the rhetoric is
ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?
the rhetoric is
ratching up - Iran and North Korea in the gunsights. Is the draft coming soon to you?
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
No. Our all-volunteer armed
forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about
whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of
my country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what
you can do for your country."
Iran is not in gunsights in terms of an invasion and regime change. There
are powers within Iran that are slowly turning the wheels against the Islamic fundamentalists. Any attack on Iran
will be tactical air strikes on facilities to keep them in check.
North Korea is bluffing once again.
Any country that wishes to announce to the world that it has nukes will detonate one during a test to leave no
doubt. They blackmailed Bill Clinton with tough words, but they don't intimidate the current administration.
Besides, there were declassified documents from the Clinton days that revealed we would have nuked North Korea had
they attacked its neighbors. The declassification was done purposefully -- to remind North Korea not to try
anything stupid.
If we were to use
tactical nuclear strikes to take out Iran's nuclear sites we would be facing their entire Army, real quick-like,
heading into Iraq. It would be a bloodbath for both sides. They would lose but, oh my, what a cost.
Those
pesky North Korean bluffs, hmmm, wonder why we are re-positioning to much further south of the DMZ, any
ideas?
$100 says there will be a draft by the end of 2005, if not much sooner as I suspect. March tends to
be a cold nasty month. Watcha wanna do?
I take it you are a big Bush supporter, there's nothing wrong with
that, if you join up soon that is.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
It would be a tactical air strike on Iranian facilities usingOriginally Posted by koolking1
standard munitions, not nukes. There's already unmanned aerial surveillance over Iran to search for targets and
collect air samples to detect "nukular" activity. Would Iran step it up a notch and invade another predominantly
Muslim nation to retaliate? End up killing a lot of Muslims as collateral, and still be able to claim to the Muslim
world that it was acting to defend itself? Interesting question with lots of diplomatic consequences for Iran.
Also, while they're busy sending their army across the border to fight Americans, would they be toppled by
opposition forces from within?
The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of
range of first strike mortar fire. But any invasion of the South by the North will result in a huge mushroom cloud
over Pyongyang within 48 hours. It would be over before we even need a draft. Their "bluff" is that they claim to
have nukes. Their poker face isn't very good.
I am a Bush supporter in that the alternative doesn't
represent a position that is acceptable to me. But I'm certainly no Greenpeace-looking yuppy liberal either if you
were curious.
I am quoting your $100 bet because I will take you up on that. Seriously. I have a Paypal
account you can send money to by the end of the year.
Should you win I
will send to your paypal account (I have one myself) $100 on Jan 1st 2006. Should I win you will pay me right away?
I mention this just so we are firm on the rules of this bet.
I am not a pacifist by any stretch of the
imagination. I would like to see the authoritarian rulers in Iran toppled. I do not think that the internal
resistance there is of much consequence. I would like to see the North Korean peasants freed as well.
Let
me get this straight, you are saying we won't nuke the Iranians but we will nuke the North Koreans? Could you
elaborate on why that is so? Is there some fine line in place that differentiates the two. Yes, I know you said we
would not use nukes to destroy their nuclear facilities but what about the next day when the entire Iranian Armed
Forces head towards and into Iraq? Actually, this would be just one more good enough reason to get our troops out
of Iraq within the next 30-60 days.
If we do attack Iran, my own feeling is that whatever internal
resistance existing there will change their views dramatically once we attack and rally to the "national cause" to
repel the so-called "Great Satan". One only has to look to Iraq where the vast majority there want us out and out
soon. The Shia majority won the so-called free election there. Don't you think they will be turning to Iran now?
How do you think the Shia are going to react when we tell them that Allawi is going to remain in charge anyways?
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Koolking, we're on. $100 via
Paypal on Jan 1st, 2006. I'm going to make sure this account is linked to my current email so that I can be
reached in case I owe you money.
A plan to nuke North Korea was in the works during the Clinton days -- it
was declassified last year to remind them what awaits if they step beyond their borders. The use of nukes is NOT a
first strike option. It would only be used to defend North Korea's neighbors. This is the only way we could ever
justify using nukes. I'm not sure if Iran would step it up in retaliation to a single attack on their facilities
and throw a crutch into the recovery of another mostly Muslim nation in Iraq. I'll reiterate that Iran has to
contemplate the killing of a lot of Muslim civilians in the process of invading Iraq to kill Americans just because
they lost a building. You think the Iraqi civilians will welcome Iranians waltzing throught their neighborhoods
after all they've endured already in the past two years? Besides, there is a lot of open desert the Iranian
soldiers have to travel after they cross in to Iraq. Open desert = field day for American air power. All we'd
need to do is drop a MOAB on a few thousand of their soldiers hiking out in the open and they'll be scurrying in
the opposite direction.
I am worried about the Shia rule in Iraq, but apparently they've assured
everyone they're not like the Iranians seeing as how Iraq is more ethnically diverse and a theocracy would cause
more problems than it's worth. The new Iraqi government will not have a "Supreme Leader," although there will be
an important role for Islamic customs just as Christian customs have played a major part in domestic laws of the
United States. They'll have some type of a parliament that's analagous to the U.S. congress, which does present
at least some semblance of power balance unlike Iran. Let's not jump to conclusions about how it'll turn out,
good or bad.
Fascinating, unquestioning nationalistic belief; worthy of further contemplation.Originally Posted by Biohazard
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I'm curious why it's so dumb,
other than your opinion? Isn't it a numbers situation? The pros in the military are very good at what they do but
can they handle all the potential fronts? If not, where will the manpower come from? Technology helps a lot but
somebody has to be there to run the equipment too, don't they?
Personally, I don't claim to know either way
but am willing to learn. If you can explain I would appreciate it.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Well, time will tell.
I do appreciate your thoughtful analysis and am glad to see the meaningful and rancor-less dialogue. You may have
guessed that I personnaly do want a return to the draft as well as thinking it may happen. I write to my
Congressman about this from time to time and also keep up with Rep. Rangel's (and others) ideas about this issue.
I really did get the feeling from watching Bush's Inaugural speech that he has something in mind for our younger
folks. At any rate, I am good for the money in this wager.
Adams, you can call me dumb all you want -
coming from you I take it as a compliment. So, thanks!!!!
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
George Bush has said he is not
planning a draft, and that we're not going to attack Iran, N. Korea, Syria or any other countries, other than our
own. I for one absolutely believe him.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
The guy is a Texan, a Skull and
Boner, and was raised by an Illuminate;why would he not tell us anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth; so help him God.
What does being a Texan have to
do with it? The others I can figure out but the negative comment about (us) Texans is rather offensive.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Agreed. Texas is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the US. Why people are soOriginally Posted by belgareth
caught up in this gung-ho, country cowboy stereotype is beyond me.
Moving to Texas was quite a cultural shock for me after living inOriginally Posted by Sigma
ultra-liberal, open-minded California for so many years. For all the high minded idealistic noises they made in
California I see less bigotry, both overt and covert, and far greater diversity here than I ever saw in California.
The majority here just don't care what color you are, they have a much greater live and let live attitude. In my
own opinion it is a result of not having equality shoved down their throats. There's no resentment built up here
over it. People in California seemed to be so busy proving they didn't care that they never had time to actually
made the time to get to know those other kinds of people.
Last edited by belgareth; 09-24-2005 at 02:02 PM.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
"No. Our all-volunteer
armed forces are that way for a good reason. I am of draftable age, and I am not afraid of a draft. It's not about
whether a war is "justified" or not, because all that is completely subjective. It's about service on behalf of my
country. If am called upon, I will step up. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can
do for your country."
You were called upon. President Bush and others have spoken often about the need for
our young people to step up and defend their country. Are you now in the military?
I could have taken you to
task to explain what I find is a lack of accurate historical information but will just ask that you explain this
statement (for the moment, I may have more questions later).
here's what I want to you to explain please:
"The repositioning of forces further south of the DMZ is to get them out of range of first strike mortar
fire."
Now, you may be wondering, why ask that. Well, it's because it's a very definitive statement on
your part and I'd like to get some background on it, I really am curious.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
No, I am not in the military as I mentioned in my first post here. Although I haveOriginally Posted by koolking1
considered the route my brother has taken when I am done with my current work. He is applying his engineering
skills to the design of weapons systems for the Air Force. With my particular skills, I'd guess I'd be working in
biological/chemical research as an officer. Right now I think I'm doing good by working in the civilian medical
research sector.
My feelings have not changed. If situations were grave enough whereby a draft is
indeed needed -- which is not at the current momemt, although you disagree -- and I am selected, I would not resist.
North Korea has not been bashful about "re-uniting" the Korean people under communist rule.Originally Posted by koolking1
Any action in the Korean peninsula would be initiated by a first strike by the North Koreans, which appeared more
likely 7 months ago but not now. Having American ground personel survive the first encounter would be important in
coordinating a counter-offensive. If a war did break out in Korea, it think it would still not require a draft. I
think nukes would be dropped on NK and it would be over before it really even gets started.
I'd be happy to
answer any more questions. This is an interesting discussion.
Last edited by Biohazard; 09-25-2005 at 12:32 PM.
Come on now, Tex, you must know
that present company is excepted. Besides it was either that or the fact that he was a Republican and I figured
that anyTexan would be big enough to take a good natured jibe and I know a Republican wouldn't.
I'm actually a transplanted
Texan but feel that it beats the devil out of anywhere else I've lived.
I don't know about the republicans not
taking a jab well either. After living in many parts of the country and knowing a lot of democratss, green
party'ers, republicans and so on I have to conclude that they are all about the same in their ability to laugh at
themselves or take being laughed at. If I had to pick a stiff necked group it certanly wouldn't be the republicans
or any other purely political group, for that matter. I've offended my fair share of liberals over the years. A few
times I've even managed to offend both parties simultaneously. It made me grin for weeks afterwards just thinking
about it.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I'll bet anyone here that there
may or may not be a draft.
Who's on?
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
of course, I am!!! I need
to find some sucker to bet me $100 that there will be a draft.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
..........Originally Posted by Holmes
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Having been inOriginally Posted by koolking1
the military within the last administration, I wouldn't be too surprised if it does happen.
People that say
that a draft will absolutley not happen, are deluding themselves. When I was in for Basic at Ft.Knox they were
gearing up to take on 3 more training companies. In fact I helped clean out the Cold WAr era barracks to make way
for new bunks, wall lockers, and training equipment. The Army doesn't do this unless they are going to be training
privates in those buildings. Thomas White came and inspected those buildings that I cleaned out, and shook my hand
and congratulated me and my platoon on how good of a job we did in preparing those training barracks.
I was
told by Col. Ballantyne that there were 'contingency' plans to instate an overnight draft and get 100 thousand new
footsloggers on the field within three months should Iran or N.K. get uppity and do something stupid.
There
were also unconfirmed rumors that Thomas White proposed a bill that would force all graduating teenagers to a
mandatory two-years of military service. At the same time I was told by my Sergeant Major that the President would
be instituting a "stop-loss" order when we we invaded Iraq. All of which In learned when we were still bombing
civilians and Taliban in Afghanistan.
So far, the invasion of Iraq, and the 'stop-loss' order have happened.
So I wouldn't be too damn surprised to find out that 18-30yo's get the Selective Service call-up in the near
future. Hell I wouldn't be surprised to find myself sitting in sunny Fallujah in the next few months.
And as
an aside...
I find that draft dodgers and would-be draft dodgers are hypocrits. They enjoy all the priviledges
of what the soldier class has provided to them, yet refuse to serve so their cushy way of life can continue.
For every draft dodging tree-hugging dope-addled hippy, there was a man that sacrificed his life to ensure that
punk could smoke his dope, spout his stupidity, and zone out on his boob-tube.
That's not to say I haven't
smoked pot, hugged a tree, spouted stupidity, or zoned out to a boob-tube. But I'm willing to lay down my life so
this severly screwed-up country can exist for others to straighten out, and then promptly screw up all over again.
Freedom and liberty come at a cost, sometimes a terrible one. There is no 'just' war, there is only war. War
is about survival of your ideology, your way of life, your community, and ultimately your DNA. There will always be
a battlefeild. Those that refuse to participate in the survival of the very way of life that allowed them that
freedom of thought and voice are, in my opinion, some very sad, scared, and unhealthy human animals.
my source of information
that leads me to believe a draft will be coming is within the military. The only other explanation I can divine for
this rumor would be wishful thinking or a morale-booster rumor circulating amongst Reserve and Guard troops who need
a break.
Scott Ritter is claiming a Jun 2005 attack on Iran has been bought off on by Pres Bush (Ritter has
been right in the past and has a lot of credibility). Jun 2005 also coincides with Iran's planned Coup d Etat of
the oil industry and choice of world currency (Euro instead of Dollar).
Iran is not going to sit still
while we destroy their nuclear facilities - ground troops (and lots of them) will likely be needed. "the Iraq
dilemna may be looked at in the future as a minor happening in the overall greater war".
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Army Having
Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Fewer Enlistees Are in Pipeline; Many Being Rushed Into Service
By
Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A01
The active-duty Army
is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those
that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with
senior officers .
For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4
percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half
of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.
Meanwhile, the Army is rushing
incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average
number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty
recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary
incentives.
Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed
to rotate into Iraq and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young
American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq
conflict.
"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin
L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing
settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our
goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."
Other senior military
officers have voiced similar concerns in recent days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging
for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in
January for the first time in nearly a decade.
Because the Army is the main U.S. military ground force, its
ability to draw recruits is critical to the nation's preparedness to fight current and future wars. The Army can
sustain its ranks through retaining more experienced soldiers -- and indeed retention in 2004 was 107 percent -- but
if too few young recruits sign up, the force will begin to age. Moreover, higher retention in the active-duty Army
translates into a dwindling stream of recruits for the already troubled Army Guard and Reserve.
Army
officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for
fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.
Still, the recruiting difficulties reflect
unprecedented demands on today's soldiers that are unlikely to let up soon. Never before has the all-volunteer Army
deployed to war zones in such large numbers for multiple, yearlong tours. It is doing so with a total force cut by
300,000 troops -- from 28 active-duty and reserve divisions to 18 -- since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The
Army is now working to add 30,000 soldiers by 2009, expanding the active-duty force from 482,000 to 512,000, as it
builds 10 to 15 new combat brigades to add to divisions for overseas tours. But cultivating so many fresh recruits
without lowering standards is a serious challenge, senior Army leaders say. "If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can
do that pretty quick, but now grow 30,000 of them back," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, told a House
Armed Services committee hearing Feb. 9. "It takes time, as you know, to grow the quality soldier."
Time,
however, is what the Army lacks.
Beyond replacing normal turnover each year, officials say the Army must
accelerate recruitment to meet an aggressive timeline for filling out the new brigades of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers
each, as well as to expand and reorganize the 33 existing brigades.
Newly trained troops are essentially
being rationed out -- a process Army officers call "turning on the faucet" -- a few months before the brigades are
to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. The military plans to keep about 120,000 troops in Iraq through 2006.
"The priority fill goes to deploying units to make sure they are at full strength before they go overseas,"
says Col. Joseph Anderson, who until this month served as chief of staff of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort
Campbell, Ky.
Such demands have led the Army to deplete its reservoir of enlistees in the Delayed Entry
Program (DEP). The DEP consists of people who have signed enlistment contracts but opt to delay their entry to
training camps for up to a year. DEP numbers fell from 33,249 at the beginning of fiscal 2004 to 14,739 at the start
of this fiscal year, according to U.S. Army Recruiting Command statistics.
As a result, while the Army began
last year with 45.9 percent of its recruiting goal filled by the pool, this year it started with just 18.4 percent
in the pool -- the lowest amount since 2001 and well below the 30 percent average for the past decade. That means
the Army must redouble its efforts to meet this year's target.
"Would we like a deeper DEP, a greater
number? Of course we would," Hagenbeck said. But despite his anticipation of an even tougher recruiting environment
in 2006 -- resulting from an improving economy and public uncertainty over the Iraq war -- he said the overriding
need to hasten recruits to units means there are no plans to replenish the DEP this year.
Meanwhile, netting
each new recruit is proving more difficult and time-consuming, Hagenbeck said, requiring the Army to put hundreds
more active-duty recruiters on the job.
"The youngsters that are joining us are spending more time with the
recruiters before they raise their right hand," he said. Today, most prospective enlistees contact the Army via the
Internet, he said, asking numerous questions that require more recruiters to answer online and follow up with phone
calls.
But few candidates will join up before meeting a recruiter in person and spending significant amounts
of time with one, he said. "They ultimately want to see a soldier, a recruiter, and talk to them eyeball to
eyeball," he said. As a result, "the recruiter who could go out and recruit two people this week might be consumed
with recruiting that one."
The average cost of signing up a recruit is also beginning to rise, from $15,265
in fiscal 2001 to $15,967 in fiscal 2004 -- the result of more recruiters, advertising, and increased enlistment
bonuses. In January, the Army announced a new six-month advertising contract with Leo Burnett USA worth an estimated
$100 million. The Army is offering bonuses of as much as $20,000 to enlist on active duty for four years, with
special monetary incentives for candidates who have college degrees, sign up for high-priority jobs or agree to move
quickly into training.
The Army is also paying more to retain active-duty soldiers, 50 percent of whom now
receive reenlistment bonuses, compared with 39 percent in 2003, Army officials said.
"We may not get exactly
the number of people we want, but we're not sacrificing quality," Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a House
committee Feb. 9.
The Army is offering higher ranks to enlistees who have spent time in college or junior
ROTC, and as a result is bringing in more recruits at ranks above private, or E-1.
Such policies could
partly explain a shift in the Army's junior enlisted ranks that has perplexed military analysts. The number of
privates (E-1 through E-3) in the active-duty Army has sharply declined from 126,100 in October 2001 to 107,500 in
December 2004. Meanwhile, the number of corporals and specialists (E-4) has risen from 95,400 to 115,500.
Another explanation is that the active-duty Army is maintaining its force strength more through retention
than recruitment, resulting in a subtle aging of the force -- a trend already evident in the Army Reserve, officials
said.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
For the Few
and the Proud, Concern Over the 'Few' Part
By Eric Schmitt /
New York Times
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - The Iraq war's dampening effect on recruiting has led to a plan by the Marine Corps to put
hundreds of additional recruiters on the streets over the next several months and offer new re-enlistment bonuses of
up to $35,000, military officials said Thursday.
Recruiters and other military officials say the "Falluja
effect" - a steady drumbeat of military casualties from Iraq, punctuated by graphic televised images of urban combat
- is searing an image into the public eye that Marine officers say is difficult to overcome.
The Marines make
up about 21 percent of the 150,000 military personnel in Iraq now but have suffered 31 percent of the military
deaths there, according to Pentagon statistics.
The Army and other services have often increased the number of
recruiters and dangled incentives to bolster their enlistment efforts in lean years. But for the Marines, steps of
this magnitude, including the largest one-time increase in recruiters in recent memory, are unheard of in a service
whose macho image has historically been a magnet for young people seeking adventure and danger in a military career.
Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, predicted on Thursday that the Marines would achieve their
overall recruiting goal for this fiscal year, even after the service missed its monthly quota in January, the first
such lapse in nearly a decade. But General Hagee indicated that recruiters were facing some of toughest conditions
they have ever faced, starting in the homes of their prized recruits.
"What the recruiters are telling us is
that they have to spend more time with the parents," General Hagee said. "Parents have influence, and rightly so, on
the decision these young men and young women are going to make. They're saying, 'It's not maybe a bad idea to
join the Marine Corps, but why don't you consider it a year from now, or two years from now; let's think about
this.' "
At issue is the Marines' decision to rebuild its recruiting ranks, which had fallen recently to
2,410 full-time recruiters from 2,650 before the Iraq war, as commanders siphoned off marines who had been scheduled
for recruiting duty to perform combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The recruiting force atrophied," said Maj.
David M. Griesmer, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. "Now we need to get back up to where we need
to be." Major Griesmer said the Marines would add nearly 250 recruiters between now and October 2006.
General
Hagee said, "We are putting more recruiters out there on the street."
In a reflection of the difficult market
for Marine recruiters, the service offers bonuses of up to $35,000 to retain combat veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
What is unusual about these incentives is that the Marines Corps for the first time is offering
re-enlistment bonuses, averaging $20,000, to its most junior infantrymen, rather than relying mainly on
inexperienced troops fresh from boot camp to replenish the infantry. About 75 percent of enlisted marines leave the
service after their first tour, requiring a steady stream of recruits moving through training centers in San Diego
and Parris Island, S.C.
"We need infantrymen," General Hagee said, explaining the shift in bonus priorities.
"That's what we're using over there on the ground."
General Hagee said the initial wave of bonuses had
increased re-enlistment rates among infantry units, but Marine officials said they did not have specific figures
readily available.
The Marines' decision to strengthen recruiting comes as the Army has added hundreds of new
recruiters and is pushing incoming recruits into training as fast as possible.
In a wide-ranging breakfast
interview with reporters, General Hagee touched on several issues regarding Iraq that military specialists say
contribute to the climate of concern among potential recruits and their parents.
General Hagee said the
military had an all-out effort under way to combat the remotely detonated roadside bombs that are the No. 1 killer
of American troops in Iraq. The Marines, he said, are using a sophisticated computer program to help identify
potential vulnerabilities of supply convoys protected by electronic jamming devices.
When it comes to
recruiting, the traditional enticements of military service, like travel, education benefits and the Marine Corps
mystique, now must vie with the concerns of recruits and their parents, recruiters say.
"The parents have always
been the challenge," said Gunnery Sgt. Larry Pyles, who has been a recruiter for five years in the DuPage South
office in Naperville, Ill.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
If Bush can drum up support in the GOP power base for attacking Iran, Syria
and/or N. Korea as he wants to; and we cannot withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (Why does no one mention
Afghanistan any more?); there will be a draft. This is not rocket science. It is the fundamental project of
neocons.
I'm fairly certain the Bush administration is timing the inevitable escalation of their aggressive
rhetoric and stance toward Iran and Syria, to allow for more human resources to be freed up from current
engagements, if possible. They also have to time it to account for pushing through and implementing a draft. I do
know contingency plans are already well in place for an emergency draft. This raises the possiblity of allowing
another terrorist attack to happen at home (remember the 52 warnings, "My Pet Goat", Richard Clarke, the PNAC wish
for another Pearl Harbor; and failure to scramble planes despite plenty of awareness and time?), to ensure the
necessary support and human resources will be available.
If redirecting human resources from Iraq and
Afghanistan is impossible; and yet they are still able to control mainstream media and the press as they have, they
will probably be able to tell enough lies and evoke enough terror at home to convince people to go along with
expanding the "war against terrorism." (Anybody heard from Bin Laden lately? I heard he's a "three handicap" now!).
A draft would be forthcoming.
Otherwise, no one knows; and I doubt the decision has been made.
Implementing
a draft would have political costs for Republicans, since that brings war home to citizens regardless of political
bent (There is a political bias toward the right in soldier families which would be nullified if families weren't
volunteers). If there is a draft, the level of protest will be comparable to the 1960's. Some will arm themselves
in rebellion, just like then (then Patty Hearst will have something to do again).
It takes balls to bet on this
either way. I don't know if this whole process can play itself out in a year.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 02-25-2005 at 12:30 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I want the
draft back. I knew back in the 80s that the military was slipping into something I wanted no part of and it's
because we don't have many people there anymore with a sense of morality.
from
EASTBAYEXPRESS.com
"News
War Pornography
Gore-for-porn swap by US soldiers in Iraq makes Abu Ghraib
look like kid stuff.
By Chris Thompson
Published: Wednesday, September 21,
2005
NowThatsFuckedUp.com
Who / What:
NowThatsFuckedUp.com
The War
Pornographers
Printer friendly version of this story
Email Chris Thompson
More stories by
Chris Thompson
Send a letter to the editor
Send this story to a friend
Feature
Fishin' for Evildoers
All aboard the August Vollmer, Alameda County's terror-fightin'
gunboat.
Bottom Feeder
Condé Nasty
Construction-happy Wired magnates feud with NIMBY neighborhood --
again. Oops! Dellums might just run after all, but rival Nacho wants that church vote.
City of Warts
A
Nation's Forgotten Suffering
Haiti sets the standard for misery, and yet, save one Oakland journalist, US media
don't consider its pain and mayhem terribly newsworthy.
Cityside
When Silence Equals Death
Hybrid
vehicles are good for the planet, but bad news for the visually impaired. What's a well-meaning lefty to
do?
Letters
Letters for the week of September 21-27, 2005
Git yer frankin' facts straight! We don't
even have a water cooler. And whatever does Chris Thompson expect he's going to accomplish?
If you
want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American
soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly
mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for letting him
post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures
of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography.
At Wilson's Web site, you can see an Arab man's
face sliced off and placed in a bowl filled with blood. Another man's head, his face crusted with dried blood and
powder burns, lies on a bed of gravel. A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint
lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck
blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as US Marines, laugh and smile for the camera
while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet.
The captions that accompany these
images, which were apparently written by the soldiers who posted them, laugh and gloat over the bodies. The soldier
who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, "What every Iraqi should look
like." The photograph of a corpse whose jaw has apparently rotted away, leaving a gaping set of upper teeth, bears
the caption: "bad day for this dude." One soldier posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled
his collection, "die haji die." The soldiers take pride, even joy, in displaying the dead.
This is a moral
catastrophe. The Bush administration claims such sympathy for American war dead that officials have banned the media
from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media
officials have repeatedly denounced the al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casualties and
American prisoners of war. The legal fight over whether to release the remaining photographs of atrocities at Abu
Ghraib has dragged on for months, with no less a figure than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers
arguing that the release of such images will inflame the Muslim world and drive untold numbers to join al-Qaeda. But
none of these can compare to the prospect of American troops casually bartering pictures of suffering and death for
porn.
"Two years ago, if somebody had said our soldiers would do these things to detainees and take pictures
of it, I would have said that's a lie," sighed the recently retired General Michael Marchand – who as Assistant
Judge Advocate General for the Army was responsible for reforming military training policy to make sure nothing like
Abu Ghraib ever happens again. "What soldiers do, I'm not sure I can guess anymore."
But for Chris Wilson,
it's all in a day's work. "It's an unedited look at the war from their point of view," he says of the soldiers
who contribute the images. "There's always going to be a slant from the news media. ... And this is a photo that
comes straight from their camera to the site. To me, it's just a more real look at what's going on."
Wilson, a 27-year-old Web entrepreneur living in Florida, created the Web site a year ago, asked fans to
contribute pictures of their wives and girlfriends, and posted footage and photographs bearing titles such as "wife
working cock" and "ass fucking my wife on the stairs." The site was a big hit with soldiers stationed overseas;
about a third of his customers, or more than fifty thousand people, work in the military. Wilson says he started
getting e-mail from soldiers thanking him for keeping up their morale and "bringing a little piece of the States to
them." But other soldiers complained that they had problems buying memberships to his service. "They wanted to join
the site, the amateur wife and girlfriend site," he says. "But they couldn't, because the addresses associated with
their credit cards were Quackistan or something, they were in such a high-risk country, that the credit card
companies wouldn't approve the purchase."
That's when Wilson hit upon the idea of offering free
memberships to soldiers. All they had to do was send a picture of life in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they'd get all
the free porn they wanted. All sorts of images began appearing over the transom, but he dedicated a special site to
view the most "gory" pictures. Asked what he feels upon viewing a new crop, Wilson says: "Personally, I don't look
at it one way or another. It's newsworthy, and people can form their own opinions."
Wilson's Web site has
made the news before – but not for posting pictures of murdered human beings. Last October, the New York Post
reported that the Pentagon was investigating Wilson for posting naked pictures of female soldiers in Iraq. After a
few months, the Post reported that the Pentagon had blocked soldiers in Iraq from accessing the Web site, which had
posted five more pictures of nude female soldiers, some of whom had posed with machine guns and grenades. After the
Post's stories, Wilson says, he was bombarded with requests for interviews from newspapers and radio stations. Even
after he started posting photographs of corpses late last year, media inquiries focused exclusively on his nudie
pics. It wasn't until reporters from the European press contacted him last week that anyone took notice of
Wilson's snuff-for-porn arrangement with American troops.
"The soldiers thing, I think the Italians picked
it up first," Wilson says. "I've done interviews with the Italians, the French, Amsterdam. ... They were very
critical, saying the US wouldn't pick it up, because it's such a sore spot. ... It raises too many ethical
questions. ... I started to laugh, because it's true."
According to Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris
Conway, Pentagon policy may be ambivalent when it comes to soldiers posting pictures of mutilated war victims.
"There are policies in place that, on the one hand, safeguard sensitive and classified information, and on the other
hand protects the First Amendment rights of servicemembers," he says, adding that field commanders may issue
additional directives. "In plain English, if you're on the job working for the Department of Defense, you
shouldn't be freelancing. You should be doing your duty."
If American soldiers are always considered
representatives of their government while in the field, international law clearly prohibits publishing and
ridiculing images of war dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who
have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be
respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva
Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if
possible according to the rites off the religion to which they belonged."
Nothing about this appalling trade
could begin to be called "honorable." This latest scandal doesn't just demean the bodies of the dead – it demeans
us all, in ways we won't begin to understand for years. One of the pictures on Wilson's site depicts a woman whose
right leg has been torn off by a land mine, and a medical worker is holding the mangled stump up to the camera. The
woman's vagina is visible under the hem of her skirt. The caption for this picture reads: "Nice puss – bad
foot."
We have decided to make available six of the photos originally posted on NowThatsFuckedUp.com, along
with the soldiers' original subject headings. This decision to repost them was not made lightly, but we concluded
that the graphic nature of the photos, juxtaposed with their flippant treatment by members of the US military, is
newsworthy as a statement on US military culture. WARNING: These are brutally graphic war images that many readers
will find disturbing. They should NOT be viewed by children or the faint of heart. With that disclaimer, you will
find them here. Click on the small photos to view the larger photos with captions. "
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Nice to seeOriginally Posted by koolking1
you're still around Koolking and haven't forgot about our bet. "Slipping?" Look at any army and you'll find
immature members not acting honorably. Americans have done bad things to enemy bodies in every war going all the
way back to pre-independence days. Ever hear of scalping Native Indians in the 1700s? Removal of gold teeth from
the Japanese in WWII? The worst was probably in Vietnam, and a large part of it was low morale among the servicemen
due to being drafted. Therefore, I cannot see why you would want a draft.
You're a doomsday monger. And
you have delusions of how the world really works. Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months.
I'm also confused about how
the world really works. I can't even figure out why all those people are dying over in Iraq, why Iraqis are our
enemies; or whether our all-volunteer military has a high morale.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
laughing here, in addition
to this bet I also occasionally bet college football, notably Florida State. When I win I graciously accept the
money from whomever I've made the bet while making a comment such as "hey, it could have easily gone the other way"
or when I lose, I hand over the cash and whoever gets it says something like, "hey, thanks, it could have easily
gone the other way". We keep it gentlemanly.
"You're a doomsday monger".
Hardly. My belief is
that if we all try hard we can make this world a better place. Your belief seems to be that since war crimes have
been committed in the past that we should expect and, most sadly mirroring your personality, accept their happening
again and again.
"And you have delusions of how the world really works."
You'll have to explain
how that is? Expatiate please.
"Get ready to send me $100 in about 3 months."
I don't think so.
It's put up or shut up now that you've pissed me off. Will one of the forum members please volunteer to accept my
$100 and Biohazards $100 to later disburse to the winner within a week of Jan 1st, 2006? If someone is nice enough
to do this, I'll add an extra $25 so they can have a nice meal on me. Thanks in advance. Biohazard, you might be
so generous yourself although it's certainly not required.
"Nice to see you're still around Koolking and
haven't forgot about our bet."
I don't like your implication. Most people on this board know that I have
been and will likely continue to be "around". I also know that my chances of winning are dwindling as the months
quickly go by and actually getting the money out now works to my benefit and yours as I'm leaving on Jan 8th for a
4 month trek around the world (sure hope my being delusional doesn't impact my trip!!!).
Good Luck to you.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks