The Congressman's quotes illuminated the question of credibility of GWB's statements and promises..why trust him when he says no Draft in an election year.

The topic I'm posting on is the Draft.
Asking for more than opinion is not unreasonable, if opinion is all posters want to give, that's fine as well.

But then, it's just personal opinion.

I'm looking for any info on it, as I think I stated pretty clearly.

Pep, there are other Bills? I'm not liking that first one at all.

Mo

She's hoping for the draft so she can say Bush lied. Such a cleaver girl!

quote:

---

Originally posted by klcst:
You are totally ignoring what I said. I told you to find a topic and research it yourself. Go on Google and Ask Jeeves and type in liberal and republican think tanks (foundations). I am not going to do the work for you. If you only want to hear one point of view than just admit it.
Do you always tell people to lightin up when you don't want to hear what they have to say. How boring life would be if we only surrounded ourselves with people who think alike.
Happy fact finding, if you are up to the challenge.

Lisa

---

Labrat, stop being personally attacking and name calling, would you?? Come on already. It is against the lymenet terms. If you have something of substance to say go ahead, but I am going to start calling you animal names soon. You are coming across like a big sourpuss, so what about the name "ostrich head" for you! Do you like that one?

I do have a Lymebrain though so if I am wrong just correct me.

Labrat, that last comment was supremely ludicrous, even for you..

..besides, the new "Smart Borders" act makes it more difficult to dodge going to Canada.

Oh, then there's the fact that it is already set that if/when there is a Draft, the very tool abused by Bush, Cheney and a whole list of Republicams in Congress who support the Draft to dodge it during their time,
is now defunct.

If/ when there is a draft, this time.. college won't excuse you, nor will you be able to hide in the National Guard. Continued defferments till your too old can't happen anymore.

If you are in college when they call, you will be allowed to finish your semester, and off you go. This was changed some time ago..

Just intresting how many of the big proponents of draft, as well as those responsible for this potential nightmare.. bent over backwards and ducked out when
they were young men..yet support one now under these new conditions.

Mo

SBM, I don't know much about the Dem proposed Bills that were voted out. All I know is there were two, and they were voted down.

Did anyone look at that Republican proposal in 2002 posted?

I'm concerned we'll end up with something like that, but with less options even than that, with justification based on need..without getting into the whole justification and efficacy/management/privatization of this War..

the whole thing is just nuts.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA)
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI)

So it looks to me like if you are are gonna be fighting against the draft you will be fighting your own representatives on this one. Unless this was just as they said. A ploy to scare voters into voting for Kerry, and your Dems had no intentions of ever standing for this.

Lisa I searched and I can't find any other bill other than this one.

In an unjust, poorly planned, poorly executed, failing, unilateral (no allies to speak of), no end in sight, Vietnamlike guirilla War situation .. with a dishonest administration at the helm?

Maybe. Regardless of party affiliation, it's mother first, citizen second.

Anyone ready to criticize should look deep within themselves and think about whether
MANDATORY active War duty would be OK with you in THIS situation ...for your child.

((Key words being mandatory, and in THIS situation))

It isn't OK with the proponents. Many of them dodged it skillfully themselves in their day!! They also will get their kids out of it, you can if you have enough money and connections. Middle class colledge kids will not be excused if it happens at this time.

Women may be included this time around. As a father, would GW be willing to send his twins?

We are not in any way shape or form talking about the same situation as WWI or II here, I think everyone can acknowledge that.

That said, if it was my son's choice to join the military profession, even under these circumstances with this admin., I'd support HIM in his aspirations. I'd want it to be his choice. I believe it is a great and noble choice, and soldiers to it in order to fight for our freedoms..if the admin is mismanaging them, that is their fault, I would actually say crime.

..and I'm not stirring the pot like some lunatic, Labster..there are a large number of people concerned and acting on this, including veterans groups and their families from Vietman and the Iraq War.

SBM..I'm not sure what the Bill said, or that the Repubs only reason for voting it down was so as "not to put the nation in a panic"

Maybe, maybe not.

Regardless, I'm concerned with either party being proponents of the draft. It's a non-Partison sentiment among politicians as well, far as I can tell.

I don't hink at all it was simply a campaign ploy for Kerry, there has been talk of it for a long time, and there still is.

I can check the Library of Congress for the details that Bill to compare to the Repub one posted..interesting to see what they proposed as well. ..Not liking the fact that both sides have proposed Bills.

Did anyone read Congressman Smith's? Would you be comfortable with something like that made mandatory (no choice) in the current Midle Eastern situation?

Mo

As I said before, if you want to be angry at Bush and hold utter contempt for him, then keep surrounding yourself with only what you want to hear.

Did I misunderstand you? K, I'll ask that we cut this out..your posts to me as well as the one above twisting things feels like flaming to me.

I don't think it was at all unreasonable of me to simply ask for any piece of info on any one of the statements you made
because you said they are facts, then referred me to the very same news sources I look to, and in addition there were your comments to me above....even still, I have said, never mind, ..ok?

Back again to the topic..

Pepster, yes, I posted a Republican constriction (draft) proposal in 2002 from the Library of Congress.

That worries me.

Mo

On another note. if they threw a stipulation in their that going to college would make you exempt we would have alot less drug atticks and dropouts running around and alot more educated Americans! Either way around! They would find a way to keep their buts in school.

It being under the guise of sudden need for mandatory training for all our kids (?), and it's just training...
is odd..and it states the President will decide where and when they are "needed".(?)

It's conscription, which is draft..but they have that opt out clause, that is very vaugue.

Another concern is why did they propose it at all? (same concern if either party did)Why pay for and put all our kids through grooming for active duty..if it's true we can be confidant we will not likely need them to go to the Middle East?

Then you look to the real situation in Iraq,
and it's very unnerving.

Another thing to think about is that the real deal will be stricter, or that Wartime will make opting out not an option, which would be full blown, active duty draft.

That proposal is dead, but it raises allot of questions.

Mo

One other thing mo, time after time you have criticized Bush and staff about how the war is going. How about citing for us your military training and back ground so we can believe that you have at least a wild guess that the criticism you constantly spout might, under the right circumstance, be occasionally, almost correct.

Not that you'll know or even care, but if you happen to be keeping score, we lost more in New York in that sneak attack than we have on the battlefield in three years of war! I don't believe you could do as well!

You've sunk to a new low. Most of what you said doesn't deserve a response and is extremely ofensive, but I will address what I see as the cruxt of the matter.

If the administration was handling this farce of a "War on Terror" and actually protecting America by their actions, by going after those that killed 3000 NYers,
and they actually (in doing that) needed our kids to be drafted, that's a whole different ballgame..for Republicans and Democrats, Greens and all concerned about a draft in THIS situation by THIS administration.

That's not what's going on in this "War" and the Bush agenda on the horizon.

And so YOU know, the vast majority of the citizens of NYC who were hit, feel excactly the same way.

Mo

*I imagine what it would take to find the Terrorists who pose danger to our homeland would be unified, allied, special service targeting. Not guerilla style foot Wars as we flatten entire countries one by one leaving the real threats to us undealt with...so..less of our kids lives on the line, maybe no need for draft, who knows.
But then..there'd be no profit for Bush and Cheney's asociates.

You pick up some ``bilge'' from a left leaning site and figure this makes Bush/America/and our allies look bad and you have no training and darn little common sense to be making a judgements like this, so up it goes, no matter whether harm is done to our men, our cause or our country. What a great leader you would make!

December 20, 2001

In the wake of Sept, 11

I didn't catch that the first time I saw it. I guess everyone was pretty shook up back then not knowing what was getting ready to take place!

The last time this bill was messed with was here...

Smith proposes a ten-year phase in starting with those who graduate high school or turn 21 after July 2004.

Either way, though, it just raises allot of questions IMO. Among other things.

We're in a worse state now, as far as military resources, and the projected long haul and more invasions, more of the same.. at this time, doesn't it seem?

Mo

In your ever present cranky fervor, I can't win with ya, pal.
I was responding to your "eye to eye" confrontation on how (you said) "my precious son...(something about his face in the mud)...was too good to fight for American freedoms"

Which spurred me to emphasize that THIS War (by way of the administration) is not accomplishing that. Quite the opposite, in fact...

What's interesting to me is that proponents of the War, and Bush..will not acknowledge the possibility of Draft, and (I'm guessing) are not AT ALL comfortable with their kids being involuntarily forced under these circumstances.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Iraq war ultimately had little to do with battling terrorists. Indeed, the argument daily grows stronger that it hurt the cause, by inflaming Islamic passions against the United States, diverting resources from Afghanistan and alienating our allies.

This editorial says it all for me. It's from Cincinnati Post.

Bush on Thursday disputed the commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship'' between Iraq and al-Qaida, and told reporters, "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida.''

But that's not the point. The point is that the adminstration either ignored intelligence reports or acted on reports that turned out to be terribly wrong. Bush ought to acknowledge as much.

This week's final report shows, at times in striking detail, what happened before, during and just after the 9-11 attacks; in this, the commission has done the nation a genuine service.

The final report of the Sept. 11 commission is important on several fronts, not least of them its unflinching conclusion that the United States had no proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and the 9-11 terrorist attacks when President Bush decided to attack Iraq.

The commission report does say there was at least one meeting and perhaps more between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi official in Sudan in the 1990s. But, it concluded, Iraq declined or ignored a request by bin Laden for assistance.

Bush and members of his administration repeatedly cited Hussein's links to terrorism as one of the key justifications for the war.

Bush also charged that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. To date none have been found, despite an intensive search and the interrogation of numerous Iraqis involved in Saddam's weapons program.

The Bush team also predicted that the mass of Iraqis would welcome American and other foreign troops as liberators. The almost daily violence against coalition troops and Iraqis believed to be cooperating with them, coupled with polling from a variety of reputable organizations, shows that this has proven to be little more than wishful thinking. Iraqis may be glad that Saddam is gone, but a large majority clearly wants us gone, too, and the sooner the better.

The Cincinnati Post, 6,18,2004

When you moan and whine your liberal political views and jabber on about how badly things are going for us due to our poor leadership, using buzz words you got off the internet, it's very discouraging to the rest of us and more importantly it isn't true! If it isn't true and your saying it, then what is it? It's propaganda (anti-American) stupid! You see defeat everywhere! Anything you think will upset folks on this board, you throw it up. Why is it our cross to bare that we have to listen to your ever hysterical whims that your allowed to inflict upon us, ``just because you have your rights''!

I can't see this war evolving into any thing like a WWII but it can drag on and involve additional countries if they feel we ``can't prove'' they are supporting terrorism or if the left can manage another Vietnam type protest movement. You would be a sitter for that. (with your usual flawed thinking) We would certainly harm our position by showing weakness or division, you seem to espouse both!

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

I looked at thar when you first put it up, actually.

Hey..if they were planning attacks on the US of this magnetude in Iraq..you better tell Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld..I bet they'd really appreciate having something.

I am impressed that LR read an article, though..the rest posted is deemed leftist insanity and LR addmittedly won't even look at it..let's see BBC, the Guardian, The Washington Post, AP, CBC various newspapers around the Nation (if they say what he doesn't want to hear, which included govt reference sites if the subject is off the well beaten track of the Right)..oh, and the dreaded New York Times..and now CBS as well,
anyone who prints anything outside of the Right Wing box is worthless. That's only gonna leave Fox, and maybe CNN..who isn't much different than Fox far as I can tell, except less sentationalism.

Me..I get to enjoy the insults from Labratemous..seems now I'm some sort of leper in my thinking..(but that's just here that way here in our little OT corner..)
and my only purpose is to reak havoc on your lives.

Try poking your heads into the World think tank, where information falls outside of these very narrow pro Bush-Iraq War guidelines and you'd see, it ain't just 'lil ole me.
...and Lab..uh..hate to tell you, but in last post you are talking about the wrong War.

Do try and keep up

Mo

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:
Very informative article Lisa! That was some good digging kido! Stick around, build a nest! I detect an attractive and intelligent woman! Notice the last paragraph, mo complies with gusto!

---

Hackworth is a highly decorated WWII and Vietnam Veteran, here saying things you may not want to hear..with some crude language at times..as "punctuation".
He communictates with the soldiers and understands the workings of the US Military:

The retired colonel calls Donald Rumsfeld an "a**hole" whose bad planning mired U.S. troops in an ugly guerrilla conflict in Iraq. His sources? Defiant soldiers sending dispatches from the front.

Although the controversial Hackworth has his critics, no one disputes his half-century of military accomplishment. During World War II the 15-year-old Hackworth lied about his age to fight in Italy. During Vietnam he designed and implemented unconventional warfare tactics -- allegedly including a private brothel for his troops -- and wrote the Vietnam Primer, considered by many to be the leading book on guerrilla warfare tactics in Vietnam. Wounded eight times (his left leg still carries a bullet from the Vietnam War), he racked up enough medals, he says, to declare himself the "Army's Most Decorated Soldier" -- though he admits the U.S. Army has no such title. No one denies that Hackworth has seen more combat and taken more bullets than almost any American soldier still alive.
Today, the bestselling author -- his books include "Steel my Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face" -- writes a column for the conservative site World Net Daily.

On a typical day Hackworth receives hundreds of e-mails, letters and faxes from American soldiers, complaining about everything from silk-weight underwear to the weapons they've been assigned. "Pistols suck," wrote one soldier. "Bring and use every weapon. Shotguns are great at close ranges." At a time when soldiers have been disciplined for griping to the media, Hackworth is providing a fascinating outlet for what they're really experiencing. Among the more evocative messages:

"Soldiers are living in the dirt, with no mail, no phone, no contact with home, and no break from the daily monotony at all. I practically got in a fist fight with this captain over letting my private send an e-mail over his office's internet. This clown spends his days sending flowers to his wife and surfing the net. F***ing disgraceful and all too typical of today's Army."

"Soldiers get literally hundreds of flea or mosquito bites and they can't get cream or Benadryl to keep the damn things from itching ... .I am not talking about bringing in the steak and lobster every week. I am talking about basic health and safety issues that continue to be neglected by the Army."

"We did not receive a single piece of parts-support for our vehicles during the entire battle ... not a single repair part has made to our vehicles to date ... my unit had abandoned around 12 vehicles ... .I firmly believe that the conditions I just described contributed to the loss and injury of soldiers on the battlefield."

"We have done our job and have done it well, we have fulfilled our obligation to this operation, but we are still here and are still being mistreated and misled. When does it end? Do we continue to keep the liberators of Iraq here so they can continue to lose soldiers periodically to snipers and ambushes? My unit has been here since September and they have no light at the end of the tunnel. How many of my soldiers need to die before they realize that we have hit a wall?"

Aug. 4, 2003 Retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth is a cocky American military commander
who for half a century was at the front lines of the Army's most important battles. Most recently, though, Hackworth has been at the front lines of a domestic war: the debate over U.S. military strategy in Iraq, and whether the Bush administration planned well enough to achieve a decisive military victory and keep the postwar peace.

Hackworth was everywhere on cable television during the first days of the war, when early military setbacks convinced him and other retired military leaders that the administration, whose backers sold the conflict as a "cakewalk," hadn't sent enough troops to quell Iraqi resistance. He wrote a widely quoted column headlined "Stuck in the Quicksand" in early April -- just as the tide seemed to turn and the pace of victory picked up again. Though he is a colonel by rank, Hackworth was counted among the so-called "television generals" the administration blasted after Baghdad fell, and many conservative admirers turned against him.

But now, with American soldiers still dying almost daily in Iraq, the tide of opinion may be turning again, in favor of Hackworth's argument that the administration was unprepared for what's turning out to be a long-term guerrilla resistance in Iraq. Today the primary front of Hackworth's war of opinion isn't cable television, but a pair of Web sites --
Soldiers for the Truth
and his own site,
Hackworth.com
-- where he's campaigning to document the dire fate of U.S. troops in Iraq. The sites have quickly become a repository for the gripes and fears of America's beleaguered combat troops.

He's starting to feel his years. His bullet-ridden leg propped up on pillows at his home in suburban Connecticut, Hack is far from the action. So he chose another tactic: He brought the front home. In a conversation with Salon, he termed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld an "a**hole" who "misunderstood the whole war" and he predicted that American troops could be stuck in Iraq for "at least" another 30 years.

How long do you think U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq?

God only knows, the way things are going. At least 30 years. Tommy Franks [recently retired commander of U.S. troops in Iraq] said four to 10 years. Based on Cyprus and other commitments in this kind of warfare, it is going to be a long time -- unless the price gets too heavy. We say it is costing the U.S. $4 billion a month; I bet it is costing $6 billion a month. Where the hell is that money going to come from?

How do you see the combat situation evolving in Iraq?

There is no way the G [guerrilla] is going to win; he knows that, but his object is to make us bleed. To nickel and dime us. This is Phase 1. But what he is always looking for is the big hit -- a Beirut [-style car-bomb attack] with 242 casualties, something that gets the headlines! The Americans have their head up their ass all the time. All the advantages are with the G; he will be watching. He is like an audience in a darkened theater and the U.S. troops are the actors on stage all lit up, so the G can see everything on stage, when they are asleep or when his weapons are dirty. The actor can't see sh** in the audience.

For many weeks your Web site has described conditions in Iraq as being far more chaotic and unstable than generally reported. Why did the Pentagon try to downplay the problems instead of playing it straight and saying this is a long- term problem for America?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz made a very horrible estimate of the situation. They concluded that the war would be Slam Bam Goodbye Saddam, followed by victory parades with local Iraqi folks throwing flowers and rice and everything nice, then the troops would come home.

When I examined the task organization, my estimate was totally contrary to this a**hole Rumsfeld, who went in light and on the cheap, all based upon this rosy scenario. I never thought this would be a fight without resistance. And there was another guy who thought the same way I did; his name is Saddam Hussein. He looked at the awesome array of forces being set up against him and said, "Wait a minute, no way can I prevail, I tried that in '91 and just saw in Afghanistan what happened to Taliban and Al-Qaida, I will run away for another day."

Saddam is saying, "I am going to copy Ho Chi Minh and the Taliban and go into a guerrilla configuration." It [the invasion of Baghdad] did go Slam Bam Goodbye Saddam, but we are in there so light that we don't have sufficient force to provide the stability after the fall of the regime. We can't secure the banks, the energy facilities, the vital installations, the government, the ministry, the museums or the library. The world was witness to this great anarchy, the looting and rioting that set over Baghdad. There was that wonderful quote by Rumsfeld. "Stuff happens," he said. He flipped it off.

Do you see any similarities to the U.S. engagement in Vietnam?

The mistake in Vietnam was we failed to understand the nature of the war and we failed to understand our enemy. In Vietnam we were fighting World War II. Up to now in Iraq we have been fighting Desert Storm with tank brigade attacks. The tanks move into a village, swoop down, the tank gunner sees a silhouette atop a house, aims, fires, kills and it turns out to be a 12-year-old boy. Now, the father of that boy said, "We will kill 10 Americans for this." This is exactly what happened in Vietnam; a village was friendly, then some pilot turns around and blows away the village, the village goes from pro-Saigon to pro-Hanoi.

What kind of weapons would you be using in this war if you were running it? Would you trade the pistols for grenade launchers? Would you bring in more Apache helicopters, more snipers, what?

You have to use surgical weapons, not weapons that can reach out and strike innocents. The American Army is trained to break things and kill people -- not the kind of selective work that is needed. You don't use a tank brigade to surround a village; instead, you set up ambushes along the route. It is all so similar to what I saw in Vietnam, this tendency to be mesmerized by big-unit operations. But if you fight like a G, everything is under the table, in the dark, done by stealth and surprise; there is no great glory -- except the end result. America has never been capable of fighting the G; from [Gen.] Custer who ****ed it up, you can fast-forward to today. [In Iraq] they are proving it again. The U.S. military never, never learns from the past. They make the same mistake over and over again.

What other changes would you say need to happen in Iraq?

Get rid of the conventional generals; these guys in Iraq are tank generals, but they don't have any experience in fighting an insurgency. Reminds me of Vietnam when the artillery commanders wanted to build bases everywhere to fire their cannons. These tactics do not work against the G. I said in a recent piece: "Fire these f***ers and get a snake eater."

Snake eater -- where does that term come from?

That is an old expression from the beginning of Special Forces. They would have demonstrations at Fort Bragg [U.S. Special Forces headquarters in North Carolina] to demonstrate their animalism and they would bite the head off a chicken or bite a snake in half.

Gen. John Abazid -- a snake eater -- has just come in and admitted this is a classic guerrilla war. What kind of new strategy can we expect to see?

The guy is extremely bright and a fighter -- a very rare combination. Generally the fighters are Rambo types who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. There are on occasions the Rommel and Patton who are brilliant f***ing guys who can also duke it out with you, they understand the street fighter. You got that with Abazid.

How is it that you, a retired soldier in suburban Connecticut, appear to have a better take on the soldiers' mood than the generals in the Pentagon or in Baghdad?

I have incredible sources -- on average I get 500 e-mails a day from kids around the world that have read my work and know that I am not going to blow the whistle on them; a lot of that sh** you see on my Web site comes from those kids.

This is the first war with e-mail. You have asked U.S. soldiers to emulate Winston Churchill and act as war correspondents by sending you dispatches from the front. What has been the response?

Very, very favorable. The soldiers know the traffic is being monitored by the Pentagon, that Big Brother is monitoring everything they write. But still my sources keep coming from Afghanistan and Iraq. I very seldom get direct sources -- remember before we deployed, they [soldiers] were at home and could send e-mail from personal Yahoo accounts, now they have to use military accounts and are paranoid that these are being read. The [direct] traffic I get now are from guys who don't give a f***, who are not going to stay in [the military], who don't give a sh** about the consequences of sounding off. But remember -- you can never outsmart a convict in prison or a soldier on the battlefield. They both live by their wits, so what they do is write home and say "Hey dad I love you, we are having a few problems with tanks, etc. If this letter should happen to find itself into the e-mail of Hackworth at www.Hackworth.com it wouldn't disappoint me." I am getting 30 to 40 of these letters.

American troops in Iraq are complaining of basics like clean clothes, hot food and mail from home. Is there anything wrong with the Pentagon's famous supply chain?

This goes back to the sh**** estimate on the part of Rumsfeld. He did not provide enough troops or the logistical backup, because his Army was not staying, it was coming home. So who needs a warehouse full of sh**?

One letter I got today, written by a sergeant in a tank unit, said that of its 18 armored vehicles -- Bradley or Abrams -- only four are operational. The rest were down because of burned-out transmissions or the tracks eaten out. So it is not just the sh****y food and bad water -- a soldier can live with short rations -- but spare parts, baby! If you don't have them, your weapons don't work. Most of the resupply is by wheeled vehicles, and the roads and terrain out there is gobbling up tires like you won't believe. Michelin's whole production for civilians has been stopped [at certain plants] and have dedicated their entire production to the U.S. military in Iraq -- and they can't keep up!

Do you think there is any truth to the sense that British soldiers are better at nation-building than the Americans?

I would say so. They have a long history -- going back to the days of the colonies. If you look at their achievements in some places where they have established solid governments -- in Africa, in India, they have done a very good job. They were very good at lining up local folks to do the job like operating the sewers and turning on the electricity. Far better than us -- we are heavy-handed, and in Iraq we don't understand the people and the culture. Thus we did not immediately employ locals in police and military activities to get them to build and stabilize their nation. (Pauses) Yeah, the Brits are better.

What would you tell Rumsfeld if you could talk to him?

In mid April, I wrote a piece that asks for Rumsfeld to be fired, to be relieved. I took enormous heat for that. He went in light, on the cheap, he has misunderstood the whole war, he should go ... Rumsfeld is an arrogant a**hole. That's a quote, by the way.

I miss Jill's lauphing posts! Where did that bird go?

I guess I'm just posting to myself at this point..but if you won't read any references posted by me, then noone really has the right to pass judgement on the information.

Just continue only to consider what supports your view.

Mo

Our government just sucks doesn't it. They just don't care at all!! Have no reguard for our soldiers just stick em out there in the desert and leave em to die!!

Go in here
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/bill/
And then click on Defence/Military

Look at all those bills. Read them. One upon another upon another, upon another.

But the funny thing about these bills is that they are alot different from others.
Most of these are presented one time and read......

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

They don't sit on Capital hill for ages waiting to be resolved. That tells me that something is trying to be done for our troops.

PS..That was a cheap shot Mo if it was aimed at me. Cause your post wasn't even there when I went in to post my haha post. I got caught up in an email for a couple of minutes and when I posted there yours was.

[This message has been edited by Softballmom (edited 01 December 2004).]

Lisa

I saw the Bills you pointed out, and I do hope they get some of them passed that will help our military with some supportive measures.

K, I know you claim repeatedly to look at all sides, but that's puzzling based on your posts. The above post was not a "response"..as I said, it was food for thought (objectivity)..thanks thanks again for the jabs, by the way..nevertheless..

The idea put forth here on the necessity for our children to fight for AMERICAN FREEDOMS
baits the pivitol question on this War in Iraq:

ARE WE FIGHTING FOR
AMERICAN FREEDOMS by continuing on this track in IRAQ?

This question is disputed around the globe, by a large number of American citizens, and by large groups of Veterans and soldiers in Iraq, and their families.

Are we? Were we ever? There is no justification for this. Never was.

the other question:

ARE WE NEGLECTING clear and present danger to our security?

by continuing to pour all our resources into the Middle eastern occupation plan, as AlQaeda and other islamic extremist groups are known to be strengthening their GLOBAL network?

Al Qaeda as we know it on 9/11 has been broken up, and weakened..but the other branches and groups have continued to strengthen.

Osama's broadcasting attack plans. They have known for years he has been intent on accumulating nuclear weapons.

Aren't those groups a much greater threat to us than Iraq ever was?? After all, that's how 3000 Americans died in the towers.

This not to mention the nuclear capabilities that have grown in the past couple of years, as our administration continues their agenda in the Middle East.

A few articles on extisting Terrorists, the War, ect:

Al-Qaeda threat retains its potency under pressure

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/rusi/rjhm041110_1_n.shtml

'The Threat of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Revolutionary Movement''

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=234&language_id=1

Europe's terrorism network is still a threat
By Toby Helm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/war/alqaeda.xml

Islamic militancy in southern Africa

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jtsm/jtsm041123_1_n.shtml

I'm here. Keeping myself out of this one.

I now realize the reason why I always get flamed by certain people - I'm not that intelligent 'polically' to be able to parry that well. So my (political) opinions or (political) arguments are always shot down.

Therefore, it's edited

If folks claim to be objective, why not just deal with topic, instead of the bonus sneers and jeers, and gang mentality?

By ALMA WALZER
The Monitor

McALLEN, November 15, 2004 -- It's taken one year, seven months and 19 days of combat in Iraq for the Lone Star State to lose 100 of its own.

Texas is the second state, after California, to lose 100 service members, according to The Associated Press.

With continuing war in Iraq and U.S. armed forces dispersed to so many other locations around the globe, Americans may be wondering if compulsory military service could begin again for the first time since the Vietnam War era.

The Selective Service System (SSS) and the U.S. Department of Education now are gearing up to compare their computer records, to make sure all men between the ages of 18 and 25 who are required to register for a military draft have done so.

The SSS and the education department will begin comparing their lists on Jan. 1, 2005, according to a memo authored by Jack Martin, acting Selective Service director.

While similar record checks have been done periodically for the past 10 years, Martin's memo is dated Oct. 28, just a few days before the Nov. 2 presidential election, a hard-fought campaign in which the question of whether the nation might need to reinstate a military draft was raised in debates and on the stump.

It took several more days, until Nov. 4, for the document to reach the Federal Register, the official daily publication for rules and notices of federal agencies and organizations.

The memo was also produced after the U.S. House voted 402-2 on Oct. 5, against House Resolution 163, a bill that would have required all young people, including women, to serve two years of military service.

Under federal law, a military draft cannot be started without congressional support.

About 94 percent of all men are properly registered for a draft, according to Richard Flahavan, associate director of the office of public and intergovernmental affairs for SSS.

Martin's memo is just a routine thing, Flahavan said.

``Back in 1982 a federal law was passed that basically linked federal grants, student loans and federal assistance to students with Selective Service,'' Flahavan said. ``You had to register with Selective Service with a Social Security number (in order to receive federal assistance), and as a consequence of the law the Department of Education came up with an agreement on how to exchange and compare data to comply with the law.

``It just so happens that the current agreement in effect expires next month,'' Flahavan said. ``All we did is update the agreement slightly, but it has no substantive changes. There is nothing new or shocking to link this to some type of draft right around the corner because its all been in place for almost 18 years.''

Flahavan said the written agreements between SSS and the Department of Education normally run for about four or five years and suggested that a reporter search the 1999 or 2000 records of the Federal Register for the most recent agreement.

A search of the Federal Register by The Monitor found four such agreements between the two agencies, with effective dates as follows: Jan. 1, 1995; July 1, 1997; Jan. 1, 2000; and July 1, 2002.

All four agreements lasted for 18 months, during which time the SSS and the Department of Education could complete their comparisons.

The most recent agreement, which began July 1, 2002, actually expired Jan. 1, 2004, according to federal records located by The Monitor.

``This has nothing to with current events,'' Flahavan said. ``This is just the periodic renewal of previous agreements -- this one is 18 months but normally it runs four years and that's why we're doing it now. I'm not quite sure why it's 18 months versus the normal number of years.''

Flahavan said the agency was required to place the agreement in the Federal Register.

``That's fine and we did,'' Flahavan said. ``We believe the public wouldn't stand for a draft that isn't fair and equitable.

``And the only way to be fair and equitable is if everyone who should register is registered, because that's the pool from which the people who would be drafted would be selected from. So you want everyone who should be in the pot in the pot,'' Flahavan said.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, who officially begins representing western Hidalgo County residents in January, said Congress has voted on record against a draft.

``It was a near unanimous vote in the House,'' Doggett said. ``When things are filed in the Federal Register, there will be standards, and they are a reminder that if we cannot get more international participation that the risk of a draft remains out there.

``And I think we do need people to remain watchful of this possibility.''

Doggett said one type of ``draft'' was already being used by the military.

``I'm concerned that a very real form of the draft is there now for those already in the service,'' Doggett said. ``People are being forced to stay in beyond their commitment, and that's an indication of being overextended.

``I want us to pursue policies that don't overextend us and involve more international participation, so that Americans don't have to do all the dying and endure all the pain for these international activities,'' Doggett said.

Flahavan said the computer records check would help Selective Service with its compliance rates.

``From 1999 to 2000, it was dropping about a percent a year,'' Flahavan said. ``It's now inching back up about a percent a year. Last year it was 93 percent.

``At the end of 2004 we anticipate about a 94 percent compliance rate,'' Flahavan said. ``We're pleased we've got it back on the rise and that's where we want to keep it -- that's our goal.''

Draft Gear Up?

Who Has To Register?

All male U.S. citizens and male aliens living in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 25
Dual nationals of the U.S. and another country, regardless of where they live
Young men who are in prison or mental institutions do not have to regsiter while they are committed, but must do so if they are released and not reached age 26
Disabled men who live at home and can move about indiependently.

Myths

Contrary to popular belief, only sons and the last son to carry a family name must register and they can be drafted.

What Happens In A Draft

Congress would likely approve a military draft in a time of crisis, in which the mission requires more troops than are in the volunteer military.
Selective Service procedures would treat married men or those with children the same as single men.
The first men to be called up will be those whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed by those age 21, 22, 23,24 and 25.
The last men to be called are 18 and 19 years of age.

Historical Facts

The last man to be drafted was in June 1973.
Number of Drafted for WWI : 2.8 million
Number of Drafted for WWII: 10 million
Number of Drafted for the Korean War: 1.5 million
Number of Drafted for the Vietnam War: 1.8 million
Source: Selective Service System

Published: December 2, 2004

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The American military presence in Iraq will grow by nearly 12,000 troops by next month, to 150,000, the highest level since the invasion last year, to provide security for the Iraqi elections in January and to quell insurgent attacks around the country, the Pentagon announced Wednesday.

The Pentagon is doing this mainly by ordering about 10,400 soldiers and marines in Iraq to extend their tours - in some cases for the second time - for up to two months, even as their replacement units begin to arrive. The Pentagon is also sending 1,500 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division in the next two weeks for a four-month tour.

By extending the tours of some 8,000 soldiers from two brigades, the Army is risking problems with morale and retention by breaking its pledge to keep troops on the ground in Iraq for no more than 12 months, some commanders and military experts said.

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/politics/02military.html

I am not getting involved in this topic because I don't have much to say about it, my feelings aren't that strong about it right now and also I just don't know that much about it.

I am too old to be drafted too, but my son will not in a few years, and don't think I don't think about that everytime I hear about one of our brave soldiers dying. I think about their families and the ultimate sacrifice that was given sending their loved one away and the soldiers saying goodbye to their families not knowing if they will return.
Freedom is not free, it never was, and it never will be.
God bless them all.

I really get emotional when I think about the soldiers and their families and what they are doing for all of us. You can be sure everytime I see a veteren or a soldier I thank them for their service.

The importance of looking at all angles is paramount these days.

I looked up the jet camp when you mentioned it. Others should as well..in addition to the 911 Commission who researched it thoroughly..it's below..

IMO..all info should be looked at, not just that which supports the idea that this War is justified, and fighting for American Freedoms. I have posted allot here that has never even been addressed.
Objectivity is paramount.

The camps are moot. We have other camps to worry about, as posted on this thread, links and all.

why grasp at straws when our security is on the line?

Mo

K said: Mo ignored the jet at the training camp in Iraq until it was mentioned for the uptinth time. It just wasn't what Mo wanted to hear.
I am beginning to smell, hmm...could it be INTOLERANCE. Nah!!!

If you insist...here's rest of the story.
The camps are long since moot.

Re: the Salman Pak..

It's all over the news back a ways, was touted as the finally established link between Saddam and 911, Bush admin did jump at it at the time.

..but then a comprehensive investigation by 911 Commission, which you can also find by Googling..dissmissed it as a real connection or threat. You may really want to look at the reports on this..for objectivity's sake.

Some of AlQaeda fled to Iraq during the attacks in Afghanastan as well..but are since dismantled.

I posted several articles a few posts back on the growing, known existance of branches of AQaeda and extremist Islamic groups around the globe. You can also Google that.

Is noone concerned about that which actually exists now? That which has been growing since the invasion of Iraq?

This on the terorist camps in Iraq.. as investigated by the 911 Commision, but you can look to the Commission report itself, as well.

Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
by Hope Yen

WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.

The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from ``well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities.''

Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.

The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.

``A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir,'' it said.

According to one unnamed senior al-Qaida associate, various ideas were floated by mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the commission said. The options included taking over a launcher and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iraq or releasing poison gas into the air conditioning system of a targeted building.

``Last but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city,'' it said.

The Iraq connection long suggested by administration officials gained no currency in the report.

``Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded,'' the report said. ``There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred'' after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, ``but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,'' it said.

``Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq,'' the report said.

In a separate report, the commission staff said that senior al-Qaida planner Khalid Shaihk Mohammed initially proposed a Sept. 11 attack involving 10 planes. An expanded target list included the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.

That ambitious plan was rejected by bin Laden, who ultimately approved a scaled-back mission involving four planes, the report said. Mohammed wanted more hijackers for those planes - 25 or 26, instead of 19.

The commission has identified at least 10 al-Qaida operatives who were to participate but could not take part for reasons including visa problems and suspicion by officials at airports in the United States and overseas.

From a seamless operation, the report portrays a plot riven by internal dissent, including disagreement over whether to target the White House or the Capitol that was apparently never resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qaida confined.

The United States toppled the regime in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Omar has eluded capture, as has al-Qaida.

� Copyright 2004 Associated Press

Govt. military or private military?

The pay is better with private and the same laws do not cover them,plus they get to train in there own terrorist style of camp too.

I quess we are fighting fire with fire.

These are dark times.

Mo, as best I can tell, you're an old housewife (if your lucky),in an open robe hunched over a keyboard with Karl Marks manifestos piled up around you. From this den your able to best the cia, fbi and the nsa in ``intelligence'' gathering. You even come up with stuff before it happens, I guess you get the jump on em by using the left leaning web sites from around the world! You have a mindset of how the world works and save every scrap of information that could remotely agree with your position, no matter where it comes from, though the far left is preferred.

There is information out there that you can't possible know about and you refuse to accept there could be something in this world that you don't know. I would suggest that most of the military related things happening in the world today, you have no inkling of. Yet here you are professing to know it all and telling us all. You pick up propaganda and do a better job of spreading it than the originator! ``The draft is coming''! So? What's the big deal, if we need a draft, we'll have a draft. We will do what ever is necessary to win, even if we don't want to. If we have a change in plans, the last thing we need is mo out in her bathrobe with a sign, ``he lied''! Our enemies would just love that! The left never takes responsibility for failure, it is always the other meskin's fault. They are quick to point out blame and failure or what could appear to be failure due to a change of published plans but they will never accept it!

If you don't like our politicians, run for office with your plan before the people, if the majority likes your plan, then your in!

Pepse, The left is famous for saying, `` lets calmly discuss the facts of this case and not get enraged''. Then they start insulting your intelligence with the party line or some other propaganda that a rat wouldn't stand on! Mo is a propagandist, she has to be, like shoprat before her. This must be some sort of proving ground for would be organizers! Do you have to have a license to be a card carrying organizer or just embedded in Academia where you have access to a large number of dupes?

And pepse, why do you always take mo's side. I get the impression you two play good cop, bad cop! If people attack mo and show no respect, there may be a reason for it. None the less, no matter who attacks her, you rush to her defense even when she's dead wrong and attack her attacker! I'm not objecting, just pointing out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
[b]THE TRAINING CAMPS IN IRAQ

K said: Mo ignored the jet at the training camp in Iraq until it was mentioned for the uptinth time. It just wasn't what Mo wanted to hear.
I am beginning to smell, hmm...could it be INTOLERANCE. Nah!!!

If you insist...here's rest of the story.
The camps are long since moot.

Re: the Salman Pak..

It's all over the news back a ways, was touted as the finally established link between Saddam and 911, Bush admin did jump at it at the time.

..but then a comprehensive investigation by 911 Commission, which you can also find by Googling..dissmissed it as a real connection or threat. You may really want to look at the reports on this..for objectivity's sake.

Some of AlQaeda fled to Iraq during the attacks in Afghanastan as well..but are since dismantled.

I posted several articles a few posts back on the growing, known existance of branches of AQaeda and extremist Islamic groups around the globe. You can also Google that.

Is noone concerned about that which actually exists now? That which has been growing since the invasion of Iraq?

This on the terorist camps in Iraq.. as investigated by the 911 Commision, but you can look to the Commission report itself, as well.

Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
by Hope Yen

WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.

The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from ``well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities.''

Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.

The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.

``A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir,'' it said.

According to one unnamed senior al-Qaida associate, various ideas were floated by mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the commission said. The options included taking over a launcher and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iraq or releasing poison gas into the air conditioning system of a targeted building.

``Last but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city,'' it said.

The Iraq connection long suggested by administration officials gained no currency in the report.

``Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded,'' the report said. ``There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred'' after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, ``but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,'' it said.

``Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq,'' the report said.

In a separate report, the commission staff said that senior al-Qaida planner Khalid Shaihk Mohammed initially proposed a Sept. 11 attack involving 10 planes. An expanded target list included the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.

That ambitious plan was rejected by bin Laden, who ultimately approved a scaled-back mission involving four planes, the report said. Mohammed wanted more hijackers for those planes - 25 or 26, instead of 19.

The commission has identified at least 10 al-Qaida operatives who were to participate but could not take part for reasons including visa problems and suspicion by officials at airports in the United States and overseas.

From a seamless operation, the report portrays a plot riven by internal dissent, including disagreement over whether to target the White House or the Capitol that was apparently never resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qaida confined.

The United States toppled the regime in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Omar has eluded capture, as has al-Qaida.

� Copyright 2004 Associated Press

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 02 December 2004).][/B]

---

And all this comes from one of the same people that says our government tends to hide info from us. I found some interesting stuff myself on this that raises alot of questions in my mind but I have to jet right now so I will have to post them later.

You ever think that the whole story is not being told here for some reason?

That's usually my point.

As far as the threat of these camps being top priority in regard to post 911 national security, therefore justifying the unilateral attack and invasion of Iraq, this War.... as I said..tell the admin if there's anything sunstantial..they would appreciate it!

Is the 911 Commission in on the left wing conspiracy, too? As well as the rest of the World?

There are articles on this from the two favorite right wing news sources as well.
Probably extreme right stuff on how the 911 Commission is "corrupt", or there are secrets that noone can know that justify Bush, and the abandoning of AlQaeda..or something to that effect, I would guess.

All I ever ask is that folks look to various sources or postings without immediate dismissal, and without only glomming on to the propaganda that's Pro-Bush/Iraq War.

..but certainly, that's your choice..but pure projection is just that if one chooses not to be objective.

It's amazing to me how extremely angry people get at the mention of anything that doesn't fit into the ever shrinking box.
Anyone pointing to snything other than what they want to hear becomes instant pond scum..
or must just be insane, idiotic, or intolerant.

Labrat, I take any comparison to
Ms. Shoprighteous as a great compliment, that actually offsets all your insults

Old housewife hunched over the computer..whose mission is to raise a huge storm of propaganda here on OT?

I guess if it makes you feel better to see me that way..tis OK with me.

In fact, I'm a performing arts major, Lyme patient, mother..former NYC resident who was there when the planes hit. Saw, heard, smelled the whole thing.

I never looked too closely at politics before that. I didn't see any threat, and ..I regret..assumed there woould be standing checks and balalnces within our system to protect us.

Since all that has changed, and the threat is very real..I became very concerned and very involved in understanding what's happening. Making sure these guys were protecting us from Terror..since we were bombed.

So that's when I sstarted paying allot of attention...much like I (and so many of us) have done with Lyme.

Be well,
Crotchety old Mo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:

It's amazing to me how angry people get at the mention of anything that doesn't fit into the ever shrinking box.

---

This statement can go both ways. I am trying to debate civil and contribute here. I am sorry if I have offended you but I see you doing this very same thing as well.

Thats what raises our feathers. Just because you don't always agree with our source of information but we don't always agree with yours either.

I am not mad. I haven't gotten mad yet. Maybe you were refering to others when you posted that comment.

But don't just dismiss the source because you don't agree. Maybe they stand firm on their beliefs just as you do and put alot of time and investigating behind it.

This all boils down again to two differing opinions and both sides debating a subject that they are never gonna agree on.

And maybe you don't see it but every time we debate you always say do you have anything to back that up, and heaven forbid we do post an article or something because you shoot it down with no hesitation. That is why you see hostility. It is always the same. No matter what we post it never seems to be good enouph or meet the source standards.

Honestly I have looked to enter into a few debates found good articles and questioned, what would Mo think about that one. Then ended up just not posting at all.

You know the "Soup Natzi" episode on Sienfeld well not being mean but you coud be the "source natzi"

Give us a break and maybe we wil lighten up a little.

I asked one person to post a piece of info she said several times was fact..and justification for the Iraq invasion!

That poster called me ingorant more than half a dozen times on this thread, accused me of only forming opinions based on feeling, ect, ect..and that I am intolerant..yada, yada. I figured you all would catch up to the deal with the camps on your own.

After the insults kept on..I posted the above info on the camp "scandal"

Labrats posts throughout this thread are outrageous, and yet ..now I have this whole wrap..

I point out that certain peieces of info aren't even considered (because they aren't). I pointed out ONCE that an article was from an extrenme right source..because it was posted without the source, and a point was made that it was a center opinion. ..and we have always put source up here for everyone's sake..it's basic.

This is rediculous! What lenghths you guys go to to dismiss somebody.

Now I threaten your freedom to post information?

What information? Noone has posted anything to read on any of these issues, how could I have shot it down?

IMO..what we clearly have here are a bunch of folks angry at me simply for pointing out articles on isues you do NOT want to look at. Which is fine, but you don't have to blame me for that..and you don't have to say everyone writing them must be engaging in leftist insanity.

Mo

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I rarely come onto Lymenet because of Mo, Lisa and Jenifer now. And I post even less.

Noone else/nothing else is at fault but the way those three have treated me.

The reason noone posts anything to support some really strong assertions on here, at the same time dissmissing so many other postings (you're right, it's been going on a long time, but never this bad)
..the reason for all that is me?

After months here with a new group on OT, with strong opinions on major issues, I have seen nothing to support your views, and have taken allot of lashings for posting things to support mine. (As others have before me)
..I don't think I'M the reason you post no supportive info.

I suppose all the personal abuse of me is my fault too?

This is a classic gang up that's happened so many times before. It's OK if it happens to one of the liberrrrrals (they deserve it, right? That's frightening! )..this is scary when it gets to this point here.

Just read the thread..and it's obvious.

Jenifer is the moderator, right Jill?

Listen. This isn't a place for personal attacks, it's a place to discuss topics.

Mo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
[b]This didn't just start today Mo. Why do you think everyone is reluctant to post articles. Its not because we don't have them or trust them. Its because we know whats gonna happen when we do post them.

The reason noone posts anything to support some really strong assertions on here, at the same time dissmissing so many other postings (you're right, it's been going on a long time, but never this bad)
..the reason for all that is me?

After months here with a new group on OT, with strong opinions on major issues, I have seen nothing to support your views, and have taken allot of lashings for posting things to support mine. (As others have before me)
..I don't think I'M the reason you post no supportive info.

I suppose all the personal abuse of me is my fault too?

This is a classic gang up that's happened so many times before. It's OK if it happens to one of the liberrrrrals..this is scary when it gets to this point here.

Just read the thread..and it's obvious.

Jenifer is the moderator, right Jill?

Listen. This isn't a place for personal attacks, it's a place to discuss topics.

Mo

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 02 December 2004).][/B]

---

I don't know Labrat and I am trying to keep my hands clean when possible. If you notice I did not support any of his statements made to you either. The comments I made were refering mainly to me and K.

You say
After months here with a new group on OT, with strong opinions on major issues, I have seen nothing to support your views,

Because I have posted many things since I have been here. Alot with good sources. So I guess you just proved my point. My views don't mesh with yours so what I use to support them don't mean a hill of beans to you!

I personaly have never made a bad comment on your sources or articles. I don't agree with them but I have tried as best I could in the past to resonably debate the issues with you. So I managed to make it through these 100+ post without being mad or ill tempered but the above comment you made did offend me. I guess I should have just did the SOB thing but since no one else on here has I didn't either.

As always politics has carried us to the black hole again! Maybe we should just leave this whole mess alone and move on.

I think it's just easier for everyone to think that on this topic.

(and/or what some posters here lately like to think about me, and feel it's OK to tersonally bash me for)

I think when faced with the subject of what exactly the Bush administration is laying the foundation for and why
becomes allot more pressing when all our kids could well be on the line, involuntarily.

I pressed it when posters said "there absolutely won't be a Draft"..based on opinion only.

Justification is more pressing after all the campaign ballons fell.

I think people who didn't have a problem listening to pure opinion
like yours 24, and breathing a sigh of relief, or gets some satisfaction.. that someone bashed the resident liberal sufficiently for the moment..
I don't think that's working very well anymore.

I don't think the administration can hide behind their unsubstantiated presentation much longer either.

I think the Bush admin and Co empty pronouncements, as well as those of the extreme right blow horns with nothing but hot air to support claims.. that now look like will effect us for a generation
..aren't quite good enough anymore.

And you know what? I also think that's why folks here are seething at me, and want to put me down and out any way they can. Why this behavior is considered acceptable on Lymenet despite the rules.

It's ONLY because of the views, angles, and information I post.

I posted and pressed the issue of the Draft.
Who can pose a solid arguement that we aren't headed for one, and then, is this War worth that?

I'm actually an accomplished and liked person, in life, in the Lyme community..

If I had never opened my mouth on these issues, noone would have a problem with me.

Since I have done so, I'm Satan around here..or a loon, idiot, troublemaker, bitter, snarling old hag..whatever..

It only underlines the fact that the right isn't thinking with anything more than pride, or for some other reason want to believe the Bush admin is fighting Terror because they want him for another favored agenda...and this new Anericam fad..

" if ya can't come up with a reason for something, call them an idiot and club 'em in the head "

Worked for thr RNC, so it seems. It isn't allowed here, though.

If I posted for Bush (I don't think I could find anything that wasn't from a bias source or the White House)..but if I did, I'd be welcomed with cheers here..

Because I don't..pro-Bushies are on the attack. My stuff doesn't even get read..and posters like 24 come in with constant criticizm and personal beratement, but nothing to really say..and that's OK with everyone. People can call me anything here..
They can say I have no credible sources...yet are not required to post anything themselves..to justify the statement.

Labrat, I've seen do this pretty much to anyone who posts the way I do, we expect it from him. I have no problem with that, oddly.

The more covert nastiness bugs me more, but..not that much either.

That's OK because (believe it or not) I don't post all these thought provoking ideas and articles on what's happening around this War for the hecklers..
I post them for others who may be reading and have similar views.

I am certainly NOT the only person in the country or around the globe who feels this way..every publication and opinion just can't be as ignorant as you'd like to say.

I think the ones h@!! bent on putting me down, or saying I'm unfair, ignorant, intolerant, ect..are angry at the truth, not me.

I know nobody asked..but that's what I think.

Mo

Mo

What realy is the saddest though and most pathetic is everyone ganging up on Mo and having no real information to back up anything they are saying. Yes I'll stick up for her. It is not because we are "on the same side politically" because I have opinion either way about this subject and no strong feelings about it. As I have said several times, I think its obvious that if we need a draft, we will have one. It is not that commplicated to me. The reason I am sticking up for her is because I don't see her personally attacking any of you. Whereas I see several of you being extremely hostile just because you want to be. Just because you don't like people who are on the liberal side period, no matter what they say. I see people getting hostile only because they think this is a place where they can let out their personal frustrations. I see total GANG mentality here and this seems to really appeal to a few of you! Pretty sad that a group of you are just here looking for a fight and that really is the main reason you come to off topic. There is no interest here in real discussion of the topic. There is no educated debate going on here at all that I can see on the other side against Mo. She is trying again and again to stick to the facts, but most of you just come along and attack her personally, yet you post NOTHING and I mean NOTHING of substance on your own. Pretty sad you guys can't disagree without putting one person down and calling them names.

To me it looks like a bunch of angry people on the right, forming a big gang against one person on the left. Only the one person on the left is the only one NOT attacking anyone personally and is the only one posting any factual information.

By the way Jill, no one has treated me badly on this entire thread if you'll look through it. So I am not sure what you are talking about or what that really has to do with anything on this thread. And if you don't post on lymenet because of me and Mo and Jenifer, the moderator, well now, that is pretty sad.

I hope no one comes running along and starts bashing me now for writing all of this. No, I am not the moderator and i don't pretend to be. I just came back to look here and couldn't believe how out of control it is. And its pretty clear what is going on. I hope its worth it to all of you in the long run.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pepster:
WOW, I have just been sitting back watching this and it is really something. Aren't you all on lymenet because you all have something in common which is lyme disease? Aren't you supposed to support each other in that? Off topic is a place to discuss other issues, not a place to come to take out your frustrations on other people just because you have nowhere at home to do it. What you have here is a huge difference in outlook on the world and there is no way you will all come to an agreement. Why don't you all just forget it and drop the thread, and let it go.

What realy is the saddest though and most pathetic is everyone ganging up on Mo and having no real information to back up anything they are saying. Yes I'll stick up for her. It is not because we are "on the same side politically" because I have opinion either way about this subject and no strong feelings about it. As I have said several times, I think its obvious that if we need a draft, we will have one. It is not that commplicated to me. The reason I am sticking up for her is because I don't see her personally attacking any of you. Whereas I see several of you being extremely hostile just because you want to be. Just because you don't like people who are on the liberal side period, no matter what they say. I see people getting hostile only because they think this is a place where they can let out their personal frustrations. I see total GANG mentality here and this seems to really appeal to a few of you! Pretty sad that a group of you are just here looking for a fight and that really is the main reason you come to off topic. There is no interest here in real discussion of the topic. There is no educated debate going on here at all that I can see on the other side against Mo. She is trying again and again to stick to the facts, but most of you just come along and attack her personally, yet you post NOTHING and I mean NOTHING of substance on your own. Pretty sad you guys can't disagree without putting one person down and calling them names.

To me it looks like a bunch of angry people on the right, forming a big gang against one person on the left. Only the one person on the left is the only one NOT attacking anyone personally and is the only one posting any factual information.

By the way Jill, no one has treated me badly on this entire thread if you'll look through it. So I am not sure what you are talking about or what that really has to do with anything on this thread. And if you don't post on lymenet because of me and Mo and Jenifer, the moderator, well now, that is pretty sad.

I hope no one comes running along and starts bashing me now for writing all of this. No, I am not the moderator and i don't pretend to be. I just came back to look here and couldn't believe how out of control it is. And its pretty clear what is going on. I hope its worth it to all of you in the long run.

---

"Lisa, please stay on topic"..

Is this theme of dissmissal on topic, 24?

Mo