So does Jordan. Where are the Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up buses in Amman? It's not about the land, it's about hating the Jews.

 

Odd question, but maybe relavent: Who's defending us at home? The NG's and Reserves are in Iraq along with active forces.

 

Well, let's see. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, FBI, your state and local police, etc. Just like always. The U.S. military has been more of a deterrent sort of defense, kind of like nukes. "Don't attack us or we'll come make you wish you hadn't." It's not like they were ever lined up on our borders in foxholes waiting for the enemy. And many of us are defending ourselves.

 

Wannadiesel: If it's just like "always" we're screwed. INS/BP, TSA, USCG and FBI are part and parcel of HS, which hasn't exactly kept the migrating masses from crossing the Tex-Mex border or any other for that matter. 10-4 on defending my home and truck!

 

I am really glad that we attacked Iraq, and have gone to war against "terror". I would rather be ridiculed and have people second guessing that decision, than wait for them to kill innocent American's again. We were just getting the first punch in, before we got blind-sided again.
Anyway, I think this post started talking about reinstating the draft, and people running from it. I don't care whether they reinstate the draft or not. I'm 20 so I think I'd probably be a prime candidate, but if I'm needed I'm ready.

I'd rather die fighting, than live hiding!

God Bless America, and those fighting to defend it.

 

The Coasties have been ramping up on the homeland defense over the last couple years (from what I have seen anyway). It seems like they are getting more varied types of missions and training.

Someone mentioned about the middle class being the main body of the draft selection and having the upper crust heading off to higher education etc ...
I really hadn't thought of this before, but now that I do it totally rubs me the wrong way. Your kid and my kid would be expected to lay down their lives to defend theirhis country but good ol' Senator Umpty-Scrunch's kid has a different path laid out for him that sure wouldn't involve taking care of business. Sure would be a hornets nest if it came to that.

PISTOL

 

I guess I’m going to be in the minority here but here it goes anyway. This is also a little off of the subject of the original post.

I have worked as a firefighter for 11 years now. The attacks of 9/11 were the worst experience that I have ever lived through. I am not very religious but I can’t imagine anyone doing what they did in the name of religion. After 9/11 we went to war in Afghanistan and this was a war that I and almost all of our allies could get behind. There was a set goal (to get rid of the Talaban & find Osama). While this war was going on the President decided to invade Iraq (shortened history version) without the support of the U.N. and most of our other allies. Now I realize that sanctions never worked for Iraq but at the time Saddam posed no real threat to the U.S. Our President basically made the U.N. obsolete. There were NO weapons of mass destruction like was originally said. Which was the so-called main reason for going to war with Iraq in the first place. I am not saying that Saddam was not an evil man. He was. He was horrible to his people and led a reign of terror over his people. But there are many more evil men in the world. Why didn’t we invade North Korea? They actually posed a very real threat to the world with the weapons of mass destruction that we KNOW that they have. North Korea is led by an equally bad dictator. What about the Congo and different countries in Africa with all of the mass murder that takes place there? What about Central America and Columbia? I guess we choose what we want to see and attack those that we will profit from the most. The war in Iraq was not about terrorism. It was about a personal grudge. Did Iraq harbor terrorist? More than likely. But so did Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan along with many other countries. Why have we not invaded them? This is a political war that has nothing to do with terrorism. Afghanistan, that was a war on terror.

Please don’t get me wrong. I completely support our troops in Iraq. It kills me to see our soldiers getting killed everyday for a political agenda. But you have to look at it this way; we have invaded their country uninvited. We are trying to force our way of life on a group of people that the majority of don’t want. You would defend your country just as strongly as they have if someone invaded us. Were they happy under Saddam’s rule? I doubt it. But who’s to say that they will be happy with our way of life?

I guess what I am saying is who stands to profit the most from this war? The Iraqis people or the current administration? I’m sure all of you know who is over Halliburton. Since 9/11 they have received over 2.2 billion in defense related contracts. Kind of a conflict of interest wouldn’t you say?

No I wouldn’t support a draft for this war. Our soldiers are getting killed for nothing and were bringing them home in body bags to their grieving families. When someone says that freedom isn’t free they are exactly right, but this war has nothing to do with freedom. For us are the Iraqis.

I know that I’ll get flamed for this post since most of the previous post have been pretty conservative and this post isn’t.

JMHO off my soapbox now. Flame away.

 

Over here we have a draft system, every male citizen has to serve, (Now only 8 months) that's where the basic training comes from. Then after this you are a soldier in reserve. The military can order you to come back and you will have to come. (With financial compensation for what you lose in your civilian job in the meantime etc). So if our government now decided on declaring war against Switzerland they would be able to make me a soldier again and use me in a war against Switzerland even though I personally don't have any bad thoughts about Switzerland. (At least much less of them than against my current government).
So this troop would go to war with at least 1 third of the soldiers hating to do so, and having no motivation except to survive. I think that my chance of survival with comrades like that is very low, and the chance to reach my objectives even lower.
I think it's good that there is a draft for the basic training over here, teaches young men some discipline etc, and some basic skills to make him more efficient in self defense which is a good thing. But for an actual war I think it's not the kind of army I'd like to see.
That's what I meant with my first commentaries- strictly observations on the pro's and con's of drafting in Austria.

In our society the acts of terrorists are seen as crimes and the anti-terror activity is traditionally one of the duties of the police and other members of the executive body. America's 9/11 would have been considered an organized crime of mass murder, where it's necessary to find the ones behind it. (The criminals doing the crime having died in the crashes themselves, but seeking the structure etc) The military of Austria exists strictly for self defense and is only allowed to leave Austria on UN missions. (Sanctioned by the founding documents of the republic, where the USA have pressed for the paragraphs that say what I quoted now)
That's a cause why the American invasion of Iraq isn't being seen too positively over here since the picture is too much on the military side for us. The stuff that has been shown as "proof" for the crimes of Iraq, the "proof" of the connections to the crimes of terrorism 9/11 is nowhere near what a european citizen would demand from his own government to be shown.
Since the european citizen thinks that the criminal investigation has failed miserably in Iraq,(contrary to the announcements of WMD, anybody remember that as the major cause of going to this war), the alleged connections to the criminals of 9/11 much weaker than what's indicated by some other facts against other countries (who have too much ready oil to sell, and who are allied to the USA that can't do to them what they did to Iraq simply because it's the main source for oil), all this paints the picture of a big nation being hungry for more and more, defending it's interests abroad, and pretending high moralic motives as a reason for it. And quoting self defense. "Seit 5:45 wird zurückgeschossen"- Famous speech in the radio by guess whom- Adolf Hitler at the start of the attack against Poland, the start of WW2.
That's why European citizens have problems believing the USA.

Donning the asbestos undies now

AlpineRAM

 

No flames, just disappointment. My tax dollars went to rebuild Europe including Austria after the war up till the 50's. This was necessary because the citizens of the Germanic nations made such poor choices in leadership. Memory is short. After the death camps in Europe, now Europe intends to define morals for the US. If conquest was the object of the US we could have easily dominated the world instead of dumping our military equipment in the Pacific.

I doubt that the US government gave much thought to what the European citizen thought of its actions, either in Iraq or in other conflicts. If I remember right, Germany would rather help Saddam build nuke installations than help the US get him under control. And France, well France.... Spain bent over at the first demand from them. Tain't over yet, there will come a day when Europe in its infinite wisdom will wish they had joined us in putting down the terrorism.

This thing is growing and will not go away, when does Europe plan on getting it under control? Probably the same plans they had to control Hitler and his Italian counterpart. How many hundred thousand American lives did that one take? Yeah, your welcome, I'm sure. Just my 2 cents as a proud American. You said how that works, we pretend to have moral reasons, but be sure, we have reasons and none of them seem to be popular in Europe.

When has the US had a history of expansionism. Tell me which European nation has not gone out for an Empire in the last couple of hundred years. So much for the higher moral status. Oh yeah, the Swiss have not.

 

You been listening to the Clinton bunch too much. You would do better to look into what you post instead of embarrassing yourself.

 

Well that didn't take very long.

So me some proof to the contrary instead of just a small statement. What part of my post wasn’t true? You’re entitled to your opinion just I am mine. I’m not embarrassed by anything that I have said and it has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. The current administration has taken the world’s sympathy after 9/11 turned most countries against us. Prove to me that statement is wrong. Ever wonder why very few countries supported us in the war with Iraq? Because they knew better. There were NO weapons of mass destruction, which was the guise we went under. Repeat NONE. What other reason are we over there? Is it for freedom? The Iraqis never asked us for our help. I stand by my previous statement, why have we not invaded the other countries that were harboring terrorist? Why just Iraq?

This war is not about freedom, terrorism, or patriotism which I gist that I get from many of the previous post. I spent the first half of my life with the military. I was flying flags on my truck long before 9/11. I am fully behind our military and support them in there operation. They were ordered over there. Our soldiers are getting killed for what? If you can live with it fine but it seems terrible to me.

What happened to the war in Afghanistan? I guess we just gave up on Osama.

I’m not going to get into a flame war with you. You and I obviously have different opinions and I respect that. I look forward to your reply.

 

Hauling:
I think I didn't get the irony intended around too well when I wrote this:
Since the european citizen thinks that the criminal investigation has failed miserably in Iraq,(contrary to the announcements of WMD, anybody remember that as the major cause of going to this war), the alleged connections to the criminals of 9/11 much weaker than what's indicated by some other facts against other countries (who have too much ready oil to sell, and who are allied to the USA that can't do to them what they did to Iraq simply because it's the main source for oil), all this paints the picture of a big nation being hungry for more and more, defending it's interests abroad, and pretending high moralic motives as a reason for it. And quoting self defense. "Seit 5:45 wird zurückgeschossen"- Famous speech in the radio by guess whom- Adolf Hitler at the start of the attack against Poland, the start of WW2.
That's why European citizens have problems believing the USA.

To make it stand out without being misunderstood as easily: That text is a summary of ironically quoted points of view from left or liberal magazines sold in Europe.

A very profound criticism I want to speak out loud is that especially in the German publications by US officials the sound and style is quite close to the publications made by the Germans under Hitler. That's something you can't except to be going down well with us.
I will go on holding my opinion that the war in Iraq is not a war against terrorism like the 9/11 attack was until getting strong indications towards this. I know that Austria has to thank the USA for it's very existance. I know that in WW2 the USA was a key player to free Europe from the *****- and in the time of cold war it was the counterweight against all Europe going to succumb under the red army. My deep and heartfelt thanks for this. But the actions the US government sets today I feel as not anywhere comparable to these times.
I feel that Saddam Hussein was all that what he has been accused of in regards to tyranny, manslaughter etc- but the WMDs and the link to terror is not proven to a point where I am satisfied yet. So the actions of the USA today leave a bad taste of untruth in my mouth.

A very important point to me is that we can keep this discussion civilized even if we have to admit that we keep on disagreeing in the end. I have a great interest in how the US population sees the war in Iraq and the actions taken to fight terrorism. I know that in times of dispute every media is biased, and I think that I can throw my 2c worth into the discussion by showing how the European media sees the actions taken by the US.

AlpineRAM

 

We won a war in 91 and were under a cease-fire agreement. Under that agreement, S.H. violated many of the rules in the agreement, including firing on our patrols. The first Bush administration goofed and didn't finish the job, and that was a big reason he lost the election. The Clinton administration didn't take the cease-fire serious enuff to enforce anything, the opportunity was there for black market,etc. Now the new administration does take it serious. You have high ranking officials informing us of W.M.D. being produced, but S.H. won't let you in to confirm/deny this? What do you do? This gives you more of a sense of urgency. Yes, unfortunately the "high ranking official" were serving their own pockets we found later. Maybe if S.H. let the inspectors do their jobs properly?


There are still plenty of military here. Plus nobody has the technology or resources at this time(even Russia) to invade us without us knowing way ahead of time. I feel we should have sent more forces to Iraq, but I guess we had to stay prepared for N Korea and China, who were getting a little antsy at the time. I think the initial attack would have been alot swifter and more decisive if the 4th infantry was prevented from crossing Turkey. They goofed when they relied on them so heavily. I also think they should be under martial-law for safety with more troops patrolling. I would think a smaller presence, working hard is running the budget up higher than committing more forces, if the budget is the motivation. The injuries and loss of life should be enuff though.

I can understand the older generations in Europe having Hitler tactics on the backs of their mind. I'm more inclined to believe with the corruption Helmut Kohl and his party is accused of, they were more worried about German companies not getting paid for black market services to Iraq, as well as legal services. So sure they will lean more on presenting the cons to the public. As far as France being corrupt? I'll NEVER believe that one..........

 

To Haulin

News Flash:

Your tax dollars went to support Saddam too, they went to support the Shah of Iran, to Ferdinand Marcos, and a whole slew of other miserable bastard dictators.

So the question is: What is your point about tax dollars?

 

I would submit that the UN made itself obsolete by refusing to enforce its resolutions. Why? Perhaps because there were high-ranking UN officials making a boatload of money from the "Oil for Palaces(Food)" program, as well as certain individuals from certain member countnies, along with the money that was being made otherwise by certain countries helping Iraq break the sanctions. As for WMD, well, it makes a great revisionist argument to say that "Everyone said Hussein had no WMD," but it's just flat-out not true. Go ahead, look it up on CNN. The opposition was asking for more time for the inspectors to play cat and mouse with Hussein, not claiming that WMD's didn't exist. Furthermore, the UN's sanctions were not written to say that Hussein would allow weapons inspectors to search for WMD but that he would provide a complete accounting of his acknowledged WMD and prove their destruction. Again, go look it up, the resolutions are available on the UN's website. Those resolutions also say that member states have the right to enforce them. The shell that was recently used as an IED did contain poison gas, meaning that, perhaps like the buried fighter jets, we simply haven't found the stockpiles yet. There have been numerous finds of biological weapon materials as well.

As for Halliburton, well, they're a defense contractor. Who other than defense contractors would get defense contracts? Ben and Jerry's? I'm not sure they could handle the logistics. UPS could, FedEx could, maybe Wal-Mart, but they're not really in the defense marketplace. So no flames, just urging you to research some of this for yourself to find the truth.