Now that Georgie has lost the Election... - Page 10

Happy Monkey · 11-04-2004, 01:03 PM

Unfortunately, pulling out will result in Iraq being a massive terrorist state. If that is inevitable, then pulling out ASAP is best. If there's a hope of some sort of functioning government, it may be worthwhile holding out for it. I'm not sure whether there's hope at this point.

11-04-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Unfortunately, pulling out will result in Iraq being a massive terrorist state. If that is inevitable, then pulling out ASAP is best. If there's a hope of some sort of functioning government, it may be worthwhile holding out for it. I'm not sure whether there's hope at this point.

I feel that we have completely destabilized the area. The choices are a US propped government in Iraq with continued guerilla unrest or pulling out and leaving things to the various warring factions who will ultimately sort things out amongst themselves. Neither option is pretty.

11-04-2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagney

First off, I don't recall whining. That's more your territory...you seem to have a knack for it. I do what needs to be done, I don't sit around and wish someone else will do it for me.

I have two Bachelor's degree, a Master's degree, and have probably forgotten more about some things than you'll ever hope to learn.

I'm still not sitting there with my hand out waiting for the state to Pay my Rent.

I have a job. It may not pay much, but it pays. I'm not even going to waste my time with this. I was making a civil statement that did not attack you in ANY way, and you start slinging shit.

Try upping your dose of Paxil babe..you need it.

You know what, Dagney? I apologize. I have been terribly upset by the outcome of this election and I lost it. While I don't agree with you politically, this doesn't mean I have to get nasty about it. I'm sorry.

flippant · 11-04-2004, 01:30 PM

The war on terrorism. Terrorism won. Drugs the won war on drugs....guess who won the war on poverty? Maybe we need to dismantle these half-baked problem solving ideas and come up with a solution to help our homeland instead of propagandizing the situation, and ultimately proving terrorism works.

garnet · 11-04-2004, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

I went looking at the Selective Service website. I did so to confirm some information that I thought I recalled. 18 year olds began having to register with the selective service in 1980, based on a law initiated in July of that year. Who was responsible? Jimmy Carter.

Oh my god, that's hilarious! We've sunken to blaming Jimmy-friggin-Carter for things now? I was pretty young during his presidency, but I do remember that Iran was in our faces pretty bad during those years. Funny, but Mr. Carter didn't decide to start in full-scale, zillion dollar, unwinnable war with Iran. Oh wait, maybe it's because they didn't have any "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Happy Monkey · 11-04-2004, 03:01 PM

Almost everybody supports the theory of a draft in times of dire national emergency, assuming a dramatic enough definition of dire. Almost nobody actually wants to initiate it. Any dickering about who did what in creating the infrastructure for it is irrelevant. The issue is who you think would be more likely to cause the escalation of a national emergency to the scale where a draft is necessary.

Undertoad · 11-04-2004, 03:15 PM

In case of actual national emergency, they will have to turn people away from the recruiting offices. In case of manufactured emergency, it depends how the action is interpreted.

Happy Monkey · 11-04-2004, 03:30 PM

They'll turn some away, and have to draft others. That's always been true.

11-04-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

They'll turn some away, and have to draft others. That's always been true.

Yeah, it was certainly true in the only real "just" war we ever involved in: WWII. Young men certainly rushed to join the military after Pearl Harbour, but we still had to have a draft for all that.

elSicomoro · 11-04-2004, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

Yeah, it was certainly true in the only real "just" war we ever involved in: WWII.

Huh???

11-04-2004, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

Huh???

Huh, what? Are you saying WWII couldn't really be labeled a just war or are you saying other wars we were involved in were just? I was speaking of the modern era, btw. One could also say that the Civil War was a just war, and the war of the American Revolution was, as well. One might also argue that all wars are evil. Or were you disputing my comment on the draft?

elSicomoro · 11-04-2004, 08:08 PM

Why do you argue only WWII?

11-04-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

Why do you argue only WWII?

Gotcha, well I hope I clarified with that amendment about the modern era. Should have put that in my original reply.

richlevy · 11-04-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Good lord people are ugly today.

What's wrong with everyone? Why must you yell like this? My god... c-can't you see you're all tearing this family apart?

Stop yelling! The kids are going to hear us!

My god people, you're almost as bad as.......Congress.

elSicomoro · 11-04-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

Gotcha, well I hope I clarified with that amendment about the modern era.

Nope...you didn't answer my question.

11-04-2004, 01:03 PM	#136
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Unfortunately, pulling out will result in Iraq being a massive terrorist state. If that is inevitable, then pulling out ASAP is best. If there's a hope of some sort of functioning government, it may be worthwhile holding out for it. I'm not sure whether there's hope at this point. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-04-2004, 03:01 PM	#141
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Almost everybody supports the theory of a draft in times of dire national emergency, assuming a dramatic enough definition of dire. Almost nobody actually wants to initiate it. Any dickering about who did what in creating the infrastructure for it is irrelevant. The issue is who you think would be more likely to cause the escalation of a national emergency to the scale where a draft is necessary. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-04-2004, 03:30 PM	#143
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	They'll turn some away, and have to draft others. That's always been true. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-04-2004, 01:30 PM	#139
flippant shameless....so stop trying so hard....-me Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Colorado location* Posts: 215	The war on terrorism. Terrorism won. Drugs the won war on drugs....guess who won the war on poverty? Maybe we need to dismantle these half-baked problem solving ideas and come up with a solution to help our homeland instead of propagandizing the situation, and ultimately proving terrorism works.

11-04-2004, 03:15 PM	#142
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	In case of actual national emergency, they will have to turn people away from the recruiting offices. In case of manufactured emergency, it depends how the action is interpreted.

11-04-2004, 08:08 PM	#147
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Why do you argue only WWII?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)