I think I read somewhere that this was a propaganda launched by the democrats or something.

Exactly, you don't have to support or agree with everything the government does. (That is, in fact, another issue that I don't want to deal with here) However, to live in a country where you have these rights, there has to be some cost. You pay taxes don't you? (Or you would if you had to) The draft is just one of those things that the government requires of you for it to be able to keep giving you the right to criticize and b***h about. Personally, I really don't want to get drafted. I just can't see myself killing an Iraqi. Especially not with the reasons we're being given.



------------------
"If I had a dollar for every time I had sixty cents, I would be Canada."
"Should slice indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration."
--@%

One could use that exact excuse to not be a cop. Afterall, you might be called upon to kill a fellow American.

The military went there to free Iraqis. Some (good and bad) have died as a result but the majority of Iraqis are far better off now.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

I doubt it'll pass, and heres why:

In world war II it made sence, give a kid fresh outta highschool a weekend of training and a gun and let him get mowed down by nazis, which at the time was a pretty good plan. But in order for the new shock and awe campains to affect the enemy, you can't let too many people die. As such you need to train them properly, give them adequite supplies and make it look like they're having a compribly good time. (Many soldiers can go back to camp at the end of the day). So moneywise and stratiegicly it doesn't make sence. Kerry might try to reinstate the draft if he's elected, but I really can't see bush doing that. But I doubt the draft would work as well as it did in vietnam. In vietnam people were still hyped up on the propaganda left over from wwII and as such they were almost eager to fight for their country, but after the penagon papers came out they were enraged (as they should have been) and since then we've ever so increasingly lost our faith in the government. And thats my very long 2 cents

------------------
Bunnies jump farther when you kick em!

Oh crap, I just turned 18 too. Now I'll be drafted as soon as I get out of HS, and I'll be stuck in a life-threatening situation!!!!

Wait, that's right, I have a physical disability that keeps me out of the draft (At most, they might make me do a desk job, which I don't have a problem with). I KNEW there was something good about having a rare syndrome!!!!

------------------
"The future is not determined by a throw of the dice, but is determined by the conscious decisions of you and me."
I am addicted to ellipses!!! AHHH!!! ...
Make Sorrowind Worthwhile... join it! http://sorrowind.net

Drafting soldiers isn't going to stop those suicide bombings either.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

We went there to free Iraqis? Really now?

We did?

No, we didn't...

We went there for a supposed connection to Osama Bin Laden and Hussiein, who supposedly had NUCLEAR weapons of mass destruction, who supposedly would give it to Osama, and then Osama would use it against us.

I hope you don't think we went over there to free anyone. That is just, well, wrong.


------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

[This message has been edited by Lord Kuat (edited May 25, 2004).]

Freeing Iraqis was a bonus. Or the WMDs could have been a poor excuse to take out Saddam. God knows people would be even more pissed if we messed with a soveriegn nation just to take out a tyrant. Makes other nations scared.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Actually, i agrew with what your saying, and don;'t believe tehre should be a draft. I jsut like that quote

------------------
"No good can ever come from staying with normal people"
-Outlaw Star
"Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul"
-Tycho, Penny Arcade
"I'm a Cannabal-Vegitarian. I will BBQ an employee if there is no veggie option"
-DX:IW
A Knight's Tail
Exile: A Tale of Light in Dark
The Never Ending Story²[/i]

Freeing Iraqis was always the endstate. And what's up with all of your supposedly's? With the exception of your NUCLEAR claim I thought most of the "supposedly's" you cite are facts. Under reported but facts non-the-less. You know, tonight was the first time I heard a prime-time news program actually criticize the current administration for not capitalizing on the facts that back your "supposedly's" up. I don't understand why they don't either.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Here's an assignment. Find countries the United States have actually helped in the last 200 years. Germany and Japan don't count either, while the Marshal Plan had funding and other services, and in Japan we had a hand in the creation of their constitution, they had more or less functioning infrastructure even after the desolation, a popluous that was tired of war, and other numerous factors. That and they did 99% of the work by themselves.

We've helped no one. Iraq will be in Chaos for a good 50 or so years into the future, I guarantee it.

How about we say I'm full of ****. Let's say that. Here's another question. While playing big old policeman, how come we didn't choose any other countries that lacked any form of government period, or those in a constant state of civil war. Let's pick a place in africa, there are sure alot of them.

While Saddam wasn't lolipops and sunshine, the people had running water and electricity, unlike other countries. They had well developed cities. Basic forms of civilization were in place. It wasn't the best, but it was still far from the worst. Oh noes, they had deh killings of deh opponents. Mass starvation of the general populous anyone?

So what, say this is true. Are we gonna do this for everyone? And how come we didn't finish Afganistan. It's still in shambles, you know that right...

Oh, and how about how Iraqis are responding to us. THEY SURE ARE HAPPY AREN'T THEY! Jumping up and down with glee! Infact, the ones helping us are doing it out of love for us, and not the fact that they are trying to save WHAT LITTLE THEY HAVE AFTER WE BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF THEM. And the rebels? They are crazy Alquda people! Don't mind them!

So, to summarize:

1.) We have never fixed anywhere before
2.) Our current track record is pretty damn pathetic, from the installed dictators (OH, LIKE EVERYONE'S FRIEND SADDAM!) in the cold war to Afganistan (Complete Anarchy anyone?)
3.) It's bull to say we are doing this for freedom, this will be proven by time because we won't invade anywhere else.
4.) Show me one bit of evidence they want us there. ONE.
5.) It's nice how we are treating them. Such devine liberators are we not?

The increasing rhetoric is really boiling my blood. We destroyed a country, and we are acting like people should be thankful. You downright fools. This country is ruined, and will be for a good long time. We ruined it. We killed many innocent people to achive freeing them?

Oh, I forgot, we are leaving soon to! Oh, that is just lovely! While they are nice and fractionalized we are pulling out! Oh man, it keeps gettin better!


------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

[This message has been edited by Lord Kuat (edited May 25, 2004).]

I'm not a complete blockhead. If you link me, I'll give you a shiny quarter. Otherwise that just sounds like "I heard something, I forgot what it was, but gosh darn, I heard it! And it proved it!"

Some hard evidence would be nice.



------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

I agree with every word of that.

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

I don't know how much water this holds, but I know several people who have come back from Iraq. Each one says the media is full of **** and things are alot better than the sensationalist douches in news are reporting because all they are worried about are their ratings. And I also saw a poll on the TV when watching CBS, and of all the issues on it(electricity, water, employment, etc) safety was the only issue that Iraqis felt was worse under coalition occupation than under Saddam. That is to be expected for awhile. *shrug* This is third party(me) information though.

And we have seriously screwed up in the past. America does not have a good track record with setting up governments. The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan and the other (numerous) countries is that we don't have the anti-communist fanaticism we have like we did during the Cold War. Our irrational fear of anything even remotely communist caused us to do some really stupid things.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 25, 2004).]

Alright, I respect that. I'm sure there are people happy, and people who see optimism in this. I actually hope it is this way, and I'm a bag of hot air.

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

[This message has been edited by Lord Kuat (edited May 25, 2004).]

No, the real problem is that they have a lot of public support. The Palestinian martyrs do, anyway.
But having a few extra American bodies on the ground would:
(1) Possibly make it more likely to spot suicide bombers, as the only real way to stop them is to try and spot someone that looks like a suicide bomber before they detonate themselves.

(2) They would be more likely to attack Americans. There were none of these daily attacks under the Ba'ath party, and Iraqi's enjoyed a lot of security; all this mess is caused by Americans, and it's unfair that Iraqis should die because of it. I'd much rather see American soldiers dying than Iraqis, as dying is sort of the point of being a solider, and it is the occupying force that should be suffering the rebel attacks.

And I agree, too. There are certain facts that for some reason are not dealt with by ANYONE. Now this link is to an opinion piece, granted, but its purpose is to ask why the Bush Administration doesn't talk about some of the facts which would help to support their position. I haven't understood that myself. While I clearly remember the reporting of some of the things talked about in the piece, I always wondered why nothing bigger was made out of it. We make a huge deal out of prisoner "abuse" in Iraq but not of finding a terrorist training area.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120964,00.html


------------------
Have you forgotten ...

I think this has already been posted, but I'll throw it out there again - this draft is targeting upper class families of non minority background. Apparantly, it isn't okay for middle and lower class people to volunteer - that isn't fair. Instead, we should force people to fight *for* them, just because they're a little better off.

::roll eyes::

And yes, the guy behind this draft bill is a Democrat. Gotta protect the underprivaleged, right?

------------------
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.

Wouldn't mind seeing Bill Gates drafted.

That was interesting, but that article was more than a little...uh...unprofessional, and badly written. That doesn't dispute the claims, no, but I wouldn't mind having it corroborated by somewhere a little more reliable and not blatanly subjective.

Well after spending an hour and a half dredging through conservative websites, apparently all the pre-invasion claims that Salman Paks was a terrorist training camp is based on the information provided by two individuals who supposedly worked there. Sabah Khodada and another guy who wished to remain anonymous.

Iraq's pre-war claim was that the building was used as a special forces training facility.

This is what our mate O'Reilly has to say:

Although this article was written today, he uses the 2 year old intel(it's exactly the same content as the 2 year old Khodada interviews).

In a PBS interview with Khodada, he describes the aforementioned passenger jet as a Boeing 707. When the 7th Marine regiment took Salman Paks in April 2003, they found an old, rusted Tupolev Tu-154. On the industrial chemicals and manuals on the UN, I wouldn't be surprised, the site was a chemical warfare facility until UNSCOM took the place apart in November 1993.

However, the most telling part of all this is the small print on the PBS website.

The same Ahmad Chalabi run organization which provided the information on the non-existant mobile WMD facilities.

[This message has been edited by GHORG (edited May 26, 2004).]

Two things to note here.

None of what you just said contradicts the article. Nothing has been cited which disproves the claims. Anyways, my point with regards to this is that there are legitimate things that should be addressed. I think we deserve to know what the real deal is and the press and the administration don't seem to be interested in telling us much about it.

Second, the "article" was poorly written because it is a transcript of his spoken monologue at the begining of his show. Spoken word does not always translate well to written form. Be that as it may, I wasn't really using him as a source for the issues he talked about. I was more citing his words because he was asking the same questions I have been asking myself for months.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

-The claims came from the Iraqi National Congress, which has been completely discredited by its WMD claims.

-No new evidence over the claims has been detailed by O'Reilly, or by any other conservative site that I could find on the net.





There are no recent(ie within the last year) reports on a terrorist site at Salman Pak by any credible news site, there aren't even any by DODGEY news sites.

Bill O'Reilly is citing information that was released by the INC in October 2001. This is not legitimate information that the general public has been hidden from, but bad information no credible news site has made mention of after April 7th 2003.

Freedom was sacrificed for Order. Freedom and Order are the two bases of any nation. You have to find a way to balance the two so you are happy. Saddam had a lot of Order and almost no Freedom. Because of that, you have terrorists that can't kill the populous, but you also have substantially less rights as a people. No freedom of speech, press, religion, privacy, etc, etc. You are relatively safe, but you don't have any choices either. And the Iraqi people didn't choose this ratio for themselves either. Saddam(or those before him) forced it on them.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Ah. Yes, that makes more sense. The huge amount of rhetorical questions did make it seem more like an appeal than anything.



Yes, you're right, but swinging way over to the 'freedom' side is not beneficial either (though you could begin to question what freedom actually IS..).

It's a cultural thing, really. Asian cultures are a lot more community centred and value collective harmony over individual choices, and this clearly seen in the Far East where even in modern Japan individuals will commit suicide to save face and retain collective harmony. These cultures are thus far more accepting of authoritarian governments.
This is certainly the case in the Far East, in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and I think the Middle East is similar to this, although considerably less so. Islam introduced a different set of values that have merged with the pre-Islamic Asian values, and formed a half-way house between the Far East and the West, because Islam introduced individual freedoms and considerations, especially for women, that the Far East might not have.
But it is important to remember that Iraq is not the West, and do not share the same norms and values. Just because Americans value individual freedoms, it doesn't mean that Iraqis do, or should.
This mistake was made in Iran, when the West put in The Shah, who introduced many Western values and influences into Iran, some of which contradicted Islamic values. This resulted in an Islamic Revolution that overthrew the west-leaning Shah and established a fundementalist Islamic government.

But this is a decision that Iraqis need to make for themselves, without Americans, when they govern their country for themselves.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited May 26, 2004).]

*looks over his post again* I could of sworn I put that in my post. I must of deleted it in a revision. My bad.

The one "Western" value the Shah didn't posses is having certain freedoms. He was an authoritarian tryant with a secret police force. One good thing about Iran is if the 2000 parliament elections were any indication, Iranians want to kick out the fundamentalists, get more freedoms of speech and press, and open up communication with America again. Let's hope we don't screw it up.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Wookie: It's not our responsibility to disprove unsupported positive claims. Anyway, what possible motivation would the administration have for withholding war-justifying information? The truth is self-evident: it simply doesn't exist. The Pentagon bought into a collection of lies because of their infatuation with Chalabi.

Kieran: Unfortunately, the 2004 Iranian elections resulted in a rout of the reformers by the conservatives, due partly to a very low voter turnout and the arbitrary disqualification of many canidates. It was a giant step backwards.

Um, I didn't ask anyone to disprove anything. I'm just curious as to why these types of things aren't discussed more in the media or by the administration when they have been substantiated. Personally I have always thought the administration may be waiting until they can most capitalize on the issues. That's just my hunch.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

oh. Well, look, Iranians are becoming Americanized already: low voter turnout

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

The Iranians may call for reforms in the government, but I don't think they're likely to get rid of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini is a hero to the people of Iran, and to many Arab Muslims. You'll probably see his picture somewhere in most anti-American marches in the Middle-East (most notably in the marches in Baghdad), as he is the symbol of defiance and rebellion against America. Osama bin Laden may only have a small following, but the Ayatollah (and also Yassir Arafat) are extremely popular political figures.
But even the Iranians that oppose the current government (mostly students, I gather) do still oppose the West, and the Iranian government has united the country to some extent through hatred for the West. The student revolt could have resulted in some major changes, but after the American government expressed support for the students, they were very much labelled as pro-American, which few of them are and which removed much of their support. With the extreme anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East now, it is unlikely that any Iranian opposition group is likely to gain support.
Once the region becomes more stable, perhaps, but I don't think that is likely to happen any time soon.


Also, you say ethnic minorities make up most of the American military? That's interesting.
Whenever we get footage of American soldiers in Iraq, it's always well-spoken white guys.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited May 27, 2004).]

But they haven't been substantiated. You still haven't told us why you think the supposed connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is a fact, given that the INC, your sole source, has been ditched by the US for their complete untrustworthiness. You're hoping that the administration will save itself with political assets it simply does not have.

Mort, who said minorities make up most of the US military? Whoever said that is incorrect.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

You, actually.



I guess I misinterpreted that, then.

But it wouldn't wholly surprise me, as I imagine the main pull-factor to the army is the free food and housing and a fairly well paid job requiring no qualifications, and I imagine that would attract working class young folks moreso than the middle class. (and it happens that ethnic minorities make up most of the American working class)



It doesn't matter, 69% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the World Trade Centre attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5¬Found=true


[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited May 27, 2004).]

.......Khomeini died in 1989 and was succeeded by Ayatollah("Leader") Ali Hoseini-Khamenei and he isn't as spiritual or as politically forceful as Khomeini was. Khomeini is a hero to the Iranian people because he stood up and helped remove the Shah, not because of his rule(which moderates are pissed about).

There are currently two predominate ideologies in Iranian society and in politics, the Moderates and the Islamists. Moderates want more power in the Majlis(parliament), freedom to have political parties, free press, more Westernized women's attire, improving relations with the West namely America, stopping the Islamic Revolution and a liberalized economy. The Islamists what to keep power with the Faqih(I'm not sure if this is the same at the Leader or not. I think the Leader has more power), keep non-Islamic parties outlawed, controlled press, Islamic attire only for women, keeping distant from the West and America, supports the Islamic Revolution and want to keep the economy statist. The Islamists currently have the most power, but the Moderates are getting more and more supporters as time goes on.

It is still beyond me how WTC and Saddam are connected.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Heh, now that Iran is the subject...

From what I could tell, they were never really Islamic in the sense of Arab nations. They were going to put in place a secular leader, Mohamad Mosadegh...

However, the United States interveined and put their puppet the Shah in power. This was because Mosadegh wanted to nationalize oil and among other things, was thought to have ties to communism.

So, now we have the Shah. While not exactly all that free, he kept things in order. However, because the way he was installed, opposition was natural, from ANY side. To keep things stable, he used needed, abeit sometimes heavy force. Then Carter came in and essentially started to question the Shah's ways.

The comes in ol' K. I hate that *******. He takes all the idiot relegious zealots, overthrows the Shah, and makes the Iran we have today. Which sucks, hard. As a result, Iran also had a bit of an intellectual drain, as the upperclasses were not well liked, and they dispersed to Europe and America.

Well, that seems like a useless summary, but first off, the Shah was removed because he was a puppet, not exactly a westerner. The most powerful party however was the Islamic one to achive the means to overthrow the Shah, again because he was installed, not because of his western values.

Anyway, things are really, really bad over in Iran...

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

because everyone was afraid of his secret police.

Iran is the best off of all the Middle Eastern countries. The only real inner turmoil over their is political. And never call an Iranian Arab. That is insulting to them because they aren't. They are Persian. They have a different language, different culture, different sect of Islam in charge(Shih) as well as many other things. Just FYI.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Heh. You'd be killed many times over if you said that in parts of the Middle East.

... And you'd be laughed out of the country if you told an Iranian Shia or Egyptian Sunni Khomeini had half as much sway as you apparently think.



This is ridiculous for a number of reasons.

First of all, the notion that Asian cultures share anything by virtue of the fact that they are located on the same continent is absurd. That means nothing. Japan has less in common with Syria than the US!

Secondly, most of the countries in East and Southeast Asia are democratic or are reforming. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand are all democracies. Cambodia recently held its first elections, and Communist states such as Vietnam, Laos and China are introducing many economic and some political reforms. So much for Confucian cultures being incompatible with democracy.

Thirdly, holding up the Shah as a westernized leader is very inaccurate. Suppressing culture, religion and free speech is anything but western. I challenge you to find me even one corollary to the Shah's absolute power or the Savak in a modern Western society. You can't.



lollerskates.

Khomeini's support was based mainly on his ability to unite many different social groups, with very different agendas, under opposition to the Shah. Even moderate Shia clerics found his "Velayat e-Faqih" philosophy - which gave the most learned cleric (him) immense political power - distasteful and inconsistent with the Shia tendancy to avoid politics. But the Shah was worse. When the new regime failed to alleviate the poverty that was at the source of the young poor's dissatisfaction with the Shah, Khomeini sent them to die in human wave attacks in the war with Iraq. His support among the middle class waned when he failed to provide them with any more economic opportunity than the Shah.

Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989 was his dying breath; an attempt to rally Muslims behind him as they had done ten years before. He died in the same year. And with no Iraqi battlefield to dispose of its unhappy citizens, the morally bankrupt Iranian government resorted to oppressing women and minorities to appease its devout poor - the ones who in the Muslim world have taken to the street in revolt on more than one occasion.

But it isn't working, and the Iranian people are no fools. The middle class is stifled by tight political controls, and the young urban poor know that all the government's talk of religious purity will not help their situation. The generation that has grown up without the Shah has no love for the government since they owe it nothing. Khomeini may have had support among Arab Sunnis when he shouted "death to America" or confronted the West when their governments wouldn't, but it was fleeting. For a lot of reasons, the most obvious being religious, Sunnis have generally looked to their own Saudi-backed clerics for guidance.

Iranian reformists may not be, and do not have to be pro-American. And while they may not want to be told how to do their job, I imagine most will tell you they would welcome any support from abroad. Even the most ardently opposed to US foreign policy will express some admiration for our open political system.

As for Arafat, the man is less popular in Palestine and the Arab world in general than he has ever been. His failure to help the plight of the Palestinians since Oslo, which stands in stark contrast to Hamas and Islamic Jihad's Intifada, means he has less and less credibility every day.

And as I've said to you before (to conclude similar responses to similar assertions that Muslims or Arabs prefer authoritarianism), what you may call "cultural understanding", I call racism. I call the notion that an Arab would kill you for expressing an opinion racism, too.

Speaking of which, you know what I bet would really get people angry at you in that part of the world? ... Well, in addition to suggesting they're murderously violent? Telling them they like living under a dictator.

Being one landmass, there has been more travelling across Asian countries than there has between the US and Asia. While the US might have been isolated from outside influences, Asian countries have influenced eachother a lot. A lot of this is religious, with the spread of Hinduism across what is now India, the spread of Buddhism from India to China and Japan, and the conflicts between Islam and Hinduism creating Sikhism. Thoughts and philosophies travelled across Asia much more freely than from Asia to Britain or to the US. Yes, the cultures of the Middle East and of the Far East may seem to be very different, but they have certainly not been isolated from eachother.



This is because of the growing influence of Western culture in those countries, and pressure from the US. The teachings of Confucius contradict Western capitalist values in so much that Confucius believed that everyone had a place in society, and they should be happy to be in that place and respect everyone else, and not try to compete with others to move up in society. Confucius also taught not to reward hard work, but rather give to the people before asking them to work. Confucian scholars also expressed rigorous patriarchy (though there's some debate about whether Confucius himself actually did, but he certainly did look down upon women and did not see them as important to see The Way). This certainly does not hold with the liberal Western values of sex equality, and would be branded as sexism. Confucian teachings are more akin to feudalism than anything else.
What you are seeing is not a seamless merging of two cultures, but rather a conflict between two ways of thought forcing people to choose one or the other.



The Shah was always trying to move closer to Britain and the US, fearing influences from the Soviets. The Shah was kept in power by the US, in return for a steady flow of oil and west-leaning polcies, such as the 'White Revolution'.



December 2003
A celebration of 'Jerusalem Day' in Beirut.


Giant pictures of Khomeini and Khamenei at the funeral procession of Sayyedah Ma'soomah.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/May-2003/baghdad_anti_us_protests_1 9503.htm

Khomeini in the Middle-East is what Che Guevera is in the West. An icon. Yes, Khomeini's rule was far from perfect, but it is his opposition to the West that is celebrated, not his actual policies (though they did benefit Iranians a lot better than under the Shah).

Yes, Iran will change, but in the same way Khomeini rallied support with hatred for the Shah, the Iranian Conservatives will (try to) rally support with hatred for America.



Arafat's popularity was probably at an all-time high at his radical and violent opposition, and his more docile diplomatic nature has probably lost him the support of some Palestinians. But he certainly isn't 'unpopular' by any stretch of the imagination. Every time Israel or the US call for the removal of Arafat, Palestinians unite in defiance and anger and his popularity soars.



And judging other cultures by Western standards is ethnocentric. They have different norms and different values, you must understand that. And it isn't "racism" as I certainly don't suggest that everyone of an Arab origin follows that culture. I may have used the word 'Arab' where I should have used another, and for that I apologise. A fleeting moment of thoughtlessness, as I do generally try quite hard to avoid using incorrect words. I certainly hope this won't turn into a semantics debate.

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited May 28, 2004).]

cough

Okay, I'm going to admit that I never bothered reading the bulk of this thread, so I'll just throw my random thoughts out here and maybe some of you will think about it.

Certain elements of the US government are trying to prepare the country for a draft. As people in this thread have previously stated, the US military has not yet been activated to its full strength, nor is the added strength really required in Iraq.

In fact, recently the US and Britain have been pushing very hard to transfer security arrangements over to the members of the United Nations. If anything, this would seem to indicate that the US would need less manpower in the near future (and hopefully by 2005).

So why is the US government pushing to create an even larger force?

I think they want to move on to new targets. Stronger targets.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited May 28, 2004).]