The Sum is 0

[Bush Whacker]

Remember this on November 2, 2004:

Currently, rumors are abound that the draft may be re-instated under the guise of the Universal National Service Act. Of course, with the election so close, nobody from the Bush Administration or the Kerry campaign is saying anything about re-activating the draft to finish the war in Iraq which, to date has claimed more than 1,163 lives (1028 Americans are now dead and 7026 are wounded). President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year to, "Bring them on!" According to the Pentagon, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded Remember this on November 2, 2004:

Currently, rumors are abound that the draft may be re-instated under the guise of the Universal National Service Act. Of course, with the election so close, nobody from the Bush Administration or the Kerry campaign is saying anything about re-activating the draft to finish the war in Iraq which, to date has claimed more than 1,163 lives (1028 Americans are now dead and 7026 are wounded). President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year to, "Bring them on!" According to the Pentagon, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded since then.

The number of days, combined, that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz served in Vietnam:

0

The number of people - including George W. Bush - who can definitively say where George W. Bush was during the 6-month gap in 1972 when G.W. was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air National Guard:

0

0 + 0 = 0

Number of student deferments (category 2-S, according to the Selective Service System) used by Dick Cheney, dated March 20, 1963; July 23, 1963; October 14, 1964; and November 1, 1965 (according to Selective Service System records):

4

Number of deferments used by Dick Cheney for family hardship (category 3-A, dated January 19, 1966)

1

This deferment came as the Cheneys were expecting their first child, Elizabeth who was born on July 28th, 1966. It should be noted that her birth occured 9 months and 2 days after a change in government policy that made childless married men more likely to be drafted.

Number of times Cheney was given 1-A status by the Selective Service System (a condition meaning he was able to serve, dated February 15, 1962 and May 19, 1965):

2

Dick Cheney was quoted in 1989 during his Senate confirmation hearings for his nomination to lead the Pentagon that he "would have obviously been happy to serve" had he been called. Cheney has also been quoted during that time:

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Dick Cheney turned 26 on January 30, 1967. This age removed him from the draft pool for good while the war in Vietnam - which claimed over 58,000 American lives - raged on.

It should also be noted that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz have all been quoted as being in favor of the war in Vietnam.

Remember all this in November, especially if you're between the ages of 18-26 or you know someone that is. Apparently, these men certainly have no reservation about sending somebody else's kids off to die in a war against a country that has never attacked the U.S. while the people who have attacked us have been allowed to go free thanks to this nice little detour in the War on Terror.

Sources: Los Angeles Times. Thursday September 16, 2004. Pg. A19 Cheney's Draft Deferments Not Outside The Norm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2004.04.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml.

The number of days, combined, that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz served in Vietnam:

0

The number of people - including George W. Bush - who can definitively say where George W. Bush was during the 6-month gap in 1972 when G.W. was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air National Guard:

0

0 + 0 = 0

Number of student deferments (category 2-S, according to the Selective Service System) used by Dick Cheney, dated March 20, 1963; July 23, 1963; October 14, 1964; and November 1, 1965 (according to Selective Service System records):

4

Number of deferments used by Dick Cheney for family hardship (category 3-A, dated January 19, 1966)

1

This deferment came as the Cheneys were expecting their first child, Elizabeth who was born on July 28th, 1966. It should be noted that her birth occured 9 months and 2 days after a change in government policy that made childless married men more likely to be drafted.

Number of times Cheney was given 1-A status by the Selective Service System (a condition meaning he was able to serve, dated February 15, 1962 and May 19, 1965):

2

Dick Cheney was quoted in 1989 during his Senate confirmation hearings for his nomination to lead the Pentagon that he "would have obviously been happy to serve" had he been called. Cheney has also been quoted during that time:

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Dick Cheney turned 26 on January 30, 1967. This age removed him from the draft pool for good while the war in Vietnam - which claimed over 58,000 American lives - raged on.

It should also be noted that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz have all been quoted as being in favor of the war in Vietnam.

Remember all this in November, especially if you're between the ages of 18-26 or you know someone that is. Apparently, these men certainly have no reservation about sending somebody else's kids off to die in a war against a country that has never attacked the U.S. while the people who have attacked us have been allowed to go free thanks to this nice little detour in the War on Terror.

Sources: Los Angeles Times. Thursday September 16, 2004. Pg. A19 Cheney's Draft Deferments Not Outside The Norm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2004.04.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Do you really have nothing better to do than spread your anti-Bush propaganda?

4 MORE YEARS!!!

 

[Bush Whacker]

Do you really have nothing better to do than spread your anti-Bush propaganda?

4 MORE YEARS!!!

Umm...yeah. But, I find the time to make sure that you're going to hear and read what the so-called "liberal media" (in reality, they are looking to be the compliant lap dogs of the Republican party...doesn't anyone ever question what's being sold to them?) is not going to tell you.

I do promise that I will stop on November 3, 2004 when someone OTHER THAN BUSH is elected President; and, with W's numbers dropping in the polls (currently, he and Kerry are even...again), it's looking more likely everyday. Remember, he's an incumbent president and a wartime president so his numbers should be through the roof. Using history as a guide, those presidents (including W's father, George Sr.) that have lost their lead at this time before the election are more likely to lose the election in November.

Will W. be a one-term president like his daddy? I hope so!

By the way, I just noticed you're not old enough to vote (your birthdate is in 1989). You will be during the next election, though. Of course, you won't be able to vote for your boy, W. in 2008 as he will have exceeded the number of terms that one can serve as president. Perhaps by then, the quagmire that is Iraq will be over and done with and they'll be returned to sovereignty (the current predictions is that is not going to happen until thousands of Iraqi and US military and civilians alike are killed).

For your sake, I hope that the draft is not re-instated and you end up being shipped off to a foreign land to fight in a war that you may not agree with. I'm sure your world view would change radically if that situation were to happen. Remember, once they have you in the service, they can extend your tour of duty past the time they stated at their convenience for as long as necessary. Trust me, I know what the contracts look like from having enlisted 2 years before you were born.

Keep your grades up and you'll qualify for those same student deferments that kept Cheney from serving.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Umm...yeah. But, I find the time to make sure that you're going to hear and read what the so-called "liberal media" (in reality, they are looking to be the compliant lap dogs of the Republican party...doesn't anyone ever question what's being sold to them?) is not going to tell you.

I do promise that I will stop on November 3, 2004 when someone OTHER THAN BUSH is elected President; and, with W's numbers dropping in the polls (currently, he and Kerry are even...again), it's looking more likely everyday. Remember, he's an incumbent president and a wartime president so his numbers should be through the roof. Using history as a guide, those presidents (including W's father, George Sr.) that have lost their lead at this time before the election are more likely to lose the election in November.

Will W. be a one-term president like his daddy? I hope so!

By the way, I just noticed you're not old enough to vote (your birthdate is in 1989). You will be during the next election, though. Of course, you won't be able to vote for your boy, W. in 2008 as he will have exceeded the number of terms that one can serve as president. Perhaps by then, the quagmire that is Iraq will be over and done with and they'll be returned to sovereignty (the current predictions is that is not going to happen until thousands of Iraqi and US military and civilians alike are killed).

For your sake, I hope that the draft is not re-instated and you end up being shipped off to a foreign land to fight in a war that you may not agree with. I'm sure your world view would change radically if that situation were to happen. Keep your grades up and you'll qualify for those same student deferments that kept Cheney out of serving.

Do you even like metal, or did you just join this forum to spread your plague? I already replied to you in the chat forum, and I will say it again, I have no problem fighting a war to defend the country that I love.

4 MORE YEARS!!!

 

[Bush Whacker]

Do you even like metal, or did you just join this forum to spread your plague? I already replied to you in the chat forum, and I will say it again, I have no problem fighting a war to defend the country that I love.

4 MORE YEARS!!!

I've been listening to Metal since 1977.

I've already served this country as a US Navy Field Medical Dental Technician (combat medic; MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) 8707) serving the 2nd and 3rd Force Service Support Groups of the US Marine Corps.

I have no problem with fighting to defend this nation (gee, the US Navy is all-volunteer, so I guess I must not have had a problem with signing up). I would be currently serving again if Bush's appointed Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, hadn't made the decision in November of 2002 to deny the re-entry of any veterans who had been out of service longer than 6 years.

The current war in Iraq is merely a detour from the War on Terror. If Bush was doing his job right, we would already have captured Osama bin Laden back in 2002 and we would have a coalition worthy of the one in 1990 when George Bush Sr. was president.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Bush is doing his job right. He made the military stronger than it ever was when Clinton was in office. Once again, please don't tell me that you think the world would be safer with Saddam in power.

 

[Bush Whacker]

Bush is doing his job right. He made the military stronger than it ever was when Clinton was in office. Once again, please don't tell me that you think the world would be safer with Saddam in power.

If you're speaking of the actions taken to reduce the size of the US Armed Forces after the end of the Cold War, then you can thank George Herbert Walker Bush (George Sr.) for that. I was in the Navy from 1988 to 1993. Several of those that I was stationed with received early discharges at their request and there were others that were given the option of having a reduced benefits package if they wanted to retire at 15 years, instead of the minimum of 20 years.

Since W. has taken over the presidency and become Commander in Chief, he has tried to or approved the measures to reduce the budget of the military, including cuts in combat pay, as well as cuts in training for reservists and National Guard members who have no experience in the type of guerilla desert fighting that is being called upon in Iraq. Add to this the lack of body and vehicle armor that is being reported by those troops who are returning from combat in Iraq, and the growing number of those boys and girls coming home in flag-draped coffins and you're looking at a really ugly picture.

Bush is not doing his job right. If he was, he would not have to campaign to keep his job. He could do what Clinton did during the 1996 presidential race and just stay in the White House and work.

 

[Edgecrusher]

America liberating OTHER countries from evil tyrants? Why that's just unheard of!!!!

Nope, no history of that EVER happening before!

 

[Bush Whacker]

America liberating OTHER countries from evil tyrants? Why that's just unheard of!!!!

Nope, no history of that EVER happening before!

Not unless there was a good financial reason for it. :Smug:

 

[Edgecrusher]

Not unless there was a good financial reason for it. :Smug:

Us footing the bill for rebuilding Iraq, after we "shock and awed" it?

 

[DE]

Bush is doing his job right. He made the military stronger than it ever was when Clinton was in office. Once again, please don't tell me that you think the world would be safer with Saddam in power.

Because we all know that toppling Saddam was the reason given when the decision was made to go to war!

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

 

[metu]

Great post Whacker! :] Well done with the links and sources.

Cryptkeeper:

Bush is not "doing his job right" by any means. The military probably looks stronger on the tv, but it's actually far weaker because it's stretched so thinly and thousands of service men and women are doing jobs for which they have no training. Regardless of who's to blame, the military was not well prepared at all to invade and occupy Iraq. This should have been very clear to this administration. Bush is so blinded by self-righteousness, however, that he thought that the people of Iraq would rally around him and call him the savior of the Iraqi people. Then it would be off to Iran with the trumpets of angels blaring.

The world was safer with Saddam in power. Saddam was kept on a short leash between the no-fly zones in the North and the South and being under the constant watch of his wary neighbors. The re-admition of the UN safety inspectors only made that leash shorter. He was an enemy of al Qaeda and the radical Wahhabi movement, regardless of what FOX tells you, because he was a secular (non-religious) dictator. Most importantly, his regime was stable and predictable.

Now, Iraq is a hotbed for terrorism. The terrorists and other insurgents working in Iraq are proving to their neighbors and the world just how effective this kind of war can be. Sooner or later the US will leave and the Iraqi people will have to deal with the enemies they've made while working with the US. They are caught in a catch-22.

The overwhelming surge in anti-Americanism across the globe in reaction to Bush's arrogance, subbornness, and impatience on the issue of Iraq has also made the world far less safe. The terrorist networks which have stemmed from al Qaeda will be able to dramatically increase recruitment and will find a wider variety of safe-houses as more of the people of the world consider the US to be a fascist state.

Edgecrusher:

You touch on a good point. I assume you're referring to the first half of the 20th century. Some very foul elements rose from the US policies during the Cold War, though, especially after Vietnam when they became more covert. The lessons of the Cold War seem to be completely unlearned by this administration as they're making the same old mistakes. Bush, of course, can't see that the US has ever done anything wrong as he's so blinded by his "moral clarity."

 

[metu]

Us footing the bill for rebuilding Iraq, after we "shock and awed" it?

That money is mostly going to US corporations.

 

[smylex2]

That money is mostly going to US corporations.

Actually, most of that money is going to one U.S. corporation: Halliburton - the only company to simply be given contracts without having to bid for them.

Is it any coincidence that their former CEO was Dick Cheney? :Smug:

 

[Tye]

How will the Iraqi's ever forgive the west?

 

[Nico]

Who cares? Don't vote. Move to Sweden. Lovely ladies.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

The world was safer with Saddam in power. Saddam was kept on a short leash between the no-fly zones in the North and the South and being under the constant watch of his wary neighbors. The re-admition of the UN safety inspectors only made that leash shorter. He was an enemy of al Qaeda and the radical Wahhabi movement, regardless of what FOX tells you, because he was a secular (non-religious) dictator. Most importantly, his regime was stable and predictable.

ANOTHER Fox News badmouther!? I really believe that the would is safer without Saddam out of office. I also don't believe that he was an enemy of Al Qaeda.

 

[TB666]

Who cares? Don't vote. Move to Sweden. Lovely ladies.

No !!!
Stay the fuck away from here.

 

[smylex2]

ANOTHER Fox News badmouther!? I really believe that the would is safer without Saddam out of office. I also don't believe that he was an enemy of Al Qaeda.

It's not hard to badmouth Fox News. Fox is more full of shit than Iraq's sewers! Fox's usual policy is to lie on the minute of every minute of every hour. The world is not safer with Saddam out of office because he was not a threat to the world starting from 1991. The only people he was ever a threat to were his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and the only possible threat that he could have been to any other countries was the distance that his missles could reach (which - for those of us who were alive and serving in the US Armed Forces at the time and remember the lessons of Gulf War 1 - was the SCUD missle; the farthest that missle could reach was Israel and then it could reach that far only when the explosives were removed).

I should also mention that the only time that Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction against their neighbors was during the 1980s when Iraq was one of our allies.

Guess who was the Vice-President then? George H. W. Bush.

Guess who went to congratulate Saddam in Baghdad on "a job well done" when Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people (the Kurds)? Current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Do I also need to mention that it was Rumsfeld who was named as approving the use of torture in questioning the prisoners at Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Gahraib (many of whom were there by mistake according to the International Committee of the Red Cross and between 70-80% were released with no charges ever filed against them?).

Guess who supplied Iraq with weapons? President Ronald Reagan.

Funny...they're all Republicans! :Smug:

If Iraq was such a threat, why were we able to defeat that country in approximately 30 days? World War 2 took close to 4 years and that was with a coalition of several countries united against 3 major countries in 4 continents.

While al Qaeda tried - at one time, nearly a decade ago - to establish a training camp (or multiple training camps) in Iraq because they and Saddam Hussein share a mutual hatred of the United States, they have a fundamental difference in that Saddam Hussein was a non-secular (non-religious) dictator who does not follow the writings of the Koran. To the leaders of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, he would most likely be considered an infidel and not to be trusted.

To date, no connection has been made to the events of 9/11/2001 and Iraq and the people who did attack this country have been allowed to go free while we take a detour and attack a country that had nothing to do with it. Thus far, the best friend of al Qaeda in America has been President Bush because he's done almost nothing to stop them.

 

[metu]

You're too influenced by the left, Smylex. Try this on for size.

http://heritage.org

The problem with FOX is not that they lie. The problem is that they accuse, then spin. They accuse other news sources of being unpatriotic. Then they spin and talk about some stock market numbers as if that had anything to do with the middle class. They consistantly support the president's policies because they know that it will resonate well with the public.

They are just using our patriotism as a tool to foster ratings. FOX news is an enemy of our democracy.

Cryptkeeper: For the sake of, and in the name of, our democracy, please answer this question truthfully. Why do you believe that al Qaeda and Iraq were not enemies?

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

If Iraq was such a threat, why were we able to defeat that country in approximately 30 days? World War 2 took close to 4 years and that was with a coalition of several countries united against 3 major countries in 4 continents.

Iraq was a threat because Saddam was such a devout militant and his sons were even worse. It was a good target because of its location, its potential to influence the broader region, and the fact that the regime was despised by all of Iraq's neighbors. The initial military victory was so easy because there were no chemical or biological weapons and the National Guard threw off their uniforms and melted into the general population.

While al Qaeda tried - at one time, nearly a decade ago - to establish a training camp (or multiple training camps) in Iraq because they and Saddam Hussein share a mutual hatred of the United States, they have a fundamental difference in that Saddam Hussein was a non-secular (non-religious) dictator who does not follow the writings of the Koran. To the leaders of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, he would most likely be considered an infidel and not to be trusted.

What actually happened was that bin Laden went to the Saudi government and proposed that if they could keep the US out of it, he and al Qaeda would invade Iraq in order to turn it into an Islamic state modeled after Afghanistan. It's not that Saddam did not practice the Q'uran, it's that he didn't enforce the radical Wahhabi version. What made Iraq such a target for al Qaeda is the same thing that made it such a good target for us. Location and opportunity.

Bin Laden was coming from a decade of "holy war" in Afghanistan. He was living and fighting with fanatics from the hills this whole time. He wanted the ideals of the Taliban to thrive and thought that the Saudi government would back him. When he found that they would not, at least officially, he focused on the US.

To date, no connection has been made to the events of 9/11/2001 and Iraq and the people who did attack this country have been allowed to go free while we take a detour and attack a country that had nothing to do with it. Thus far, the best friend of al Qaeda in America has been President Bush because he's done almost nothing to stop them

Well, accusations have been made, but no solid proof hase been found. The people who did attack our country are dead. We have to look at the long term solution to make sure that future generations don't have this threat. That's what makes Iraq such a great target. Not Oil. Not Saddam. Location and opportunity.

Bush is the best case scenerio for al-Qaeda, not because he's done nothing, but because he's played right into their hands.

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

I was never one of these anti-war fanatics. I was, from the beginning, arguing about border security. How can Bush claim that things are going to work out if we "stay the course" when the course has been, and continues to be, to ignore the problems of Iraqi border security?