BrandoFan Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] 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 Two words: ain't servin' That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Two words: ain't servin' That is all. It would be insane to assume a military draft would be activated. Did Bush not learn from Vietnam that a military draft is a perfect way to make an unpopular war even worse? Watch him squirm throughout this election when asked the question; can't expect the media to ignore a bill which could be activated as soon as spring of 05. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 It's just an average used in comparison to other countries averages. In no way should you take this to mean that most Americans earn that much per year. Visit the site for the office of budget & accounting for better distribution numbers. I think the Bell curve is around 21-23000 last I look. Sideshow I'm glad you weighed in. The reason why neo-conservatives support it in Iraq but protest against it in America is because of the distribution of $ in education in America. We can assume that administrators are practically non-existent in Iraq so most of the $ spent is going toward books, schools, & educating Iraqi's. But in America or if you prefer IL the average pay for administrators last year was between 80-90K. The average pay for teachers was between 50-60K. This includes suburbs. The peak compensation for a principal was 1.3MIL. The average per principal was 230K. When did competing for principals become like competing for CEO's? This is just outright wrong & that's why some states are now seeking to dissolve their school boards entirely . Philadelphia was the first by privatizing their school system. They cut the cost in 1/2 & so far post higher test scores than before privatization. There is no question that taking control of the education of a predominantly Muslim country where militants have been in power for decades will improve the safety of the region. It won't happen overnight as all revolutions are followed with turmoil but if our commitment is there then it will happen. That bill has no chance of winning but I too am appauled by the introduction of it. It's almost as if some in Congress are saying soldiers cost less than technology so do it. It would be better to regulate defense contractors to where they are forced to work harder for less than to do this. The future is an unmaned air force, so this should be the direction of other armed forces as well. No one is advocating that Bush is a good choice. In America voting always has been & always will be choosing the lesser of 2 evils. If someone really believes America will be safer under Kerry than Bush than let's debate why. Otherwise the choice is obvious. I often think it doesn't matter any more who gets elected because special interest groups weild the greatest power. It's getting harder all the time to exercise one's right to vote. Bush is an out-and-out liar. He completely lied about WMD. He completely lied about why we (he!) invaded Iraq. As I said before, Hssein has more credibility than Bush; at least Hussein (seemingly) told the truth about not having WMD. I am not saying Sadaam didn't have to go; he is a murderous war criminal. But, call it what it is...don't blame it on WMD and/or the "War against Terrorism". If Bush really wanted to fight terrorism he'd have finished what he started in Afghanistan, then gone after the Saudis, Hamas, Hezbollah, FLP, PLO, etc. Bush's war in Iraq is all about oil and making his corproate fat-cat buddies rich(er)! Maybe Kerry would be the same, but, we know what we have in Bush, and it ain't good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Bush is an out-and-out liar. He completely lied about WMD. He completely lied about why we (he!) invaded Iraq. As I said before, Hssein has more credibility than Bush; at least Hussein (seemingly) told the truth about not having WMD. I am not saying Sadaam didn't have to go; he is a murderous war criminal. But, call it what it is...don't blame it on WMD and/or the "War against Terrorism". If Bush really wanted to fight terrorism he'd have finished what he started in Afghanistan, then gone after the Saudis, Hamas, Hezbollah, FLP, PLO, etc. Bush's war in Iraq is all about oil and making his corproate fat-cat buddies rich(er)! Maybe Kerry would be the same, but, we know what we have in Bush, and it ain't good. I think you give him too much credit. I don't think he lied about anything. I think he is the kind of person who pretty much hates to read & therefore relies extensively on the advice from others. He trusts Chenney emphatically & no doubt Chenney is what led him to believe Saddam had WMD's. Look it's very possible he did & they are still there. Iraq is a HUGE country & Bush's ultimatums gave Saddam plenty of time to move them. I don't think Saddam had any nuclear ones but we know for a fact that he used BIO WMD's against rebel Kurds in the 90's. So we know he had them at one time & there was no measure to force him to give them up. And once again Libya did have WMD's of both a BIO & nuclear flavor & did come forth as a direct result of our actions in Iraq. Some times misdirection can acheive better results as long as you keep the pressure on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 I apologize for taking so long to get back to this. Had an eventful weekend that took up a lot of my time. Anyway, back to the post. Firstly, building schools, giving them health care etc. When that's done in Iraq it's seen as good policy. When national health care and better schools and the like are suggested for America, it's shouted down by most neo-conservatives as outright socialism. I fear the slippery slope of "they're gonna attack so we must attack first" can be used for disasterous purposes. Take, for example the problems with India and Pakistan. They've both got itchy trigger finger and have actually come out saying that they would use the doctrine of pre-emptive war to attack each other. The doctrine has created a slippery slope in the world political arena. A lot of high ranking troops said that US troops simply did not have enough troops to adequately perform in Iraq. They're simply undermanned there. Some Iraqi security forces put in place have said that they did not sign up to fight their own people. Not to mention that as of October the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be bankrupt until after the election here. If, and that's a very strong if, we rebuild Iraq then we do not rebuild Iraq. Iraqis cannot get jobs since all the major contracting jobs and even the grunt work in Iraq goes to Americans. So, US companies are getting a lot of money to rebuild Iraq yet most Iraqis are unemployed. There was a good article in the Nation on this recently but I don't have the time currently (going to dinner with a friend relatively soon) to get it but just do a little search and you can find it if you want to read it. I also don't know if you saw the recent pending legislation... Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] 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." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services. Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year. If this all happens, the draft beings in spring 2005. We have a president who said in 2000 that we would not "nation build". And if we're really promoting the American way of life, then why silence freedom of speech by closing al-Sadr's newspaper just because he said stuff we didn't like? And as to your point that America is safer, http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=2181 It's a libertarian paleo-conservative site that is totally about not wanting to use our military in offensive wars. Apu...you have outdone yourself. The website/article that you cited is by far, the biggest crock of s*** I have ever read! I cannot believe that anyone with farther than a third grade education would believe such bulls***. I know that you are a university student; do you honestly believe that 1) Yassin's assassination was not justified; and 2) that the Iraqis (and radical Islam) hate America because Yassin was executed? :headshake If anything, Sharon deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for approving Yassin's elimination. Sharon saved countless innocent lives by killing that piece of s***, (and should probably do the same with Rantisi and Arafat!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 I think you give him too much credit. I don't think he lied about anything. I think he is the kind of person who pretty much hates to read & therefore relies extensively on the advice from others. He trusts Chenney emphatically & no doubt Chenney is what led him to believe Saddam had WMD's. Look it's very possible he did & they are still there. Iraq is a HUGE country & Bush's ultimatums gave Saddam plenty of time to move them. I don't think Saddam had any nuclear ones but we know for a fact that he used BIO WMD's against rebel Kurds in the 90's. So we know he had them at one time & there was no measure to force him to give them up. And once again Libya did have WMD's of both a BIO & nuclear flavor & did come forth as a direct result of our actions in Iraq. Some times misdirection can acheive better results as long as you keep the pressure on. You may be right. We have "bigger fish to fry" than Iraq. We have "buddied-up" to the Saudis for years, just because they have oil. Remember, all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals. Also, if world-wide terrorism is "state-sponsored", and I believe that it is, the Saudis are the ones with the resources and the inclination to sponsor terror. Iraq, under Hussein, was a terrorist country; change at the top was necessary. But, we may have created "many Husseins" by taking out Sadaam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.