem nukes. How about a sovereign nation?

I know they want they freedoms so I'm gonna bring 'em fastest.

And if I torture terrorists, yo that don't mean I'm fascist.

Don't mind those soldiers over there pullin' double tours.

Still in Afghanistan. Yeah, we fightin' double wars.

Look bitch, the second term of my presidency

Could begin with a mother f**kin D.R.A.F.T.

[CHORUS X 2]

This insurgency

Is really gettin to me

We will train Iraqis

For their military

But if they fail to be

Enough to keep the peace, see

We gon' fill they country

With a D.R.A.F.T.

Check out this Iraqi

He happy to see me

Did I mention they free?

And you all can thank me

You might disagree

Not want to fight for me

But here's your M-16

For the D.R.A.F.T.

Yo we can threaten Syria and we can beat 'em too.

If you're 18 to 25 we might be callin you.

Iran and North Korea, if you want a dirty war

We got a whole new crop of soldiers up to 34.

And there's no way a cowboy like myself will be withdrawin'

So listen to me while I tell 'em all to bring it on

And don't be trying to get out of this sh*t.

I'm your chief, your leader, your president BITCH!

[CHORUS X 2]

Draft Machine Begins

By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON Oct 27, 2007 (AP)

In the largest call-up of U.S. diplomats since the Vietnam War, the State Department is planning to order some of its personnel to serve at the American Embassy in Iraq because of a lack of volunteers.

Those designated "prime candidates" from 200 to 300 diplomats will be notified Monday that they have been selected for one-year postings to fill the 40 to 50 vacancies expected next year.

A spokesman for the union that represents U.S. diplomats told The Associated Press on Saturday that "assigning unarmed civilians into a combat zone should be done on a voluntary basis."

They will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go to Iraq and face dismissal if they refuse, said Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service.

Wow, its hard to believe that its been almost 4 years since this thread started.

I miss the days when Woodlawn would eat the rightwingers for breakfast.