Jump to content

The Draft


villain

Recommended Posts

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...stories.shtml#0

 

Reinstatement of the draft is likely soon, despite what the politicians say

 

By info@NoDraftNoWay.org

Contact: 39 W. 14 St., #206, New York, NY 10011 · (212) 633-6646

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

We must begin NOW to build a movement to stop the draft before it starts.

 

The U.S. military is in a quagmire in Iraq, facing a national popular uprising against the occupation. Although the U.S. has 138,000 soldiers, supplemented by as many as 20,000 mercenaries, in Iraq, this force is not sufficient to defeat the uprising. According to the Associated Press, military officials have recently admitted that the resistance numbers more as high as 20,000 and has enough popular support among the Iraqi people that they cannot be militarily defeated. Nevertheless, President Bush is committed to trying to maintain the occupation, and is threatening to launch new wars against Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

 

Soldiers are dying every day. A report issued in January, 2004 by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College, said the Army is "near the breaking point." The Pentagon has been forced to issue repeated "stop loss" orders and recall soldiers who had retired or otherwise returned to civilian life.

 

Out of 10 Army Divisions, part or all of 9 of them are either deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Twenty-one out of 33 regular combat brigades are on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, or the Balkans. That's 63% of the Army's combat strength. This means the Army is extremely overextended. Military experts agree that in order to maintain long-term mobilizations, an army needs twice as many soldiers at home as deployed. That means the U.S. Army is more than 100,000 soldiers short. The Bush Administration has been trying to fill the gap with Reserve and National Guard troops, but this is a temporary fix at best.

 

Meanwhile, official U.S. foreign policy is now the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" and "regime change" wherever a leader runs afoul of U.S. corporate interests. An invasion of Iran, Syria, Korea, or Cuba -- all of whom are on Washington-and-Wall Street's list of targets -- would require tens or hundreds of thousands of new soldiers.

 

Enlistment rates not even able to maintain current force levels, much less provide troops for new invasions and occupations. All four services missed their enlistment quotas last year, and enlistments in the Reserves, National Guard, and regular military are at a 30-year low. Many current members of the armed forces plan to get out as soon as their current enlistment ends. According to a poll conducted by the military newspaper Stars & Stripes, 49% of soldiers stationed in Iraq do not plan to re-enlist.

 

The President has given the Selective Service System a set of readiness goals to be implemented by March 31, 2005. As part of these performance goals, the System must be ready to be fully operational within 75 days. This means we can look for the Draft to be in operation as early as June 15, 2005.

 

We must begin NOW to organize against the draft.

 

How Can We Stop the Draft?

People who oppose the implementation of the draft need to act now to stop it. We cannot rely on politicians; we must be a massive grass-roots movement to say "No Draft! No Way!"

 

We need to begin now to build this movement. Here are some ways to begin:

 

* Become a NoDraftNoWay.org organizer in your area.

* Organize a local anti-draft group in your community.

* Download the NoDraftNoWay literature and begin to get the word out in your school, union, place of worship, and workplace.

* Expose the "Economic Draft" already in place by providing counter-recruiting information to young people and organizing demonstrations outside recruiting centers.

* Organize local demonstrations at the site of your local Selective Service office.

* Write letters to members of Congress and the local media expressing opposition to the draft.

* Donate to help us get the word out.

 

Back To Story List

 

Scott Ritter Says U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran; 'Cooked' Jan. 30 Iraqi Election Results

 

By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)

February 19, 2005

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

 

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

 

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

 

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

 

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

 

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

 

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

 

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

 

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

 

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

 

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

 

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by the Heroico Batallon de San Patricio and the BRICK student organization at South Puget Sound Community College; South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County were co-sponsors.

 

Back To Story List

 

The Return of the Draft

 

With the army desperate for recruits, should college students be packing their bags for Canada?

 

By TIM DICKINSON

Rolling Stone

Jan 27, 2005

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...sion=6.0.11.847

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

Uncle Sam wants you. He needs you. He'll bribe you to sign up. He'll strong-arm you to re-enlist. And if that's not enough, he's got a plan to draft you.

 

In the three decades since the Vietnam War, the "all-volunteer Army" has become a bedrock principle of the American military. "It's a magnificent force," Vice President Dick Cheney declared during the election campaign last fall, "because those serving are ones who signed up to serve." But with the Army and Marines perilously overextended by the war in Iraq, that volunteer foundation is starting to crack. The "weekend warriors" of the Army Reserve and the National Guard now make up almost half the fighting force on the front lines, and young officers in the Reserve are retiring in droves. The Pentagon, which can barely attract enough recruits to maintain current troop levels, has involuntarily extended the enlistments of as many as 100,000 soldiers. Desperate for troops, the Army has lowered its standards to let in twenty-five percent more high school dropouts, and the Marines are now offering as much as $30,000 to anyone who re-enlists. To understand the scope of the crisis, consider this: The United States is pouring nearly as much money into incentives for new recruits -- almost $300 million -- as it is into international tsunami relief.

 

"The Army's maxed out here," says retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff under the first President Bush. "The Defense Department and the president seem to be still operating off the rosy scenario that this will be over soon, that this pain is temporary and therefore we'll just grit our teeth, hunker down and get out on the other side of this. That's a bad assumption." The Bush administration has sworn up and down that it will never reinstate a draft. During the campaign last year, the president dismissed the idea as nothing more than "rumors on the Internets" and declared, "We're not going to have a draft -- period." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an Op-Ed blaming "conspiracy mongers" for "attempting to scare and mislead young Americans," insisted that "the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration."

 

That assertion is demonstrably false. According to an internal Selective Service memo made public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency's acting director met with two of Rumsfeld's undersecretaries in February 2003 precisely to debate, discuss and ponder a return to the draft. The memo duly notes the administration's aversion to a draft but adds, "Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc." The potentially prohibitive cost of "attracting and retaining such personnel for military service," the memo adds, has led "some officials to conclude that, while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis." This new draft, it suggests, could be invoked to meet the needs of both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.

 

The memo then proposes, in detail, that the Selective Service be "re-engineered" to cover all Americans -- "men and (for the first time) women" -- ages eighteen to thirty-four. In addition to name, date of birth and Social Security number, young adults would have to provide the agency with details of their specialized skills on an ongoing basis until they passed out of draft jeopardy at age thirty-five. Testifying before Congress two weeks after the meeting, acting director of Selective Service Lewis Brodsky acknowledged that "consultations with senior Defense manpower officials" have spurred the agency to shift its preparations away from a full-scale, Vietnam-style draft of untrained men "to a draft of smaller numbers of critical-skills personnel."

 

Richard Flahavan, spokesman for Selective Service, tells Rolling Stone that preparing for a skills-based draft is "in fact what we have been doing." For starters, the agency has updated a plan to draft nurses and doctors. But that's not all. "Our thinking was that if we could run a health-care draft in the future," Flahavan says, "then with some very slight tinkering we could change that skill to plumbers or linguists or electrical engineers or whatever the military was short." In other words, if Uncle Sam decides he needs people with your skills, Selective Service has the means to draft you -- and quick.

 

But experts on military manpower say the focus on drafting personnel with special skills misses the larger point. The Army needs more soldiers, not just more doctors and linguists. "What you've got now is a real shortage of grunts -- guys who can actually carry bayonets," says McPeak. A wholesale draft may be necessary, he adds, "to deal with the situation we've got ourselves into. We've got to have a bigger Army."

 

Michael O'Hanlon, a military-manpower scholar at the Brookings Institute, believes a return to a full-blown draft will become "unavoidable" if the United States is forced into another war. "Let's say North Korea strikes a deal with Al Qaeda to sell them a nuclear weapon or something," he says. "I frankly don't see how you could fight two wars at the same time with the all-volunteer approach." If a second Korean War should break out, the United States has reportedly committed to deploying a force of nearly 700,000 to defend South Korea -- almost half of America's entire military.

 

The politics of the draft are radioactive: Polls show that less than twenty percent of Americans favor forced military service. But conscription has some unlikely champions, including veterans and critics of the administration who are opposed to Bush's war in Iraq. Reinstating the draft, they say, would force every level of society to participate in military service, rather than placing a disproportionate burden on minorities and the working class. African-Americans, who make up roughly thirteen percent of the civilian population, account for twenty-two percent of the armed forces. And the Defense Department acknowledges that recruits are drawn "primarily from families in the middle and lower-middle socioeconomic strata."

 

A societywide draft would also make it more difficult for politicians to commit troops to battle without popular approval. "The folks making the decisions are committing other people's lives to a war effort that they're not making any sacrifices for," says Charles Sheehan-Miles, who fought in the first Gulf War and now serves as director of Veterans for Common Sense. Under the current all-volunteer system, fewer than a dozen members of Congress have children in the military.

 

Charlie Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, says the volunteer system also limits the political fallout of unpopular wars. "Without a draft, there's really no antiwar movement," Moskos says. Nearly sixty percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, he notes, but they have no immediate self-interest in taking to the streets because "we're willing to pay people to die for us. It doesn't reflect very well on the character of our society."

 

Even military recruiters agree that the only way to persuade average Americans to make long-term sacrifices in war is for the children of the elite to put their lives on the line. In a recent meeting with military recruiters, Moskos discussed the crisis in enlistment. "I asked them would they prefer to have their advertising budget tripled or have Jenna Bush join the Army," he says. "They unanimously chose the Jenna option."

 

One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America's underprivileged. "It shouldn't be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm's way," he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft -- with absolutely no deferments. "If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone -- no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we'll be out of Iraq."

 

But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they're targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called "Taking It to the Streets," which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately -- rather than wait five years -- if they volunteer for active duty.

 

"It's so completely unethical and immoral to induce people that have limited education and limited job ability to have to put themselves in harm's way for ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars," Rangel says. "Just how broke do you have to be to take advantage of these incentives?" Seducing soldiers with cold cash also unnerves military commanders. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,' " Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the commander of the Army Reserve, wrote in a memo to senior Army leadership in December.

 

The Reserve, Helmly warns, "is rapidly degenerating into a broken force." The Army National Guard is also in trouble: It missed its recruitment goals of 56,000 by more than 5,000 in fiscal year 2004 and is already 2,000 soldiers short in fiscal 2005. To keep enough boots on the ground, the Pentagon has stopped asking volunteer soldiers to extend their service -- and started demanding it. Using a little-known provision called "stop loss," the military is forcing reservists and guardsmen to remain on active duty indefinitely. "This is an 'all-volunteer Army' with footnotes," says McPeak. "And it's the footnotes that are being held in Iraq against their wishes. If that's not a back-door draft, tell me what is."

 

David Qualls, who joined the Arkansas National Guard for a year, is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. "I've served five months past my one-year obligation," says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. "It's time to let me go back to my life. It's a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home."

 

The Army insists that most "stop-lossed" soldiers will be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months. But Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is representing eight National Guardsmen in a lawsuit challenging the extensions, says the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. According to Lobel, the military is telling soldiers, "We're giving you a chance to voluntarily re-enlist -- and if you don't do it, we'll screw you. And the first way we'll screw you is to put you in until 2031."

 

But threatening volunteers, military experts warn, could be the quickest way to ensure a return to the draft. According to O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institute, such "callousness" may make it impossible to recruit new soldiers -- no matter how much money you throw at them. And if bigger sign-up bonuses and more aggressive recruitment tactics don't do the trick, says Helmly of the Army Reserve, it could "force the nation into an argument" about reinstating the draft.

 

In the end, it may simply come down to a matter of math. In January, Bush told America's soldiers that "much more will be asked of you" in his second term, even as he openly threatened Iran with military action. Another war, critics warn, would push the all-volunteer force to its breaking point. "This damn thing is just an explosion that's about to happen," says Rangel. Bush officials "can say all they want that they don't want the draft, but there's not going to be that many more buttons to push."

 

Back To Story List

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, i'm as anti (this) war as you can get, but I think it might be a little too early to start making draft predictions.

The US army has had pretty good luck of talking poor people with no other options, and middle class patriots with no sense, into filling all thier body bags.

You got to keep in mind that the right wingers pulling the strings in this country would probably nuke the entire middle east (minus israel of course) before asking americans to unwillingly die for the excessive lifestyles they take for granted.

But........ If they do start a draft they'll have another war to worry about right here in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if you guys read the article you would have noticed this:

 

The President has given the Selective Service System a set of readiness goals to be implemented by March 31, 2005. As part of these performance goals, the System must be ready to be fully operational within 75 days. This means we can look for the Draft to be in operation as early as June 15, 2005.

 

Oh and this is the perfect time for Bush to start the draft.... after the election.

 

And it appears that the draft age has been changed to 18 to 34 males and females.

And yes we are short on troops. We have had stop loss enacted, IRR pulled up, retirees returned, the first amputee just returned to Iraq from Fort Carson, all of the branches are not meeting recruitment goals.

Passing this off on the poor and uninformed. That's fucked up. I am poor. What the fuck you think i'm doing in the military dickhead. I oughta kill you myself.

And they are not going to nuke the middle east for 1) there is oil, for 2) that would set off nuclear war. Damn wtf knuckle game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by villain@Mar 4 2005, 11:50 PM

Maybe if you guys read the article you would have noticed this:

 

The President has given the Selective Service System a set of readiness goals to be implemented by March 31, 2005. As part of these performance goals, the System must be ready to be fully operational within 75 days. This means we can look for the Draft to be in operation as early as June 15, 2005.

 

Oh and this is the perfect time for Bush to start the draft.... after the election.

 

And it appears that the draft age has been changed to 18 to 34 males and females.

And yes we are short on troops. We have had stop loss enacted, IRR pulled up, retirees returned, the first amputee just returned to Iraq from Fort Carson, all of the branches are not meeting recruitment goals.

Passing this off on the poor and uninformed. That's fucked up. I am poor. What the fuck you think i'm doing in the military dickhead. I oughta kill you myself.

And they are not going to nuke the middle east for 1) there is oil, for 2) that would set off nuclear war. Damn wtf knuckle game....

 

I'm not passing off shit. Im just saying that the people who live in america are, for the most part, ignorant and uninformed. And suprise suprise, the people who risk thier lifes in the military for garbage pay are IGNORANT to be doing so, or just plain brainwashed patriot zombies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by knuckle_game@Mar 5 2005, 02:54 PM

I'm not passing off shit. Im just saying that the people who live in america are, for the most part, ignorant and uninformed. And suprise suprise, the people who risk thier lifes in the military for garbage pay are IGNORANT to be doing so, or just plain brainwashed patriot zombies!

 

 

Well yeah there is alot of misinformed people in the military. Is that their fault? No.

I am in the military AND I am well informed. And guess what? I'm not the only one.

I came into the army straight off the streets. Literally... I was homeless. Right after they closed about 1000 factories in Michigan. 2.2 jobs created over the last 4 years and god knows how many lost. 100k jobs have to be created every month just to keep up with population growth. And most of those new jobs are government jobs. Take a look at yourself and see how isolated you are from market forces. There is a large portion of the population that just do what the market tells us to survive.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying quit being such a dick about it. People are not going to listen to you if you call them a brainwashed patriot zombie.

 

I dunno.... last time I checked there were no exemptions for going to canada and going to college. Not sure if that is still the case.

 

I just noticed that angelofdeath when quoted is anncoulter.... hahahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what happens if the citizen in question has been living overseas for most of her life?

 

 

edit - dual citizens can be drafted. bollox. At the same time - I can't imagine that they are A) going to have a draft B)begin drafting women C) going to drag women in from across the Atlantic.

 

 

oh yeah and I'm gay. rapid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we should take measures to protect outselves. I'm about fed up with these made up wars. This new world order terror shit. It costs too damn much $$$ and its $$$ America Doesnt have. The US is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. And our president goes live trying to tell us that we should be proud/happy/relieved that Iraqis are having elections and freedom. Im more concerned about the cracks in my driveway that any of that shit. It seems there is only so much freedom to go around. Its leaving here and going over there.

Im not even smart and I see through this crap. It sucks

I would move to Canada. Toronto and BC are nice and nobody wants to nuke Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ann Coulter set us all straight.

 

 

We all just need to quit hugging trees and bitching about war crimes. It's time to pick up some guns and defend our homeland? I mean, Iraq? ...freedom....democracy...or what was it this week, social security...i forgot what we're defending but we need to stand for something or we dont stand for everything. I think we were defending our right to have WMDs and Iraq's right to not have them. sort of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Herbivore@Mar 7 2005, 02:46 PM

how accurate are these articles, though? i mean, how did the author acquire all of this information that he/she is passing off as fact? just curious...

 

good question. i dont know how accurate the article is, but nonetheless its appropriate to the thread at hand is it not? just food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The draft would be a great idea if I could trust the judgment of the rulers that were drafting me, and felt confident that my efforts would not contribute to the cause of only a small group of greedy individuals who aren't even interested in the overall wellbeing and sovereignty of multiple cultures in the world. They just want control over the masses because that's what's essential for their agenda to operate successfully. It’s truly a battle of US vs. THEM and the military serves their cause of overthrowing our government. Our job is to keep the government scared shitless, and our failure is more apparent than ever now, when an overwhelming percentage of the population is fearful of our government, and being dependant like an infant on the information they give us. I cannot stress enough, corporations and the Bush administration ARE NOT America, and no American should take personal offense to criticism of the false wars they wage and misleading information they carefully measure out to the peasants. I’m optimistic that things will change, and this era will be looked upon as a dark period in America’s history. That’s if we don’t all kill ourselves over money first.

 

Because in all honesty, as much as I've heard claims of 'spreading peace and democracy' for the average Joe, if you look at history you'll see that the elite parties never act solely for the better of the masses. How much control and how many bullets does it take to create democracy? There's always some dark shit going on for the benefit of only, and I hate to use the expression, 'rulers' but that's what it's become. Why should their opinions and warped perception be projected upon the world? The only reason I can think of is because they have money and power. Does that seem logical, or even natural?

 

It’s easy to pick up on the fact every thread of information this administration passes on to us is very systematic and intricately worded as if something is being sold, and a lot of times telling us the exact opposite of the way things actually are. Main issues being expressed as matters of opinion/perception and there is a lot of psychology and clever wording behind the information being passed on by Bush and company and it's more obvious than ever. The reason they end up caught in lies as often as they do, and looking as desperate as they do, is because they’re the ones that have the most to lose.

 

The last time period in this country I'd proudly and willingly participate in the draft would be during WWII, and even that would be somewhat questionable. But I’d also participate in a war with extreme fucking prejudice if I were drafted to fight against the people responsible for the transfer of power that was composed after JFK was assassinated. Or even during the 80’s I would be willing to fight a war against the Reagan administration, which a lot of those faces still around today, working to overthrow our government.

 

HST was right; objectivity is a big problem with the media in this country. Because if no one was objective, the media sources like Fox would be more easily exposed. Being objective just helps their cause by watering down their irrational and harsh actions. And if people weren’t trying to look objective all the time more truth would be let out.

 

Bush and Fox are the way things are, and objectivity DOES NOT precipitate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country should have mandatory military service at age 21.

 

Anyways, your a fucking hippie like the first guy said, your also a pussy.

 

 

 

Note to you, dont get your news on an obviously biased hippie site. There wont be a draft, if anything they will start offering more money to people who join up, raise the salary. Reason that the draft is inaffective is that the soldiers are inaffective, the training for them is a waste of money. A soldier who fights but is forced to fight is not 1/20th of a soldier who fights for his coutry or for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the truth hurts huh ..... I could be making 150k if i prized those values ... i dont, i see the evil in holding value to such a worldly thing.

 

If you are enlisted my credit goes out to you for that, I couldnt fight for someone elses lies and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...