What Bush has planned for after the election...

[suzieg]

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S 89 IS


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 89
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.

(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.

(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.

(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.

(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.


The above is the actual bill that is in Congress now. There was a little more but my post was too long. If you don't believe this is true, or if you want to read the rest of it click here, then search for Bill Number S.89.

 

[Jizm]

Holy Smokes! What was the point of all that?:dunno: :eek:

 

[Boricua111118]

hahaha who ever reads all that needs to go get sum REAL FAST...

 

[woody02]

ok this is obviously an idiot that buys into the liberal news propaganda and if he did his homework would find that it was the democrats that proposed this bill to congress not pres bush and if he used his common sense would realize that hw have been at war for 2 years and avoided a draft so Why would there be one now that the war is almost done use your head man and dont buy into everything you hear or see get the facts straight

 

[member5726]

Well with the way the war is going in Irak, you can bet your ass that a draft is coming... man i'm really glad to be in Canada...

 

[harold]

Well with the way the war is going in Irak, you can bet your ass that a draft is coming... man i'm really glad to be in Canada...

if the draft is reenstated canada better build a wall along its border because people are going to run. hell i just herd that army has been calling back retired officers and 1/3 of them have failed to report to duty.

we are going to come and take your jobs man i can't wait to be in canada!

 

[Brino]

There's already a backdoor draft going on and I for one wouldnt be surprised if the draft was reinstated. :2 cents:

 

[suzieg]

LOL

I think the draft idea was introduced by democrats to try to get the republican warmongers to not go to war with iraq.

....but, since this war is a complete disaster(no shit, eh?) and they are calling up people who are not supposed to be called up for this bullshit, I don't see why bush OR kerry(if he stays in this mess) wouldnt need a draft to field a military.

I mean where people were signing up before to get easy money for school or cause they didnt know what to do with themselves, they now say fuck it.

What fucking loon would join the armed forces now, even weekend warrior reserves aint safe. I know a reservist who probaly couldnt walk my block but is going to Iraq in december, its a fucking joke.

Not many people are loony enough to join the armed forces right now, and even those in seem to want to get the fuck out.

I hate to say it but bush has dug a deep whole for himself and kerry, kerry might hand over most of Iraq to the UN and bring home the fellas, thus making the draft issue go away, but if bush stays in he will have a draft, no doubt........

But it will be in the name of freedom. LOL, although I dont see what the fuck Iraq has to do with our freedom, he would have been better served blowing the 100-200 billion on the space missle defense shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[harold]

But it will be in the name of freedom. LOL, although I dont see what the fuck Iraq has to do with our freedom, he would have been better served blowing the 100-200 billion on the space missle defense shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

good point. its funny that you mention it. bush was ingnoring terrorism altogether before 9-11 and his big plan for national defence was space missle defense. Remeber when he was breaking all those missle treaties we had with russia.

personall i think that 100-200billion whould be better spent on schools or a mission to mars or medical research.

 

[Anime Pornstar]

personall i think that 100-200billion whould be better spent on schools or a mission to mars or medical research.

Not to mention the 1000+ dead soldiers or the 5000+ wounded ones.

I have friends over there in the thick of it, I worry about them every day. I know what it's like to be in a combat zone myself. I stopped watching the news long ago, too damn depressing. I keep up on things by reading online.

As for a draft, it won't happen. But anyone who thinks this was is "almost over" has thier head in the sand.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]."- JOHN KERRY

Wow. Kerry agreed with the War when battling Howard Dean for the right to lead the Democrats, and now is against it. WTF. I guess sort of how Dean told anyone who would listen Kerry wasn't good enough to lead the Demos, but is now saying Kerry should be POTUS. Can just one of you guys make a statement and stick with it?

“In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.” - JOHN KERRY

Wouldn't America be much stronger with a guy who doesn't change his stance every 5 minutes?

Hijacking 4 planes was bad, but it's easy to say detonating a nuclear device on America soil would be much worse right? Shouldn't we be going after these guys and make sure we are all over them before they can do this?

Freedom is not free. It has a price, and a hefty one at that. Millions of people have lost their lives to gain, and protect their freedom. The people we are fighting are willing to blow themselves up, just to kill others. They have no problem killing women and children. And they do that by shooting them in the back, or blowing them into pieces. And yet you think Bush is the bad guy. WAKE UP!!!!!!

I find it amazing that you people can sit in front of your computer, and say these things, all while taking for granted the freedom you have. A freedom that has been protected by war.

Unlike Michael Moore would have you believe, Saddam did try and succeed in killing Americans. Saddam had the ability to get, or get someone to use WMD, and use them on us. What would it have taken for you cry babies to get on board with this action put forth by GWB? Were you not horrified by what you saw on Sept 11? Did that not sadden you, anger you, piss you off?

Iraq was a safe haven for bad people. Plain and simple. And the quicker everybody gets on board with the current actions there, the quicker the situation gets resolved. Stand back and bitch about it, and we'll get no where.

At some point, Saddam was going to be more (there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda) involved with a major attack on the US. When that happened, would you finally believe he should have been taken out before that? Kinda like how Clinton had the ability to take out bin laden before 9/11, but didn't.

The war on terror will never be over. But the war on crime put forth by the Police everyday will never be won either, but does that mean we don't fight it? The war on drugs will never be won either, but you are ok with calling that fight off too right?

It would be splendid if we lived in a Utopia where everybody loved each other, and there was no need for fighting. But guess what, that ain't going to happen. And because of that, I cherish the life I have, and know that I have this life because many before me sacrificed for me to have it. I appreciate it every day. And now with the actions put forth by this Government, millions more can experience the same thing.

Now, VOTE BUSH!!!!

 

[member5726]

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]."- JOHN KERRY

Wow. Kerry agreed with the War when battling Howard Dean for the right to lead the Democrats, and now is against it. WTF. I guess sort of how Dean told anyone who would listen Kerry wasn't good enough to lead the Demos, but is now saying Kerry should be POTUS. Can just one of you guys make a statement and stick with it?

The republicans were doing worst four years ago during the primaries when the Bush camp were throwing everything bad about McCain, who is even more a hero then Kerry...

 

[georges]

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]."- JOHN KERRY

Wow. Kerry agreed with the War when battling Howard Dean for the right to lead the Democrats, and now is against it. WTF. I guess sort of how Dean told anyone who would listen Kerry wasn't good enough to lead the Demos, but is now saying Kerry should be POTUS. Can just one of you guys make a statement and stick with it?

“In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.” - JOHN KERRY

Wouldn't America be much stronger with a guy who doesn't change his stance every 5 minutes?

Hijacking 4 planes was bad, but it's easy to say detonating a nuclear device on America soil would be much worse right? Shouldn't we be going after these guys and make sure we are all over them before they can do this?

Freedom is not free. It has a price, and a hefty one at that. Millions of people have lost their lives to gain, and protect their freedom. The people we are fighting are willing to blow themselves up, just to kill others. They have no problem killing women and children. And they do that by shooting them in the back, or blowing them into pieces. And yet you think Bush is the bad guy. WAKE UP!!!!!!

I find it amazing that you people can sit in front of your computer, and say these things, all while taking for granted the freedom you have. A freedom that has been protected by war.

Unlike Michael Moore would have you believe, Saddam did try and succeed in killing Americans. Saddam had the ability to get, or get someone to use WMD, and use them on us. What would it have taken for you cry babies to get on board with this action put forth by GWB? Were you not horrified by what you saw on Sept 11? Did that not sadden you, anger you, piss you off?

Iraq was a safe haven for bad people. Plain and simple. And the quicker everybody gets on board with the current actions there, the quicker the situation gets resolved. Stand back and bitch about it, and we'll get no where.

At some point, Saddam was going to be more (there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda) involved with a major attack on the US. When that happened, would you finally believe he should have been taken out before that? Kinda like how Clinton had the ability to take out bin laden before 9/11, but didn't.

The war on terror will never be over. But the war on crime put forth by the Police everyday will never be won either, but does that mean we don't fight it? The war on drugs will never be won either, but you are ok with calling that fight off too right?

It would be splendid if we lived in a Utopia where everybody loved each other, and there was no need for fighting. But guess what, that ain't going to happen. And because of that, I cherish the life I have, and know that I have this life because many before me sacrificed for me to have it. I appreciate it every day. And now with the actions put forth by this Government, millions more can experience the same thing.

Now, VOTE BUSH!!!!

a very very brilliant post:hatsoff:

regards

georges:georges:

 

[Dolman]

Agreed, great post Sanchez

 

[Anime Pornstar]

Sanchez -

Donald Rumsfeld just admitted that there was no link between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein.

Colin Powell admitted his presentation to the UN was knowingly circumstantial.

Where was the justification in invading Iraq?

I was 100% behind going to Afghanistan, and I also supported going to Iraq when my government said they had WMDs. But it is now obvious that the government lied. About alot of things.

It's one thing to break a campaign promise about taxes, it's entirely another to start a war.

And I'm tired of hearing about "freedom and liberty for Iraq". That's bullshit. They did not ask us to come there. We attacked them to install a friendly regime.

"I find it amazing that you people can sit in front of your computer, and say these things, all while taking for granted the freedom you have. A freedom that has been protected by war.

I served my country, in war and in peacetime. I am pro-American and pro-Military. But I cannot support a man that has so obviously led this country down a road that we never needed to be on.

I support our men and women in Iraq, because they are merely doing what they swore to do, obey the Commander in Chief. I oppose George Bush and his administration for starting this un-necessary war and causing the deaths of thousands of Americans, alienating our good friends around the world, and wasting the good reputation of America as a benevolent power.

Being pro-Bush does not equal patriotism.

Doing what is best for your country is.

 

[love_tha_sweet]

a very very brilliant post:hatsoff:

regards

georges:georges:

I second the :hatsoff:

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Sanchez -

Donald Rumsfeld just admitted that there was no link between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein.

No link with the actions on Sept. 11, but there is a link between the two in the past.

Colin Powell admitted his presentation to the UN was knowingly circumstantial.

Better to be safe, then sorry. I rather they go in and not find what they were looking for, then waiting and watching Saddam use what he is not suppose to have.

Where was the justification in invading Iraq?

To stop a bad man capable of killing innocent people all while going un-punished.

I was 100% behind going to Afghanistan, and I also supported going to Iraq when my government said they had WMDs. But it is now obvious that the government lied. About alot of things.

The intel was bad. The intel from the CIA, MI-6 and the Russians. Plus, there are countries that have sold Iraq equipment to build such devices. Just because we haven't found them yet, doesn't mean he didn't have them, or could get his hands on them whenever he wanted to.

It's one thing to break a campaign promise about taxes, it's entirely another to start a war.

The War was brought centre stage on that fateful Tuesday morning. He didn't ask for the War, it was dropped on him.

And I'm tired of hearing about "freedom and liberty for Iraq". That's bullshit. They did not ask us to come there. We attacked them to install a friendly regime.

Anyone in Iraq who spoke badly of Saddam was killed!!!! Why is it once he was taken into custody, the people (not the thugs, or murderers) celebrated. Don't let the left fool you, the majority of that country is very, very happy the are getting their freedom.

I served my country, in war and in peacetime. I am pro-American and pro-Military. But I cannot support a man that has so obviously led this country down a road that we never needed to be on.

Would another attack on American soil change your mind? What would it have taken for you to get behind action that would see the removal of a regime intent on seeing Americans be killed, and one that supports people who do that killing?

I support our men and women in Iraq, because they are merely doing what they swore to do, obey the Commander in Chief. I oppose George Bush and his administration for starting this un-necessary war and causing the deaths of thousands of Americans, alienating our good friends around the world, and wasting the good reputation of America as a benevolent power.

1000 troops have died in almost 2 years doing what they signed up to do. 3000 innocent people died one Tuesday morning while going to work. Which is worse?

Our true friends (I live in a country that everyone you talk to supports the War, but our Government, who without the US would be in huge trouble since or economy is directly related to the US and we have a farce of a Military, didn't join). Once Iraq is stabilized, these "good friends" will be on board. Wait until a bomb goes off in a grade school in Paris, and then France will come running.

"The only thing necessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing."

Being pro-Bush does not equal patriotism.

Doing what is best for your country is.

And that is voting for a strong leader; Bush

 

[Anime Pornstar]

No link with the actions on Sept. 11, but there is a link between the two in the past.

Provide a link to a credible source. There is none.

Better to be safe, then sorry. I rather they go in and not find what they were looking for, then waiting and watching Saddam use what he is not suppose to have.

It's not about WMDs, it never was. There are countries that we KNOW have them, yet we did not attack them. Iraq was a "soft target" that allowed us to remove an unfriendly Head of State and put in a friendly one.

To stop a bad man capable of killing innocent people all while going un-punished.

Without the co-operation nor approval of the UN.

If that's why we went to Iraq, why are we not helping the Sudanese?

The intel was bad. The intel from the CIA, MI-6 and the Russians. Plus, there are countries that have sold Iraq equipment to build such devices. Just because we haven't found them yet, doesn't mean he didn't have them, or could get his hands on them whenever he wanted to.

There never was any conclusive intel, just alot of "maybe". The supposed evidence would have been thrown out of a US Court of Law, yet we went to war over it.

The War was brought centre stage on that fateful Tuesday morning. He didn't ask for the War, it was dropped on him.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. If you mean 9/11, then that makes no sense. The Taliban was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al-Queda was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Anyone in Iraq who spoke badly of Saddam was killed!!!! Why is it once he was taken into custody, the people (not the thugs, or murderers) celebrated. Don't let the left fool you, the majority of that country is very, very happy the are getting their freedom.

Don't let the right fool you. I have friends in Baghdad and they say otherwise. The people hate the insurgents only slightly more than they hate us.

Would another attack on American soil change your mind? What would it have taken for you to get behind action that would see the removal of a regime intent on seeing Americans be killed, and one that supports people who do that killing?

Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks against America.

I supported the effort to remove the Taliban and Al-Queda.

1000 troops have died in almost 2 years doing what they signed up to do. 3000 innocent people died one Tuesday morning while going to work. Which is worse?

American soldiers do not sign up to be killed in an ambivilent war that no one can seem to explain. They sign up to defend their country. They take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, not to blindly obey the CiC.

And once again, you talk about 9/11 as if it has anything to do with Iraq. Iraq had no part in 9/11. The Al-Queda cells in Iraq were not there until after we invaded. The President of Iraq has said so. They are foreign fighters collaberating with pro-Saddam forces because they have a comjmon enemy, us.

Our true friends (I live in a country that everyone you talk to supports the War, but our Government, who without the US would be in huge trouble since or economy is directly related to the US and we have a farce of a Military, didn't join). Once Iraq is stabilized, these "good friends" will be on board. Wait until a bomb goes off in a grade school in Paris, and then France will come running.

America's allies stood shoulder to shoulder with us when we were attacked. NATO spoke up and said an attack on America is an attack on all of us. Don't think for a second that we have forgotten that.

Our allies were there for us when we got hit. They are still with us in Afghanistan.

But when Bush decided that he wanted to play God in the middle east, he tricked Americans into thinking Saddam was a part of 9-11 or capable of another 9-11 type attack.

Our allies decided that honor was more important than sucking up to George Bush.

"The only thing necessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke would probably consider Bush to be the evil that is succeeding.

And that is voting for a strong leader; Bush

Bush is a weak and incompetent man. His whole Presidency is owed to Karl Rove, who is lower than pond scum.

I won't pretend that Kerry is the answer to all our problems, but getting rid of Bush is the first step.


BTW - While I disagree with your politics, I enjoy our conversation. You are an intelligent debater and I appreciate that you do not take any of this personally as some people do.

Cheers,
GP

 

[Anime Pornstar]

it was the democrats that proposed this bill to congress not pres bush

That's true. It was a cheap political trick to scare people.

we have been at war for 2 years and avoided a draft so Why would there be one now that the war is almost done

Sadly, this war is nowhere near being done. Enlistments are way down and the military is not letting people out when their time is up.

We never had enough troops on the ground for the occupation phase, because our Army is too small. We downsized too much in the 80's and 90's.

To finish the job, we need more troops. If no one is joining, where are they going to come from?

The Army says they are planning to stay in Iraq until 2007. A draft is not entirely out of the question in 2005 or 2006.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Provide a link to a credible source. There is none.

The 9/11 Commission said so. There was no credible link between the two for the Sept. 11 events, but the two did have a connection before. Terrorists, are terrorists. Deal with them, or let them kill the innocent.

It's not about WMDs, it never was. There are countries that we KNOW have them, yet we did not attack them. Iraq was a "soft target" that allowed us to remove an unfriendly Head of State and put in a friendly one.

There are many reasons why (we) have not attacked other Countries with WMD's. Iraq was an easier target, and that may have been why they were picked. I'm fine with that. It had to start somewhere, and for me Iraq was a good choice.

Without the co-operation nor approval of the UN.

Big deal. The UN is useless for the most part. Plus, its been said that publicly the UN may denoce actions, but privately support it. Not every action in history, has been approved by the UN.

If that's why we went to Iraq, why are we not helping the Sudanese?

Could be next on the list. One step at a time. There are many parts of the World that need help, and attention. Plus, if the Sudanese are in such a great need of help, where was Clinton in his 8 years in power?

There never was any conclusive intel, just alot of "maybe". The supposed evidence would have been thrown out of a US Court of Law, yet we went to war over it.

There was no conclusive evidence that Al Qaeda would hijack American airliners, and crash them directly into buildings, but it happened. Again, he was a huge problem in the mid East, and I am very happy he has been dealt with before he could bring his fight to this side of the ocean.

Don't let the right fool you. I have friends in Baghdad and they say otherwise. The people hate the insurgents only slightly more than they hate us.

When the insurgents are gone, and the reality of freedom sets in, then you will see how happy the people of Iraq are that the soilders are there. Be positive.

Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks against America.

When they finally did, then would you support their removal?

I supported the effort to remove the Taliban and Al-Queda.

I question why Clinton didn't do something about this.

American soldiers do not sign up to be killed in an ambivilent war that no one can seem to explain. They sign up to defend their country. They take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, not to blindly obey the CiC.

Soldiers know that when they sign up, they run the risk of being put into combat. And when they are in combat, they run a risk of being killed. Of course no one signs up to be killed, but they know the risk. The people killed that morning did not know the risk, and yet they were murdered. I'm not trying to take away the importance or bravery of the American Solder, but their lives have not been lost for nothing. They are accomplishing a very important mission, and should be proud they have a CiC who is willing to do what it takes to keep his country safe.

And once again, you talk about 9/11 as if it has anything to do with Iraq. Iraq had no part in 9/11. The Al-Queda cells in Iraq were not there until after we invaded. The President of Iraq has said so. They are foreign fighters collaborating with pro-Saddam forces because they have a common enemy, us.

I've never said that, or meant to imply that. I've said that that part of the World has a supreme hatred for America, and to this point we've let that hatred boil on it's own. Now the fight has been brought to our front door, and its time to take a pro-active approach.

Our allies were there for us when we got hit. They are still with us in Afghanistan.

You talk like the US is the only Country in Iraq. Many allies are helping in Iraq.

But when Bush decided that he wanted to play God in the middle east, he tricked Americans into thinking Saddam was a part of 9-11 or capable of another 9-11 type attack.

Was he not (capable of another attack)? I never once thought the two were connected, but remembered enough from the early 90's that Saddam needed to be dealt with ASAP. I, for one, do not want to see imagines like the ones that were on every single TV station. Remember, pro-active, not re-active.

Our allies decided that honor was more important than sucking up to George Bush.

Our "allies" are there. I'm embarrassed Canada didn't join, but could care less that France or Germany ain't there (like they have a right to comment on war issues with their history)

Edmund Burke would probably consider Bush to be the evil that is succeeding.

That is crazy talk.

Bush is a weak and incompetent man. His whole Presidency is owed to Karl Rove, who is lower than pond scum.

Actually, it's either owed to the 2 term limit, or the inability of the Democrats to come up with a strong leader.

I won't pretend that Kerry is the answer to all our problems, but getting rid of Bush is the first step.

Very skewed way of looking at things. You want to fire someone, without having a suitable replacement. Basically, you are throwing gas on a fire. Not a smart way of keeping things safe.

BTW - While I disagree with your politics, I enjoy our conversation. You are an intelligent debater and I appreciate that you do not take any of this personally as some people do.

Cheers,
GP

Cheers right back at ya.