Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Erlkonig on January 20, 2003, 09:31:21 PM
-
(http://www.staticfiends.com/bush/n-bush05.jpg)
-
caption:
Mr President, can you express in your own words how you felt about the SP episode where Cartman's bellybutton had a 50' sattelite dish pop out of it?
-
LOL, Elkonig.
-
.
-
(http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Clinton/BILLSAIL.jpg)
-
From the transcript of the news conference:
Q: Mr. Secretary, Congressmen Rangel and Conyers are introducing a bill to institute the draft. And one of their key ideas is to focus attention on what they see as an inequity of casualties in the military. They think that the blacks and other minorities are disproportionately killed, for instance. This was also the argument during Vietnam. I wondered your thoughts on that and also General Myers'.
Rumsfeld: We're not going to reimplement a draft. There is no need for it at all. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable.
The disadvantages to the individuals so brought in are notable. If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices. Big categories were exempted -- people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions. And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.
Now, are we able today to maintain a force that is at the appropriate size with the appropriate skills by paying people roughly what they'd be making in the civilian manpower market? Yes. Are we doing it today? Yes. Are we meeting the recruiting goals? Yes. Have we been able to attract and retain people in the Guard and the Reserves who can augment that force when necessary, such as today? Yes, we have.
Now, the reason, the desire for doing that, the way I read some columns or articles -- and I didn't heed -- read any specific statements by either of the people you're talking about, so I'm not necessarily talking about them -- was not so much the point you raised -- and I'll let General Myers comment on that if he's in a position to do so -- but rather it's the old "no more Vietnam" argument. In other words, it's the argument that unless we have a draft -- correction -- if we have a draft, it will mean that so many people in the country will be involved that it's unlikely the country would engage in a conflict that was not a popular conflict. That kind of was the base that I saw in the press articles.
Now, I don't find that a compelling argument to spend all the money you would spend in churning people through and all the disadvantages that would accrue to bringing people into the service who didn't want to serve in the service. And it seems to me that the way we're currently organized and operating is vastly preferable. We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered. They want to be doing what it is their doing. And we're just very lucky as a country that there are so many wonderfully talented young men and young women who each year step up and say, "I'm ready; let me do that."
I read this as a comment suggesting the preference of the modern all-volenteer force vs. the problems we had with the Vietnam era draft.
Weasel, I just thought you would like the full text of the question and answer: not just the quote you seized upon so you could attack yet another who has the political influence you lack.
Have you tried my suggestion to alleviate your frustrations?
Here's a link for you:www.enlargement-enzite-small-noodle-extenze-herbal-enlargment.com/aboutV.html (http://www.enlargement-enzite-small-noodle-extenze-herbal-enlargment.com/aboutV.html )
I really think this may be able to help you.
-
Holden It doesnt matter, weazel will go on doing his thing no matter what rumsfled actually said.... Waezel just hates...
-
I really think that if Weasel could attend to the root cause of his feelings of inadequacy, he could improve his outlook upon the world. The treatment I suggest could help move in that direction.
-
yep, if ole slick could just have had a third term ...
or his mini me goron won in 2000 ...
there never would have been a 9/11 and the stock market would be over 15,000 :rolleyes:
evil evil bush and his buddies out for only their own pocket books (as if they now don't have enough $$$ to send from now til the end of time, they need to invade Iraq) :rolleyes:
-
I would rather have a fighter-pilot for a President than some draft dodging womanizer any day.
-
Eagler, by that logic Bill Gates shouldda stepped down eons ago.
He hasn't. There's something about money, power and influence that sort of appeals to certain types of people.
Ever heard of greed? Yes, very unchristian. Very existent too - also in Christians (they're humans - sort of).
:D
-
ya, I've heard of greed
I've also heard of stupidity
to think this admin has greed as the motiviation to kill Saddam and his stooges is just plain stupid left media spew
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
From the transcript of the news conference:
You started out with an excellent response to an errant opinion, and the followed it up with a personal attack that was without merit, thereby undoing the good that you had done.
Oh well. :rolleyes:
-
hmmmm thinking
1 - leave Saddam there a couple more years, let em develop more nasty stuff, and even let em MAYBE use it against the oppposition in his country(5000 kurds died)...like he already did with a nasty gas.
2 - let em make up more stories of boggie men tryin to kill em....so that he can turn around and terrorize more of HIS population....by hanging women in front mall entrances
3 - let em invade or make war with his neighbors....he's good at that. Oh ya...Saddam does not support terrorism....SADDAM did NOT blow up the oil refinaries that created a nice black cloud(very natural wouldn't ya say)
some people forget.....SADDAM HUSSIEN is a dangerous MTF.....he will NOT....I repeat....he WILL NOT back down unless you make em....WITH FORCE:mad:
Its not by sayin "give peace a chance" that KUWAIT was liberated you pansie bellybutton pacificst....:rolleyes:
-
You've obviously mistaken me for one of your bath-house buddies, I'm hetero and not interested in a homosexual relationship with you.
Good luck in your search for Gaylord W. Largecock, I hope you find him soon.
-
ooo, I wonder what I can do if I leave words out of a quote...
Originally posted by weazel
You've taken me for one of your bath-house buddies, I'm interested in a homosexual relationship with you.
:D
-
Weazel...I think Nifty just proposed to you :D
-
oh ping, you know Fatty's my man. :p
-
Wow Eagler glad you now see the light.
yep, if ole slick could just have had a third term ...
Sigh... if only not for that 22nd admendment. It would've been interesting to see if Bush had won w/ Clinton in the race.
or his mini me goron won in 2000 ...
Or allowed to serve his term as he DID win by over 500,000 votes but as you know the Surpreme court stopped the manual recount and selected Bush to be president.
there never would have been a 9/11 and the stock market would be over 15,000
Yes indeed! Gore would have embraced the Hart/Rudman report, took seriously the threat of terrorism like Clinton did.. There's a good chance 911 would not have happened. International investors would not have thought a madman wants to start ww111 and would not have deinvested.
evil evil bush and his buddies out for only their own pocket books (as if they now don't have enough $$$ to send from now til the end of time, they need to invade Iraq
Yeah greed and visions of grandor are part of the human condision.. The Christan religion trys to put a check on this but they have a long row to hoe. By siezing 1/4 of the world's oil suppply, they get to be rulers of the world.
Again, glad to see you've finally opened your eyes and see what's really going on.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
I would rather have a fighter-pilot for a President than some draft dodging womanizer any day.
Hmmm... But Rumsfield said that draftees were of no value.
-
10bears .. snap out of it, wake up boy - before u have another slick willie/goron wet dream :)
-
Chimpys a deserter (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
Originally posted by davidpt40
I would rather have a fighter-pilot for a President than some draft dodging womanizer any day.
-
I would rather have a fighter-pilot for a President than some draft dodging womanizer any day.
Yeah if only John McCain had won.
-
Ill do it for you Nifty. :D
I suppose this is just about what they did to Rumsfield too, eh?
Originally posted by weazel
You've mistaken me for hetero... interested in a homosexual relationship with you.
I should have been a blood sucking reporter. :cool:
-
Originally posted by weazel
You've obviously mistaken me for one of your bath-house buddies, I'm hetero and not interested in a homosexual relationship with you.
Good luck in your search for Gaylord W. Largecock, I hope you find him soon.
Boy weasel, I was just trying to help,... your frustrations against the powerful must have some root cause.
Usually these frustrations are based on feelings of self loathing and inadequacy. A common cause among males is a percieved size inadequacy in the male member. Also, homophobia may be related to this as well.
According to Freud, when these frustrations are repressed, it is often displaced to another, disguised, outlet. A man's anger at his boss, unacceptable because of his position, may be displaced in a later beating of his child. Here the unacceptable urge is vented in a manner which is acceptable to the ego and superego.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
I would rather have a fighter-pilot for a President than some draft dodging womanizer any day.
I'd rather have someone that did better in his studies, not do drugs, have the responsibility to serve out his military obligations w/o going AWOL. That person I would respect more as a leader.
-
Al Gore's scholastic record is sealed.. What does that say? He only joined the army, and was given a cushy office job as an army newspaper writer, to help his fathers senate bid. He actually posed in uniform with his father in political ads...
Nothing really admirable about his service...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Al Gore's scholastic record is sealed.. What does that say? He only joined the army, and was given a cushy office job as an army newspaper writer, to help his fathers senate bid. He actually posed in uniform with his father in political ads...
Nothing really admirable about his service...
...and the drug use?
You're saying it's ok to go AWOL then from one's military service?
You're saying it's ok to have a mediocre GPA?
You can respect that in our leader, huh?
BTW, I'm talking about our present leader.
This I'll bet you, change the label of Bush's party affiliation to Democrat and practically all of you Republican supports here would be calling for his head. You'd all be calling him a deserter. You'd all be calling him a crack head (even though he may not have done crack). You'd all be calling him an idiot for his poor grades.
Just my take on things the way I see it.
Just because he has "Republican" as his label does not make it right.
The man makes the label, not the label makes the man.
BTW, before you label me, I'm not a democrat, and yes, I think Clinton was a hypocrite (but not because he was a Democrat).