The Military Draft

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bush and Washington Times: BUSTED! Embedded reporters come in handy after all.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

*snip*

And that has exactly what to do with the discussion here?

It has to do with Bush's goose being cooked, so this discussion is moot.
Jemcam brought up the WT lie, now it's been proven as such.

YOU posted the explosives story.

 

[jemcam]

What about this?

And this?

 

[dababus]

Read this.

Text

and this:

Text

 

[SuperTool]

No, Jemcam posted the Washington Times - Pentagon conspiracy theory about Russian special forces having nothing better to do than hauling 380 tonnes of explosives from Iraq to Syria before the invasion. Now it's been proven on videotape that the explosives were at the facility when the US troops reached it, and were left unsecured by US troops. So if you were dumb enough to believe anything from Washington Times, your complimentary reality check has arrived.

 

[jemcam]

Where in this story does it say that it IS the AL Qaqqa site? Again, no proof. Nice try though.

Please go away until you make sense.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
No, Jemcam posted the Washington Times - Pentagon conspiracy theory about Russian special forces having nothing better to do than hauling 380 tonnes of explosives from Iraq to Syria before the invasion. Now it's been proven on videotape that the explosives were at the facility when the US troops reached it, and were left unsecured by US troops. So if you were dumb enough to believe anything from Washington Times, your complimentary reality check has arrived.

You're deflecting again. I was responding to your post dumbass.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
No, Jemcam posted the Washington Times - Pentagon conspiracy theory about Russian special forces having nothing better to do than hauling 380 tonnes of explosives from Iraq to Syria before the invasion. Now it's been proven on videotape that the explosives were at the facility when the US troops reached it, and were left unsecured by US troops. So if you were dumb enough to believe anything from Washington Times, your complimentary reality check has arrived.

Ok, you are right about jemcam posting the story orginally in this thread. I have been reading too many threads about this topic.

How about we keep it out of this one?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: jemcam
What about this?

And this?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Or a million words from Washington Times and Pentagon

There are pictures of US soldiers discovering huge quantities of explosives AFTER the invasion.
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_02a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_04a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_05a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_07a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_08a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_09a.jpg

All you have are fairy tales.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
No, Jemcam posted the Washington Times - Pentagon conspiracy theory about Russian special forces having nothing better to do than hauling 380 tonnes of explosives from Iraq to Syria before the invasion. Now it's been proven on videotape that the explosives were at the facility when the US troops reached it, and were left unsecured by US troops. So if you were dumb enough to believe anything from Washington Times, your complimentary reality check has arrived.

You're deflecting again. I was responding to your post dumbass.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SuperTool
No, Jemcam posted the Washington Times - Pentagon conspiracy theory about Russian special forces having nothing better to do than hauling 380 tonnes of explosives from Iraq to Syria before the invasion. Now it's been proven on videotape that the explosives were at the facility when the US troops reached it, and were left unsecured by US troops. So if you were dumb enough to believe anything from Washington Times, your complimentary reality check has arrived.

Ok, you are right about jemcam posting the story orginally in this thread. I have been reading too many threads about this topic.

How about we keep it out of this one?

Actually, Supertool was the one trying to make the point that we don't have enough troops to secure weapons. I finally figured out what he was talking about since he couldn't (or wouldn't) give any more details and posted what I did to show him he was wrong.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam
What about this?

And this?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Or a million words from Washington Times and Pentagon

There are pictures of US soldiers discovering huge quantities of explosives AFTER the invasion.
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_02a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_04a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_05a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_07a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_08a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_09a.jpg

All you have are fairy tales.

You're right. A picture is proof in today's day and age, especially a week before the re-election. Give me a break.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: NL5
jemcam -

Did you see the frontline peice? How do you feel about non-military leaders making military decisions? How do you feel about what Shenaski has said abouty the war? Colin Powell?

No, I didn't see it, but it sounds like another "60 minutes exclusive" to me. Non-military advisers and people in the Executive branch MUST make decisions for the military before the military can complete their missions.

Google "Military Operations Orders". You'll see very plainly that in any operation, information is passed down through the ranks in order for a mission to be planned and executed.

Sorry, I can't offer my comments on the program. I have enough first hand military experience to know this is the way it's always been, based on what you told me.

Actually, this is NOT how it is usually done. The non-military leaders make the decision to do something, but the military leaders make the operational decisions. After all, what does W know about fighting a war? The last time this was done? Vietnam. I believe it is the only other time (I could be wrong on that tho)

I don't know about you, but I would rather leave the Military stategy to the heads of our Military. Not some politician (any politician).

 

[NL5]

For all that are interested, you can watch the Frontline piece tomorrow - quite eye opening for the younger folks especially.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...e/shows/pentagon/view/

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam
What about this?

And this?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Or a million words from Washington Times and Pentagon

There are pictures of US soldiers discovering huge quantities of explosives AFTER the invasion.
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_02a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_04a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_05a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_07a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_08a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_09a.jpg

All you have are fairy tales.

You're right. A picture is proof in today's day and age, especially a week before the re-election. Give me a break.

You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[SuperTool]

Watch the video.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: NL5
jemcam -

Did you see the frontline peice? How do you feel about non-military leaders making military decisions? How do you feel about what Shenaski has said abouty the war? Colin Powell?

No, I didn't see it, but it sounds like another "60 minutes exclusive" to me. Non-military advisers and people in the Executive branch MUST make decisions for the military before the military can complete their missions.

Google "Military Operations Orders". You'll see very plainly that in any operation, information is passed down through the ranks in order for a mission to be planned and executed.

Sorry, I can't offer my comments on the program. I have enough first hand military experience to know this is the way it's always been, based on what you told me.

Actually, this is NOT how it is usually done. The non-military leaders make the decision to do something, but the military leaders make the operational decisions. After all, what does W know about fighting a war? The last time this was done? Vietnam. I believe it is the only other time (I could be wrong on that tho)

I don't know about you, but I would rather leave the Military stategy to the heads of our Military. Not some politician (any politician).

I don't think we have an issue here. The military does what it is ordered to do. I told you I had not seen the piece so I couldn't comment on it's content, I only responded to what you said.

 

[Chadder007]

Its all of the little things like this that has me voting for Bush this time instead of Kerry. Kerry's campaign is full of lies....more so than Bush's even. So im voting for the lesser evil.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: NL5
jemcam -

Did you see the frontline peice? How do you feel about non-military leaders making military decisions? How do you feel about what Shenaski has said abouty the war? Colin Powell?

No, I didn't see it, but it sounds like another "60 minutes exclusive" to me. Non-military advisers and people in the Executive branch MUST make decisions for the military before the military can complete their missions.

Google "Military Operations Orders". You'll see very plainly that in any operation, information is passed down through the ranks in order for a mission to be planned and executed.

Sorry, I can't offer my comments on the program. I have enough first hand military experience to know this is the way it's always been, based on what you told me.

Actually, this is NOT how it is usually done. The non-military leaders make the decision to do something, but the military leaders make the operational decisions. After all, what does W know about fighting a war? The last time this was done? Vietnam. I believe it is the only other time (I could be wrong on that tho)

I don't know about you, but I would rather leave the Military stategy to the heads of our Military. Not some politician (any politician).

I don't think we have an issue here. The military does what it is ordered to do. I told you I had not seen the piece so I couldn't comment on it's content, I only responded to what you said.

I wasn't asking about Frontline. I was asking who should be making military decisions. The heads of the military with decades of military experience and training, or a politician?

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: jadinolf

Originally posted by: Rustynuts
They already have one, it's called the Back-Door draft! That's why so many reservists are getting their ass shot off for a year instead of serving a weekend a month.

True but the reservists should have considered that before they signed up.

they did.. that's why they joined the reserves instead of active duty service.... had they wanted to go as a first line of defence they would have joined up with active duty not reserves.... reserves should only be called upon in a time of need when all other units are unavailable, not activated at will

You really need to read this entire post. You're wrong. The Reserves and Guard have fought in EVERY WAR THE US HAS EVER BEEN IN SINCE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR!

fought in every war yes... become a major occupying force for an extended period of time????? i dont think so

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Supahfreak
If the stat that Kerry gave is accurate then a draft seems highly likely. Didn't he say that 10 of 11 soldiers are in Iraq, scheduled to deploy soon or just back from Iraq? I wonder if that's accurate.

FreAk

Beats me, but every single person I know in the reserves has been sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan in the last couple of years.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Looks like everyone agrees there could be a draft.

The only thing agreed upon is that you're an idiot and don't respond when you're proven wrong except to keep saying the same falsehoods and propaganda.

The burden of proof is on you that there could not be a draft.

See, you are just being a asshat now. That is a logical fallacy called, oddly enough, shifting the burden of proof. There is no draft hence no reason for anybody to prove that there is not draft.
The fact is there is no draft now.
The fact is neither candidate is suggesting a draft.
The fact is no political leader in the Senate or House is suggesting a draft.

Therefore it is up to you to show proof that there will be a draft.

Also, I would like to take a moment out and give a thank you to SuperTool for providing me quite a bit of entertainment while reading this thread. It is fun to see some guy whose only military knowledge probably comes from Counter Strike arguing with a retired officer of the US Army as well as other former and/or current military members.

 

[ShellGuy]

Supertool: Since you could in theory enter said ammo dumps from the vent shafts y would you go through the front door? Second I could put your happy face in those pics with a bit of photoshop work.. so i have been very slow to accept any close up photos at face value... Third people join the Reserve to Serve their country in a time of need WE ARE IN A TIME OF NEED.. They know when they sign up that they may be sent to the frontline to defend the country.. Furthermore they don't sign up for RA because they don't want it to be a carrier or anything like that but they still want to defend the USA..



Will G.

 

[jemcam]

It depends on what the military decision is. That's pretty broad. If the decision is whether or not to invade a country, that belongs at the Executive branch. If the decision is how the country should be taken, it's up to the military.

I wasn't asking about Frontline. I was asking who should be making military decisions. The heads of the military with decades of military experience and training, or a politician?

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: jemcam


It depends on what the military decision is. That's pretty broad. If the decision is whether or not to invade a country, that belongs at the Executive branch. If the decision is how the country should be taken, it's up to the military.

I wasn't asking about Frontline. I was asking who should be making military decisions. The heads of the military with decades of military experience and training, or a politician?

EXACTLY!

Two counrties were invaded with POLITICIANS deciding military strategy - Vietnam and Iraq (2003)

 

[NL5]

.