here comes the draft

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1
    Registered User
    joesmooth20's Avatar


    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    MN
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,084

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    5049440


  2. #2
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Rep Points
    16200062

    I love it the American Government tricking kids again and backing up there misleading offer with lawyers and jail time. God bless America.
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Age
    37
    Posts
    7,008

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    1675493

    It is and always has been (at least for a long time) 8 years owed. Thats definitely fine print that peope miss out on alot. If you do 4 years active, then you owe 4 years inactive. It is inactive reserves, which is a different beast than active... but still, a harsh reality for those who dont read the paper work.

    The day when my total 8 years was up was nice, but I was pretty sure I wouldnt be recalled after my 5 years active. Navy really has no need to recall inactive. Army on the other hand... who knows.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Age
    37
    Posts
    7,008

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    1675493

    btw, I still disagree with the statement that the draft would be better, there is a whole lot more to it than that.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    joesmooth20's Avatar


    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    MN
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,084

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    5049440

    I'm in the service and have been for almost 5yrs. Well it was time for me to leave and
    they told me that i would get sent to the worst place on there list until my time was
    up if i didn't obligate more time. Now I am stuck with over 2yrs more yrs away from
    my daughter. I tried to appeal what happened to me and they basically told me to kiss
    their ass and i'm stuck.

  6. #6
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Rep Points
    16200062

    Quote Originally Posted by joesmooth20
    I'm in the service and have been for almost 5yrs. Well it was time for me to leave and
    they told me that i would get sent to the worst place on there list until my time was
    up if i didn't obligate more time. Now I am stuck with over 2yrs more yrs away from
    my daughter. I tried to appeal what happened to me and they basically told me to kiss
    their ass and i'm stuck.

    Thats a negative attitude brother. You live in the greatest country in the world, and you should be happy to be used by them. So what if they lied and threatened you, it is after all for the greater good. God bless America.
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  7. #7
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Rep Points
    16200062

    If the draft is only for those who voted for Bush, then it's all good.
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  8. #8
    Mad As Toast
    heeholler's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Left my heart in Texas, in Florida now
    Age
    55
    Posts
    2,824

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    2303732

    I was in the service [Army], and I don't think a draft would be better either. The last thing Canada needs is more Americans running away to their country to avoid a draft. But then again my opinion is it is better to serve your country. Just do it voluntarily, not through a draft. And if you don't want to serve that is ok also. We live in a free country. Those who choose not to serve shouldn't be belittled for it.
    The statue of Liberty no longer reads "Bring us your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses..."
    Now she's holding a baseball bat and it reads "Bring It On."

  9. #9
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Rep Points
    16200062

    Quote Originally Posted by heeholler
    I was in the service [Army], and I don't think a draft would be better either. The last thing Canada needs is more Americans running away to their country to avoid a draft. But then again my opinion is it is better to serve your country. Just do it voluntarily, not through a draft. And if you don't want to serve that is ok also. We live in a free country. Those who choose not to serve shouldn't be belittled for it.
    To serve a just and righteous country would be an honor. Thats why I would never serve in America
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  10. #10
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Age
    56
    Posts
    5,630

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    238463141


    One of the biggest threats to American civil libertaries and our security is:

    The American military.

    Why?

    Because of the Military-Industrial Complex.

    1. Military
    2. D.O.D/Pentagon
    3. Defense contracting corporations.


    I support the insurgents in Iraq.
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  11. #11
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Age
    56
    Posts
    5,630

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    238463141


    I have to add a P.S. here about my above post.

    I am not against the troops. I want them all well.


    I am against a small group of unelected bureaucrats that started this war based upon lie, after lie, after lie.

    Saddam as the Twentieth Hijacker
    by James Bovard, October 1, 2004


    The 9/11 commission reported in June that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and thus that Bush’s Enemy No. 1 had no role in the 9/11 attacks. Far from finding any partnership between the two, the report noted that bin Laden “at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.” This report effectively nuked a key justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    President Bush responded to the revelation by asserting, “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” But the evidence showed that though al-Qaeda had repeatedly approached Saddam’s regime about working together, the Iraqi government had effectively rebuffed their proposals.

    The Bush administration cannot brush aside the 9/11 commission’s report. A commission whose chairman was appointed by Bush and whose ground rules were dictated in large part by the White House has found that the Bush administration’s claim regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was baseless. And after more than 900 American soldiers have died in Iraq, this cannot qualify as a harmless error.

    It is vital to recognize how persistently and intently Bush exploited Americans’ fears on the Saddam–al-Qaeda link to justify his preemptive assault against Iraq.

    In a memo President Bush sent on March 18, 2003, notifying Congress that he was launching the war against Iraq, he declared that he was acting

    to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    Bush invoked this justification even though his administration had never offered a shred of evidence tying Saddam to 9/11. But the Saddam–al-Qaeda link was the key to the administration’s exploitation of the ignorance of the American people. Bush and team continually threw out new accusations and then backed off, knowing that few people were paying close enough attention to recognize that previous charges had collapsed like a row of houses of cards.

    As much as Bush may have personally disliked Saddam, he still needed pretexts to rally public support to attack a nation 6,000 miles away that appeared to pose no threat to America. In the first months after 9/11, there was little mention of Iraq in the public pronouncements by Bush and his top officials. But in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, Bush stunned many people by announcing that Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, was part of an “axis of evil.”


    Conflating Saddam and Osama

    Since the war on terrorism had stratospheric support levels in the polls from the American people, the best way to sanctify a war against Iraq was to redefine it as part of the war on terrorism. Bush, commenting to the press on September 25, 2002, compared al-Qaeda and Saddam:

    Al-Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.... You can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.... They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

    Bush had barely made the accusation before the White House began spinning his comments. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer “tried to play down the specificity of Bush’s charge, saying the president was talking about what he feared could occur,” the Washington Post reported.

    On the following day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that the United States possessed “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda. But it was apparently a bullet that could never be exposed to sunlight. (An earlier alleged link between Iraqi agents and hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague had long since collapsed, with the story disavowed by both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Czech government.)

    On October 7, 2002, Bush, speaking to a selective audience of Republican donors and others in Cincinnati, laid out his logic:

    We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.... And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. The fact that some Iraqis cheered the carnage on September 11 was offered as evidence that Saddam could team up with al-Qaeda for a second 9/11.

    On November 1, 2002, at a Republican campaign rally in New Hampshire, Bush denounced Saddam:

    We know he’s got ties with al-Qaeda. A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the backside for a terrorist network, where they could attack America, and he’d leave no fingerprints behind.

    The link between Saddam and al-Qaeda then took a three-month recess, returning in the 2003 State of the Union address, when Bush declared that “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.” Then he reached for the ultimate hot button:

    Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
    Three days later, when Bush was directly asked by a journalist at a White House press conference, “Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?” Bush replied, “I can’t make that claim.” Yet that did not stop him from continually implying it.

    The bevy of new allegations were based on nothing more than guesses and hunches. The Los Angeles Times revealed,

    The Bush administration’s renewed assertions of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda are based largely on the murky case of a one-legged al-Qaeda suspect who was treated in Baghdad after being wounded in the war in Afghanistan.
    Abu Musab Zarqawi, a terrorist group leader, spent time in Baghdad after the U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan but there was no evidence that he conspired with Saddam’s regime while there. Time noted of Bush’s message on Saddam and al-Qaeda,

    If there was no visible evidence to link the two, he just used that fact to argue his point: the danger is everywhere, even if we can’t see it; the threat is growing, even if we can’t prove it. The Administration’s argument for war is based not on the strength of America’s intelligence but on its weakness.

    Shaping public opinion

    Unless someone followed Bush’s rhetoric on a full-time basis, he would miss the switching off and on of the Saddam–al-Qaeda connection. But it was not necessary for administration officials to continually assert the link — as long as they mentioned it often enough to plant the seeds and fan the fears in Americans’ minds.

    In the first weeks after 9/11, fewer than 10 percent of Americans suggested to poll takers that Saddam was the source of the terrorist attacks. However, after the constant accusations and insinuations by the Bush administration, the number soared.

    A February 2003 poll found that 72 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was “personally involved in the September 11 attacks.” A January 2003 poll found that almost half of Americans believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi — even though not a single hijacker hailed from that country. Seventy-three percent believed that Saddam “is currently helping al-Qaeda.”

    Bush played the Saddam-9/11 link like a master violinist. A Christian Science Monitor analysis published on March 14, 2003, noted,

    In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.

    Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.... The White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq.

    After the 9/11 commission staff report came out, White House chief spokesman Scott McClellan was asked whether the Bush administration had misled the American people. McClellan replied, “I guess I don’t look at polls and look at it in those terms. In terms of this administration, we laid out the facts very clearly for the American people.”

    McClellan’s reply epitomizes how the Bush administration will never admit any of its deceptions. The unjustified, unnecessary war against Iraq should be a lasting warning to Americans not to trust government officials who claim the need to kill in the name of peace.

    Link: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409c.asp
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  12. #12
    You Lack Intensity!!!!
    ELITE MEMBER
    gr81's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Just below our civil disguise
    Posts
    6,378

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    10428088

    heres an idea, anyone who supported the war in Iraq and Bush's actions in getting us there, MUST NOW GO FIGHT IT! The army is running far too short of its recruiting goals and all you asshole who like Bush, surely this is the least you can do for your illustrious leader whom you wholly support, no...?

  13. #13
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Age
    56
    Posts
    5,630

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    238463141


    The Army is so strained now that they are signing up recruits for only 15 month periods. There have been many chages of misrepresentation and lying all across the country.

    Even with the back-door draft they are strained.

    17,000 + injured in Iraq is also 17,000 less troops in Iraq.

    One Army recruiter actually was confused as to why recruiting so short this year....


    Makes you wonder, eh?
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  14. #14
    You Lack Intensity!!!!
    ELITE MEMBER
    gr81's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Just below our civil disguise
    Posts
    6,378

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    10428088

    I heard they missed their goal by 42% recently!!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Age
    37
    Posts
    7,008

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu
    I support the insurgents in Iraq.
    Thats nice, and I support some guy over there slitting your throat and leaving your corpse in a ditch.

    btw, the rest of your posting is BS... you dont need to try and pass on your shitty statements with stupid posts to try and make them seem better.

    "Oh, I support the insurgents, but just so you know, I love American troops too!"

    Fuck you.

    It seems there are alot of anti-US bitches on the boards lately. I'm fine with people being anti-Bush, but realize that the US is where it is today because a majority voted the guy into office. Stop acting like idiots and realize that this situation is just as much your fault as anybody elses. Why? Because you failed in getting the candidate into office that you wanted. You say you voted, and thats all that matters. Obviously your vote doesn't matter so much, its everyone else that votes along with you. If you cant get your "homies" to vote for you, and get a president into office that you deem acceptable, then you failed yourself, and everybody else.

    Of course, you can always make it better by running away to another country where you can make retard remarks like "I support the insurgents". Well yay for you.

Similar Threads

  1. If there's a Draft
    By MaxMirkin in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-03-2005, 05:36 AM
  2. NFL Draft
    By Doublebase in forum Sports
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 02:49 PM
  3. Draft?
    By seven11 in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 03-19-2005, 08:20 AM
  4. Draft?
    By DOS Forever in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 07:47 AM
  5. NFL Draft............
    By Rusty in forum Sports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-25-2003, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2001-2017 IronMag® Bodybuilding Forums