Please read... you know connect those symbols together to form words, and ultimately sentences...

I believe I stated that the UN was looking for evidence of the destruction of the WMD, because no evidence of the existance of remaining WMD was found. Sadam claimed that they were destroyed, but he was obstinate about presenting proof or allowing inspection teams on "sensitve" sites. So until I see evidence of the much bandied about WMD that Bush used as the primary case for war at the UN and the international community I will continue to believe the reports of the UN weapons inspectors, because as it stands right now they have more credibility.

And they said he had weapons of mass destruction. I love this retard. When he can't think and can't read and can't say anything he just jumps to the insult.

The UN said those WMD existed. They did not find evidence of their destruction. So what does that mean??? Tell me what that means.

-Rudey
--I can't believe this ignant man

Gotta love it... Rudey your slipping, this doesn't meet the outrageous standards of your previous personal attacks or insults....

Right, I'll try to explain this to you using simple language... Yes the UN said that weapons did exist and mandated Sadam to destroy or dismantle the WMD and development programs following the first Gulf War... and many inspectors where involved in ensuring this happened. Sadam and the inspectors played cat and mouse through-out the 90s...

Now the Sadam regime tried to keep as many secrets as possible from the UN inspectors (because of understandable worries that the inspectors had foreign intelligence agents in their ranks), but he repeatedly claimed that he had elimnated the weapons and dismantled the programs... and UN inspectors couldn't counter this as no evidence of WMD were found, and scant evidence of their destruction was found... now here is where you argue that if evidence of their existance or destruction can't be found they must still be out there... where as I take the view that if evidence of their existance or destruction can't be found perhaps Sadam was truthful about their destruction, because after all now evidence countering this has been found either.

Oh I see so you can say because you can't find weapons (after proven that they existed) that they don't exist. Yet you can't show us where they were destroyed. Now we can't say WMD exist (after proven that they existed) because we can't find where they're hidden - either in full or in parts after beind dismantled.

You can't argue. You can't read. You can't think.

They did not teach your poor ass in the Canadadian army about those 3 things me thinks.

-Rudey

:eek:

Ignoring the pissing contest - this includes my dad. :(

Sorry to hear that. If he's called, I hope he remains safe.

I just talked to my friend Jay (who is also former Army) and he said that my dad is safe...the wording of the CNN article is confusing...when they say "Any former enlisted soldier who did not serve at least eight years on active duty is in the Individual Ready Reserve pool, as are all officers who have not resigned their commission." they really mean any former enlisted soldier and officer who has served within the last eight years. CNN worded it poorly.

Unfortunately, this includes Jay, who's 8 years are up in August, so now I feel crappy for giving him bad news. :(

Well there's always Canada.

-Rudey

I hate hearing stories like that about guys who have put in their time and are just a few months from getting out. I really appreciate what they do for our country.

So do I...he enlisted voluntarily, just graduated and got a great job, new apartment, etc...and now it's all going to get uprooted?

Almost seems unfair. I guess it's more politically expedient than starting the draft back up. Even if they were to start the draft back up, it'd be around 6 months+ before they could deploy new troops.

Of course, if the draft were to start back up, Bush's fate would be sealed, so don't look for that to happen.

Besides it makes economic sense too... besides the political cost of a draft, the cost of training 6000 troops for deployment would easily top 300Mil (basic training, specialized training, equipment, room and board)... the basic fromula used to be 50K per private...

So do I. :( GP, I hope your dad and your friend aren't called up, and hope they stay safe if they are.

I don't like this one little bit. It's another step along the path to a draft once the Individual Ready Reserve becomes exhausted. I don't think a draft would be reinstated before Election Day, but it might be done after the election, and November isn't so far away.

Side question: Are there any laws about keeping people's jobs open if they are called to serve? e.g. if I am an employer and one of my employees is sent to Iraq for a year, do I have to keep his job open for when he returns? (I'm thinking of GP's friend as well as everyone else in this situation.)

Here's a link to findlaw.com

http://biz.findlaw.com/employment_em...AB7E30AAA.html

Here's the part about military service:

Military Leave
Almost every state has a law prohibiting discrimination against those in the military, reserve, state militia or National Guard. Most states require employers to grant leave to employees for certain types of military service. Some states require leave only for those employees called to active duty; other states require leave for those called for training, as well. This leave is generally unpaid, although some states provide paid leave for public employees.

When an employee takes military leave, you must usually re-employ him or her without any loss of benefits, status or reduction in pay. These re-employment guarantees vary from state to state and usually contain a number of additional conditions. Typical restrictions include:

The employee must not have been dishonorably discharged
The employee must present proof that he or she has satisfactorily completed service
The employee must request reinstatement within a specified time
If the employee is not able to do the job formerly held, you must offer an appropriate substitute position, and
You need not reinstate the employee if changes in the workforce make reinstatement unreasonable.

And, while I don't think that people should lose their jobs when called to active duty, it also puts businesses in a tough spot. They often have to replace the employees and then will have to let other people go when the soldiers return. I know that it is hard on health care when they lose nurses. There is already a severe nursing shortage. We've lost some good docs from our health care system too. It puts a crunch on everybody.

It also seems that it would make people less likely to voluntarily join the military, knowing that even when they think they're done, they might not be.

All that said, I don't see many other options for the immediate future. As others have pointed out, it takes more time and money to train new guys.

It does bring questions to my mind though. How many of those guys are still in military condition? Do they have to go through a basic training type setting to get physically in shape again? What if they've gained a ton of weight?

It is sad that this is necessary.

Dee