Army to recall former members
 

.

reading that makes me curious what's happening with H.R. 163 and S. 89 up in Congress.

Ask and ye shall receive:
 

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (13)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.


S.89
Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.163
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Re: Army to recall former members
 

Can we say DRAFT?

sigh

Dear Bill Clinton,

For decades, Amercan defense policy was built on the principle that our military should be able to fight two full scale conflicts at once. This was not just to have a strong defense, but also because if you are engaged on one theater, and not able to handle a second theater, then tyrants will come out of the woodworks and take advantage of this situation.

You decided, in your typical double-speak, to reduce the capability of our military to 1 1/2 theaters of operation. What's 1/2 theater? Anyway, we've had to pray that N. Korea doesn't do anything that's even more stupid than what they usually do, and we've had to turn a blind eye at Iran because we're stretched way too thin to deal with them.

Our military is so spread out, that members of Congress are seriously debating the reinstatement of a draft.

Today, the AP reported, "The Army is preparing to notify about 5,600 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve that they will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq or Afghanistan, Army officials said Tuesday."

Bill Clinton, this is your legacy.

May you be buried next to Neville Chamberlain when you leave this earth.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen.

I could have sworn big military cuts were started under the reign of Bush I.

Not that big. G.H.W. Bush was reducing the military from its full Cold War capability. He had no intention of the level of force reduction that Clinton carried out.

well- we had no need. we were in peace before Bush came along with his war mongering.

Bush Sr. started downsizing the military and closing bases left and right and now we got Jr. getting us into war with a short supply of military his father cut us down on

That's an invalid argument on two points.

Force structure can not be expanded whenever a threat arises, like was possible during WWII. Today, weapons systems often take over a decade to develop and deploy. Reducing force structure was highly irresponsible. Future defense needs can never be known. Clinton condemned America to a reduced defense capabilty.

The war mongering argument is also invalid. The Bush administration did not cause 9-11. It came to us. In the aftermath of that terrible day, the Bush administration decided to go after the root causes of Jihadism. That meant remaking the Middle East, and when that became apparent, Iraq proactively attempted to destabilize the region. Iraq got invaded, and the Iraqi people are finally, after three decades, liberated.

We had a need to invade Iraq. Clinton's policies made doing that more difficult.

I have a question for someone who can asnwer it

I asked this under the draft thread but now i have a different question

If you have one child and that child is a boy and he somehow gets drafted can he be drafted but not go into combat and be stationed onto base being the only child and being a male solider?

My father told me that but i just needed clarification on that

I'm pretty sure that only children have to serve in combat as well.

Again, G.H.W. Bush did not cut down the military force structure to a 1 1/2 theater capability. Clinton did. Closing bases was not necessarily reducing force structure.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia did.
We were correct on 50% of our targets against modern Wahabbism.

9-11 isn't some isolated incident. 9-11 fits in well within a region that has birthed quite a few anti-American terrorists.

-Rudey

It doesn't matter if they did, or didn't. What Iraq did, besides being a genocidal regime, was attempt to destabilize the Middle East after 9-11. Our answer to Jihadism (and it wasn't just Wahhabism) was to democratize the region. This was, and is, our best long term defense. That was less likely to happen with the Baathists in power, and much more likely to happen with a democratic Iraq.

If nothing else, Iraq deserved to be invaded for being genocidal. No more reason was needed than that, and I'm ashamed that we waited so long to do so.

Because Iraq was so brutal, we had a war were fewer civillians died than would have died at the hands of the Baathists.

Most importantly, Saudi Arabia is now getting surrounded by democracies and democratizing monarchies. This is the real issue, and this is why we really invaded Iraq. The region will be remade, and history will show America to be in the right.

Okay... I'll try Rudey tactics... blah blah blah moron blah blah blah bad school blah blah blah can't read.... oh wait I'm not engaging in discussion...

Alright then please back-up your arguements about Iraq destablizing the region after 9-11... ie. Examples of actions political or otherwise. Yes Iraq was genocidal in the 80's however no-one invaded them then, so why do people keep harping on this... by this logic countries such as Turkey, Cambodia, America, or Spain should also be attack for past genocide...

As for the regime causing more deaths than in the war, I'm sorry but I can't follow your logic.. please back this up. While civilian deaths have been estimated at around 10000 (low around 8900, high just over 11000) that is much higher than the "hundreds" reported killed annually by human rights watch groups (such as Amnesty International) under Saddam's regime. So excuse me if I don't follow the logic of your arguement...

Finally the stability of the region hasn't improved, but instead deteriotated as a result of the invasion... witness the rise in terror attacks through-out the region. Whatever Saddam's faults were, he was a strong-man that viewed religious fanatism or fundalmentalism as a threat to his power. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of hate that may spawn more groups like Al Queda, but in the meantime has become a focal point for terrorists and anti-American/anti-Western hate.

What proof do you have that Iraq ceased to be genocidal in the 80s?

I'll give you some proof to show that you are (again) wrong, and that I am right: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm
They were actively engaged in a genocide against the Marsh Arabs very recently.

Iraq did step up activities to destabilize the region after 9-11. If you want to believe your left wing propaganda that they had a wonderful government, that's your right.

And don't be so myopic as to expect the desired results in a year. That type of expectation is absurd. It will take time, but there would have been no acceptable type of stability with the status quo. I'm sorry to rain on your love-fest with Sadaam.

Are all Canadians this ignorant? Inquiring minds want to know.

You are an idiot because you can't think.
You are a moron because you can't read.

Stop posting it that I say this stuff to you for no reason. You really like to be punished online. Never have one ounce of fact, no statistic, no proof - nothing. All you ever have is your dumb ass experience in the "Canadadian" army where you weren't even an officer. When you're bored and looking for leisure you also bash other fraternities (probably better than yours) at your school including mine.

So when you can think let us know.

-Rudey

No. Not all. My relatives there developed the West Edmonton Mall and the Mall of America. I think only the ones in the army maybe?

-Rudey

Are all Americans this belligerant? Inquiring minds want to know...

Okay I'm sorry I was using the conventional defenition of genocide... what Sadam was doing to the Marsh Arabs should be called "Ethnic Cleansing"... if it was genocide they would try to drive them out, they'd just kill them. Yes it's horrible, but words such as genocide shoudn't be used so liberally by either side for the shock value.

Okay I asked for examples of Iraq's active efforts to destablize the region.. not the Rumsfeld told me so argument... after-all I could just as easily accuse you of falling for "right-wing" propoganda (you know WMD, Al Queda connection, greeted with open arms, out in a year.. stuff like that). But no I don't believe that they had a wonderful government, and know I'm not a "Sadam-lover", but it is important to realize that evil men will fight to stay on top, and while that's shitty for "good" or innocent people, it also means that other "evil" people are viewed as a threat too.

No I didn't expect results in a year, but the level of terrorism has risen... to I believe record levels? If religious fanaticism can be viewed as the root cause for much of this terrorism, then removing a significant opponent of it (whatever his motivations) will undoubtedly lead to a rise in this fanaticism as power vacuums are filled. It is a very real risk that the Iraq war could spawn more terror groups or new strongmen in the region (if not Iraq). If you look beyond the polls on whether or not the Iraqi's love or hate the US, and look at the percentages of Iraqi's demand security, then you see the threat of them following whomever provides them with this "security". Now we have the newly appointed leader of Iraq, a former CIA operative who engaged in "insurrgent activities" against Sadam saying that he will clamp down and restore security by whatever means are neccesary...

I've posted repeatedly on their attempts to destabilize the region - everything from attacking Israel to invading Kuwait, launching a war against Iran, to killing and massacring a large amount of Kurds and Shiites. There is proof of a connection to Al Quaeda and it seems you don't read. Nobody said they were working with Al Quaeda strongly, but the connection was there. If you have anything other than ignorance you might look my post up with the links to it. WMD? I guess the WMD that the world, the UN, and the US believes they had - well I guess you believe they didn't.

-Rudey

there are people that believe in the WMD but they haven't been found yet...
there are people that believe in Santa but he hasnt been found yet...

edit: I dont think that came out right. :(

They existed before. They were accounted for before. The UN, much of the governments and intelligence agencies around the world, including the US, knew of their existence.

Your comparison to Santa, like your comparison of slutty girls to rapists, again is flawed.

-Rudey

"systematic bombardment of villages, widespread arbitrary arrests, torture, “disappearances,” summary executions, and forced displacement"

That's a liberal interpreation of genocide? Granted, it wasn't the Holocaust. Nothing else was, but it was genocide. Why do you think Eli Weisel pleaded with President Bush to invade Iraq in first week of March, 2003? Let me guess, Eli Weisel knows little about genocide, but you do.

The example that Iraq tried to destabilize the region? How about this; after 9-11, Iraq began to flood money into groups like Hamas. They became the #1 funder of such groups. Its really that simple, but maybe you think that the stability of the Middle East is divorced from media portraya ofl the Israeli-Palestenian conflict.

As far as an increase in terrorism, it hasn't happened on American soil, so yeah, we're safer.

And the root cause is deeper than religous fanatacism. That fanataicism has root causes, which are state controlled media that blames everything on the US and Israel (and I mean everything), madrasas that teach hate, and depressed economic conditions caused by corrupt and incompetent governments.

Those are the root causes. The status quo reinforces them, and stregthens them. Attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan won't remove the root causes. Playing nice with Sadaam Hussein won't remove the root causes.

Democracy will diminish, and eventually eliminate the root causes of Jihadism. By removing the most brutal dictatorship in the region, that would have fought regional democratization every step of the way, and replacing it with a democracy, there is now real hope. It just may prove to be a stroke of genius.

Ahem.. please read the original posts, because it mentioned that it was specfically post 9-11 actions by Iraq to destablize the region that was the focus of discussion.... because last time I checked all of the incidents you cite (with the exception of military actions against Kurdish "insurgents") happened somewhat prior to 9-11.

As for Al Queda connections... yes there was a base in northern Iraq affiliated with this group, but Ironically it was protected from Iraqi military action by the no-fly zone enforcement. I also believe that there was evidence one military officer linked with Al Queda... however that is a weak arguement, as members of the US military have also been found to have connections to Al Queda too.

As for WMD I believe that the UN was conducting inspections to determine the destruction or neutralization of WMD, and as they had found no WMD they were looking then for evidence of their destruction... and nor did the whole world didn't believe he still possessed WMD, as that was one reason cited that I know Canada, France, Germany, and Russia for not engaging in the military action (aside from the side-stepping of the UN by the US & UK).

Where is your evidence of the destruction of WMD???

For there to be no WMD it would mean there would have to be a destruction of the WMD because they did exist.

So where is that landfill of weapons???

Let me know when you can...Where is the landfill Cooper????? Where is it?? It's like Santa. You say it exists but it doesn't. All those years that Hussein didn't cooperate with the UN. All the months that the US brought even more pressure on Iraq and still no WMD destruction sites. Even now, no WMD destruction sites.

-Rudey
--So show us where they are...you have military training and yada yada hate other fraternities so where are they old man???

Okay Sadam was funding actions of groups like Hamas, but I thought that was in this practice prior to 9-11.

No I don't think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seperate from the Middle East... in fact I see it as one of the most important problems to be overcome in the region, as the support of the Palestine by the countries in the region is a major stubbling block on the road to peace.

Yes American soil hasn't been attacked, but "Westerners" are now terrorist targets abroad, when they weren't before...

Oh really? So Daniel Pearl he wasn't a target before Iraq? I see. The bombing of the Cole, the barracks in Lebanon, bombings in Africa...those weren't but a figment of one's imagination.

-Rudey

Prior to 9-11, more money came from the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran than Iraq. After 9-11, the US shut down the funding of these "charities" and Saudi Arabia and Iran cut back. Iraq jacked up their funding of such groups and became the #1 source of funds for Hamas, and other similar groups.

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?