The military is after me

You're lucky, the paranoids are after me. And the don't give so easily.

 

I know, I'm so disgusted with how so many uber-patriotic assholes are so upset over how a so-called "American hero" is killed in Iraq, without considering all the poor Iraqis who have been killed as a result of our illegal, wishy-washy, and all around disgusting war. Who's to say one life is graeter than another? Who's to say that thes poor Iraqis are somehow 'lesser' than Americans? Do they not have emotions, families, and friends as many of us do? No one is to judge one life as being more valuable as the next. A life is a life. People should really start to open thier eyes, and start crying over all lives lost in this damned war, not just those of American soilders.

 

well all in all, I think we should have gone to war in the first place, but we shouldnt still have this many people here for this long. It was too big a risk too leave even a possibility of there being nuclear weapons with a phyco, which is kinda a mystery why we havent invaded North Korea yet. But there werent any, and we had to clean up the mess we did. And I think the country is safer without Saddam, but we just stirred up the hornets nest and it has now started to die down. What we should do is get ALMOST all the troops out, and leave high ranking officals in there to train the Iraqi army.. And once they r trained, we should leave them all together.
I do however think it is inevitable that we have a draft again, not for this war, but when WWIII come around (and we all know its inevitable), thats when the draft will come around again. And if and when that came around, i would join the army freely, even w/o a draft. But in the curcumstances we r in now, NO.

 

MSMan wrote:
"It was too big a risk too leave even a possibility of there being nuclear weapons with a phyco, which is kinda a mystery why we havent invaded North Korea yet."

then why don't u invade yourself? george bush is a psycho with nuclear weapons

 

the reason why u havent invaded n korea yet is because THEY have nuclear weapons 2 and your army risks defeat and huge casualties. america only invaded iraq because they knew be4hand that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country (like all the intelligence told them). america will only invade a country it thinks it can easily beat : like vietnam, panama, afghanistan, grenada etc. but of course what they think and what happens are two entirely different things.

 

MSman,


During the draft when the Vietnam War was going on, the army didn't care if a draftee was gay because many young men tried to get out of the draft by claiming to be gay, and it didn't work.

That was military hypocrisy for you: During peacetime, no faggots allowed. During war, you can't get out of the draft by playing the "faggot" card, but you can get out of the draft by dumping garbage illegally. Just go to Alice's Restaurant and ask Arlo Guthrie!!!

John

P.S. Sorry about using the word "faggot" in this post, but I was doing that to illistrate a point.

 

lmao I LOVE Alice's Restaurant.
My friend is 19 & the army kept calling him. Finally one day (while stoned.. but this doesn't matter) he ripped the guy on the phone a new one, telling him that he's against this "war" and everything it stands for & that he would never be part of it. They stopped calling.

 

How could u possibly think that they didnt think there were WMDs. They may have thought he wouldnt use them, but they never thought that there would be no WMDs. Oh and wiat, did u forget lets say the other 200 years of Americas existence like American Revolution, 1812, Spainish American (Civil War was undodgable), WWI and II. And u cant say Vietnam since it was with Russia, and Russia was far more of a threat than N Korea wil ever be.

 

msman: i think that because i see a pattern in the way america deploys its army, especially since the end of world war two. the other things u allude to above (i think, it's not quite clear what u r getting at) occured be4 the states was a superpower and a full blown military state, so this doesn't apply to then. the pattern is (and this is also embodied in what they call the 'powell doctrine') is to only take on countries and armies against whom the american army has technological superiority and a huge numerical advantage over. the vietnam war is a good illustration of this: as u suggest above the real enemy was actually russia but the battle was fought out, in proxy, by the vietnam war. the us never took on the soviets directly because they didn't have a technological superiority nor numerical advantage over them. this opinion i have, that american knew full well there were no wmds in iraq before they invaded - in fact, that was the precondition that encouraged them to invade - is not such a strange or bizzare view outside of the states where ordinary people are able to read a free press and understand world events a bit more clearly.

 

We technically have a free press here in the USA, but in practice most of it is driven by the need to make money money money, and that means making people want to hear certain things and then telling them that. For example, make people want to be super-patriotic, then tell them how great it is to be a flag-waving American. Push viewing time for "news" and talk shows that advocate your manufactured "popular" point of view, which means that you can charge that much more for airing commercials with the shows. In marketing, this is known as creating a demand for a product. And when the Army advertises (including through telemarketing), they're doing the same; they're creating a demand for enlistments with them.

All hail the almighty dollar!

 

that's what the nazis said about the german press before the war: the german newspapers are free to publish whatever they want to. what they didn't say was they were free to publish whatever they wanted they wanted to so long as the nazis approved. it's much the same case in the states now, i think. the corporate media all sing from the same hymn book. i do believe however that it's more sinister than u think it is. it's more than just capitalist economics: it's actually that your government and institutions are being/already have been taken over by a clique of pro-israeli lunatics. they manipulate political events behind the scenes and crush any opposition. most people in europe believe that the us intelligence (or the israeli intelligence if u believe justin raimondo in www.antiwar.com) staged the 911 attacks in order to have a pretext for invading iraq and creating a police state in america. the evidence is fairly persausive but i doubt u will ever read anything about it in the states.

 

anyone interested in reading an article, from a right wing point of view, about what's happening in the usa go here:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5126

 

They thought there were WMDs, but Bush probably wanted to invade Iraq as soon as he came into office. He found out all the information about there being WMDs, and it as a spectacular opportunity to take Saddam out of power.

 

that's what they'd like u to believe. all the usa intelligence prior to the war told them that iraq abandoned its weapons programme after the first gulf war in 1991. this has been shown to be totally true by the us senate who quizzed the intelligence people after the event. the only people who didn't believe it were bush et al. but like i said be4, i think they did believe it. they knew full well there were no wmds, they used this as a pretext for their invasion. and the cia should know if iraq had wmds or not. they had arranged the sale of iraq's wmd in the past (that reminds me of the dave chappelle joke, a black woman asks negrodamus the soothsayer: 'how can u be sure iraq has got weapons of mass destruction?" answer: 'because we have the receipts".). again, bush would only take up a spectacular opportunity if it could be guaranteed that there wouldn't be any real military opposition to a us invasion: ie, wmds or what have u. the whole thing was a big con job imho.

 

I'm too tired to read all that.

 

From what u r saying, it seems like u think that Bush is truely evil. He may not have been right but he had good intentions. Bush is a good man, maybe saying Karl Rove is pure evil is one thing (cause he is the mastermind in the Bush administration), but just saying bush is is another. and tell me, why do u think that bush didnt think there were WMDs in Iraq, he had to have at east thought that there were, i mean he just isnt going to go out and lie to everyone like the liberal media like Wolf Blitzer says he is (If u want accurate news, not the liberal worst case scenario going on or Conservative "everything is perfect" scenario, read the paper, watch Hanity and Colmes (because i c the views of both sides on their show) and watch News Night with Aaron Brown). and by the way, i am an independent, not Democrat or Republican, i form my own views instead of just party views, and it is fairly apparant that u r at the far spectrum of the left.

 

well young master, it appears that you watch far too much Fox news which sure swings to the right and it is evident that, despite you're saying to the contrary, you do too as your liberal use of the word liberal. ;-)

In my opinion,bush isn't a good man, he is pushing his evangellicial religious intent on the rest of US. He started a war for the wrong reason, he is too pig headed to admit he is wrong. He was really quick to say "mission accomplished" when in fact it was just starting. He is very myopic and only sees and hears what he wants. I won't call him evil, but he isn't a good man. He is a dumbass.

 

beware of americans calling themselves 'independent' and 'apolitical'. these ones are usually the most vocal and reactionary if u challenge them on the war or george bush. why is that? as for ur recommended viewing guide goes, i don't watch any corporate media because there is no 'liberal' media as u quaintly put it: it's all pro-globalisation, pro-bush, pro-war propaganda imho, the differences between them are purely questions of style and presentation. see the eariler posts for my favourite news sites on the net. and if u truly are an independent as u say u r and u want an independent view of the war then go here if u can handle the truth:
www.juancole.com
and read, young man. read.

 

oh i forgot this bit. am i far left? yes, no, i dunno. compared to u i probably am. people on the far left probably wouldn't think so. i'm a uranian socialist actually. which is a completely different kettle of fish.

 

Oh socialist, even better.