|
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 15:38
And remember kids, the folks at Abu Ghraib came on board BEFORE they lowered the standards.
From: gargoyle1
Date: 10-Oct-2006 16:16
All right you tards, attention. Gimme 500 push ups, and the first one to puke gets to run 30 miles. I can see it now.
From: larryking [no not that one asshoe]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 16:42
i feel so much safer now. 
From: useless2society [Useless II Society]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 16:57
I really wish the liberals would shut up on this one. Every army worth it's salt is made up of the scumbags of society. Look at how the Brits held half the fucking world in their grip for so long. Was it because they drafted the best and brightest, hell no! Ever see "Barry Lyndon"? Remember where, when he lost everything, there was always the army to join with its red uniforms. The Brits press-ganged every drunken shit they could get in those days - no questions asked. Now the US is doing the same thing. If they want to win any war against muzzies, they need 100x the men and fuck the technology. I almost support Bush on this one. Now if they could just get xxxxxxxxl uniforms, all their problems would be solved.
From: cantab10imfc [nick]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 17:09
you do not need a vast intellect and good moral character to be a hired killer, in fact if you're going to go shoot some little brown kiddies it's probably beneficial if you're already a drugged up morally deficient scumbag.
From: sirbutlust
[mike duff]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 17:18
vote sirbutlust in '08 campaign pledge. My belief is that bush chose to invade iraq because he knew wherevever the american soldiers were at, all the terriosts all over would show up. Knowing he had to find binladen in afganistan he knew htat was a bad front to fight in. he remembered how russia was killed in the mountians of afganistan. he elected to divert them adn make them fight us somewere we have a better advantage. He figured that since the first iraqi war was easy that iraq was the perfect place. Of course that backfired a little. If i am elected, i will station all the troops in the middle of the desert somewere out there. then the terriosts will come to fight and they will be seen coming from miles and they will be sitting ducks for us snipers. Til then, I will also need more troops and im not picky either. here is some ways i will enlist non typical soldiers. americas fat people- tell them they get free food stamps on completion of one year tour. advertise iraqi cusine amking it seem exciting. make food stamps void right before they come back. quitos- make army uniforms with more stripes and nicer collars. More pockets for hair gel, cell phone, and body spray. install loud speakers adn bass mixes in all tanks and troop convoy vehicles. get them to go anywhere you want them by saying ther eis a killer party there. yuppie chics- Tell them if they kill an evil iraqi they can keep there bluetooths and blackberrys. lazy wrestling fans- have commercials were former wrestler iron sheik tells them they are pussys and he dares them to join the army and beat him. (iron sheik is now old and on crutches. will do some special effects or splice old interviews to fix that) illegal immegrants- give them an offer* that every terroist they capture or kill, they get a green card for themselves and family members. *offer not valid. hippies, wacked out left liberals- tell them they can go to spread peace as the fanatics will appreciate an american who understands them and justs wants to chill and smoke some pot. After scores of them are killed and there drugs peed on, the surivors will snap, they will now hear there system of a down, dixiechics and audioslave albums in a evil way, and ebcome killing machines. little kids- make war seem like a video game. give them guns shaped like game controllers and watch them go. kids may get bored with "game" adn end up going on side missions which may cause problems. they are sent back to americal without supper. vote sirbutlust in '08
From: daftmonkeyminion [of Bertrand Russell]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 17:18
I want to see the helmet that fits Zippy's head!
From: jondoe [LouisTheDamned]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 17:30
This kind of thing is not hard to understand in war, as long as they dont let this guy in... 
From: athenstexman
[Ron]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 18:26
Forget about just signing up the poor kids. Now it is even easier to get in. I guess someone has to cook the taters and stuff maybe tote things around. I told a friend of mines son to make a myspace profile that makes him look gay. Better than getting shot if they start drafting people.
From: noodleboy
[Abstract Aardvark]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 19:25
From: athenstexman [Ron]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 18:26
Forget about just signing up the poor kids. ... That brings up an interesting point. Sure, this will apply to the types who, until the advent of the "Professional Army" movement, joined up because they were too antisocial, un-bright, mean-spirited, or just plain crazy to do anything else in life and defaulted into the military, and who in turn formed the peacetime military's non-conscripted backbone until someone decided they were useless and should be shunned. But will this also apply to potential officers among the middle-class and wealthy kids who graduate from college, freely admit to trying drugs and occasionally hanging out with suspect political types in their on-campus years, and have heretofore been turned away as morally suspect as a result? (Not speaking from bitter personal experience at all. Really.)
From: powderedtoastman
[Michael]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 19:25
who says there's no place for overly obese people in the army. They can still shield tanks and humvees from missiles.  And no, I am not making fun of fat people here, I was overweight too once, and it took a lot of very hard work to become the average-bodied male adult that I am today.
From: scrivner99 [scrivner_99]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 19:30
Plus ca change... Check out "Project 100,00" during the Viet Nam war, another of MacNamara's crimes. AKA "Moron Brigades" or "Moron Corps", these groups had casualty rates (AKA "attrition-by-death", isn't that such a nice, neutral term) twice the normal level. The word was that just being *near* them was dangerous: you never knew when some moron would do something incomprehensibly stupid and get you killed (like blow up the ammunition dump or unload a tank onto you), and you sure as by God didn't trust them in combat. But now we can't get people to sign up for the War in EyeRack (cause they've wised up) and Bush et alia don't dare try a draft. So, let's grab from the bottom of the barrel! I also notice that the blood money is up to $40K now. Most excellent! Get paid real good to have your kid come home in a box for a war based on lies. The Army's new recruiting slogan should be "Be the last grunt to die in Iraq!" From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n6_v27/ai_17040672: === In all, 354,000 volunteered for Project 100,000. The minimum passing score on the armed forces qualification test had been 31 out of 100. Under McNamara's Project 100,000, those who scored as low as 10 were taken if they lived in a designated "poverty area." In 1969, out of 120 Marine Corps volunteers from Oakland, California, nearly 90 percent scored under 31; more than 70 percent were black or Mexican. Overall, 41 percent of Project 100,000 volunteers were black, compared to 12 percent of the rest of the armed forces. Touted as providing "rehabilitation," remedial education, and an escape from poverty, the program offered a one-way ticket to Vietnam, where these men fought and died in disproportionate numbers. The much-advertised skills were seldom taught. McNamara called these men the "subterranean poor," as if they lived in caves. In a way they did; their squalid ghettos and Appalachian hill towns were unseen by affluent America. All the better for McNamara and his president Lyndon Johnson. Unmentioned in Project 100,000's lofty sounding goals was the fact that - as protest became the number-one course of study at America's universities - the men of the "Moron Corps" provided the necessary cannon fodder to help evade the political horror of dropping student deferments or calling up the reserves, which were sanctuaries for the lily-white. Officials denied that the members of the "Moron Corps" were dying in higher numbers, but the irrefutable statistics embraced by mathematical whiz kid McNamara tell another story. Forty percent of Project 100,000 men were trained for combat, compared with 25 percent of general service. In one 1969 sampling of Project 100,000, the Department of Defense put the attrition-by-death rate at 1.1 percent. By contrast, the overall rate for Vietnam era veterans was only 0.6 percent. ===
From: browncereal [Count Chokula]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:03
Hey I guess if Americans can lower their standards and elect a lying sub-par (downright mentally deficient) president and commander in chief, it's ok for the army to recruit misfits and retards. The Count
From: spanker [Smoking Joe]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:06
Last I knew a person didn't need to be a rocket scientist to be an effective grunt soldier. Walk across a field, draw fire, shoot back with extreme prejudice... it's not complicated. Privates, Sargent's, & Corporals are basically just trained cannon fodder that return fire. If one of your buddies drops, kill anything where the opposing fire originates. Simple & obvious reaction to stimuli. Many of these double digit I.Q. idiots would be flipping burgers or drawing welfare without the opportunity of the service. Most of them will survive and be a better trained and contribute more to society than those without the same opportunity. The last thing we want is a bunch of passivist "turn the other cheek" pussy assed pansies forced into service so I'm all for stretching the volunteer system for as far as needed. During the 90's Clinton cut 40% of the military, approx. 500,000 soldiers from the ranks, to the high cheers of liberals. Those same liberals are bitching today that the military is stretched to the limit right now. Sorry lib troll whores, you can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Bubba' fucked up big on many fronts and we are all paying for his perverted incompetence now.
From: herbmorrison [HerbMorrison]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:18
The one thing that continues to get on my nerves: We now call for the middle-aged, the criminal elements, and the borderline retarded, and yet fags are the true threat to our military force. Nevermind when they're decoding essential documents that could save lives and we're short on resources. Expel the queers and welcome the double-digit IQs with open arms. I never DIs to be "too mean" and harsh either, especially when you're training for WAR, but hey. Just so long as we cut corners without giving a fudge packer the chance at embarrassing the rest of us.
From: herbmorrison [HerbMorrison]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:19
Excuse me, 'I never CONSIDERED DIs to be "too mean"...' Sure could use an edit feature on here.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:33
spanker [Smoking Joe] Hmm when was the last time you served in the infantry? No one wants a moron in the infantry. Especially other infantry. The only thing a stupid person does for infantry is get themselves and their buddies killed. Unlike most of the other classifications, there is no forgiveness for a screw-up in a firefight. Maybe you should try some of the training before you start putting them down out of hand. You don't have to be well read to be infantry, through a lot are, but you do have to be smart. You take the morons and put them in places where their stupidity is non life threatening.
From: s1mps0n [Smarter Than You]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:36
I am no fan of Clinton, but his 500,000 soldier cut was due to the ending of a little something called the Cold War. It kind of seemed a waste to have a military sitting there with nothing to do, not even train to fight an enemy we were not at war with. The reason the Army is stretched to the limit now is... People don't want to join the military when they will be sent to a war zone! Something about self preservation or some other "liberal" crap to be sure. No matter how many ads the Army runs it is still hard to convince anyone, except retards it seems, that fighting in a war is a good idea.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:41
Hey I guess if Americans can lower their standards and elect a lying sub-par (downright mentally deficient) president and commander in chief 8 terms in a row and counting!
From: noodleboy
[Abstract Aardvark]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:58
From: aulduron [Aulduron]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 20:41
Hey I guess if Americans can lower their standards and elect a lying sub-par (downright mentally deficient) president and commander in chief
8 terms in a row and counting! I would leave out Carter, whose downfall was due to his overall ineffectiveness, rather than his more-than-adequate honesty and brains; and add Ford. You can't go back farther and include Nixon or Johnson, however, because, though dishonest, you can't deny that they were anything but mentally deficient. Maybe you were including Ford, and not counting the current term with your eight. Come to think of it, I guess we'd have to leave Ford off anyway, since he was never elected in the first place.
From: evildave [Evil Dave]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 21:29
Hard training, easy war. Easy training, hard war.
From: superpants
Date: 10-Oct-2006 22:27
If the purpose of this new policy is to create a better soldier, then it might have some value. If, however, the purpose of this program is to keep lesser men in the military, then i think it's woefully misguided. fellow americans, we are becoming pussies. there is only one remedy for this: to voluntarilly subject oneself to hardship. this must be done not for the mere sake of hardship, but rather to raise oneself to new heights of greatness. i know a former military man who was shot five times while using his body as a human shield in order to save the lives of eight men in 'nam. he's one of the most bad-assed fuckers i have ever had the pleasure of meeting. obviously, he has been highly decorated. i have worked with this man. he is very kind. he treats those with real problems with genuine compasion and kindness. however, he does not tolerate anyone that whines like a little bitch. i have learned a great deal from men of learning and social standing. doctors, professors, and the like have given me great knowledge. however, most of my strength and wisdom has been learned from people that have struggled, and succeeded, in life. construction workers, farmers, military men- these are the people that have inspired me to accomplish more. people such as these are tough, a quality that is lacking among many. i don't pretend to be strong and great- i only dare to seek strength and greatness. please, for your own good, seek these qualities; convince others to seek these qualities. let's stop being a nation of pansy-assed lilly-bottomed crybabies.
From: diamonion [poop]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 23:16
dont have to worry about a draft till our tards are dead brilliant political move and population control
From: kurekuretakora
[oldgit]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 01:13
America you have a choice.Tards running round Iraq shootin little brown babies or tards runnin round Detroit making little brown babies. Your call.
From: studgerbil
[Stud]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 02:01
Would the little brown babies in Detroit grow up to be radical Muslims bent on killing Westerners? Sounds like a self-cleaning oven solution to me.
From: evilwizardglick [Evil Wizard Glick]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 02:54
And this happens after Buffalo Soldiers points out how standards were low for the volunteer Army already. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252299/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252299/quotes Ray Elwood: There's basically two types of guys in the army - the motherfuckers and the motherfucked. Sergeant Saad is the third kind- he fucks the motherfuckers... which is doable when you're the chief MP by day and the director of retail heroin sales by night. .............. Colonel Berman: Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, lysergic acid, deithyl... whatever the hell that is; amphetamines, traces of barbiturates, estrogen. Estrogen? McCovey was on the pill?... How could this be possible? Ray Elwood: He might have taken it by mistake, sir. Colonel Berman: What? Ray Elwood: Birth control pill. He might've thought it was something ele. Colonel Berman: Well, fine. But he didn't take heroin, speed and cocaine by mistake, did he? Ray Elwood: It seems unlikely, sir. ............. Radio Operator: Bravo Two Zero, Bravo Two Zero come in. Bravo Two Zero, Bravo Two Zero come in. Hicks: Shit, turn that down man, turn down the fucking music. Radio Operator: Bravo Two Zero please respond, what's going on Hicks? Hicks: Uh... Bravo Two Zero here. Radio Operator: Bravo Two Zero commence tactical maneuver area two nine alpha romeo, take position on three nine foxtrot delta four seven. Hicks: Fuck. What the hell is... two nine... alpha romeo?
From: insineratehymn [Spontaneous Christian Combustion]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 04:13
The Bush Blitzkrieg has failed, and now the OKW (oops, I meant the DoD) resorts to desperate measures in order to fill the depleted ranks. Next thing we may be seeing is Dubya handing out medals to sixteen-year-old boys, then hastily making his way back into the fortified command bunker.
From: powderedtoastman
[Michael]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 04:53
someone here said queers are a safety risk for the military... how so? You think they won't come out to fight because they're too busy giving head to the sergeant? I'm straight, but all this gay bashing has to end. Not all homosexuals are those fruity fairies that you see on "Queer Eye". They don't see the insides of their barracks as a major redecorating challenge, they're not afraid to march on the enemy with a wrinkled shirt on that doesn't match their boots. They won't have problems returning fire just because the enemy looks so handsome in khaki. As long as a soldier does his/her job and does it right, who cares if he is gay / she is a lesbian? The British army, for instance, is relatively ok with "out in the military", and it's not like they can't punch their way out of a paper bag.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 05:15
Actually a lot of the arguments about it while I was in the military (before don't ask don't tell... I'm old) was about the morale issues for combat troops. Infantry more than most but others as well have a lot of communal showers and such since they are traditionally all male. taking a shower with a guy who may be homosexual could conceivably be rather uncomfortable for a straight guy (like me, for instance). It also opens a whole new level of possible sexual harassment in all male units. The destabilization of the unit coherency was the major argument against having alternate lifestyles in the Army back then.
From: engineer2323 [Mike]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 05:32
It's that damnable Republican hypocrisy again! They support this war, but most of them wont send their sons and daughters to Iraq, just like during the Vietnam war. They talk about patriotism and serving their country - as long as it's not their blood that will be spilled in a useless, pointless war. Bush and Cheney were supported the US involvement in Vietnam, but did everything they could to avoid active duty service. Same shit, different war.
From: powderedtoastman
[Michael]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 06:05
morte266 I do understand your second thoughts about showering with homosexuals. I would probably feel uncomfortable too. And on the other hand, as a straight male, I would definitely have a hard time staying focused if I was to take a group shower with a half dozen women. But still, no matter how dirty my thoughts would get, I figure I would never forget that I'm out there for my country. Which is to say: if you think you can't deal with being nude in front of a homosexual, it is all most likely just in your head. I never served in the military, so I have no personal frame of reference here, but like I said, armed forces in other countries allow their homosexuals to be out (as long as they behave themselves, but then again, straight people will get axed the same way for sexual harrassment on the job). And it's not like they can't win wars because they have a few sissies among them.
From: kwijibo
[A fat, balding north-american ape]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 06:55
It's that damnable Republican hypocrisy again! They support this war, but most of them wont send their sons and daughters to Iraq... It would be totally up to their (adult) children to decide whether to go or not. That whole "sins of the father" shit has been out of vogue for a few hundred years now. The children are allowed to decide for themselves what path to take in life. Were you being facetious?
From: teratomarty
[Self-made man]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 07:04
Expel the queers and welcome the double-digit IQs with open arms. Speaking as a homo, I like this recruitment policy. I kind of like having all my arms and legs.
From: rhag6942
[Kewl Han Dluke]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 07:54
So they are lowering it to something below the poor dumb kids that they have tricked already? Nothing like deception disguised as blind patriotism to thin out the bottom 25 of the population. I guess paying them to die is better than welfare paying them not to work. I just hope some of them get on the GI Bill and do something after this. There's not too much to teach these kids other than to shoot, reload and shoot again. If Forrest Gump can win a medal...... 
From: kingnot [Ben]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 08:13
One of the more famous failures of the Army's initial tests was Muhammed Ali. Of course, they believed he was trying to fail, since he didn't want to go to Vietnam; "Aint no VietCong ever called me Nigger" Another famous failure, one who was excluded even though he tried as 'uneducated' was Larry Flynt, now multimillionaire publisher of that great contribution to American culture, "Hustler" magazine. Not knocking Mr. Flynt (there's feminists fer that) but he's cool and the comics are funny.
From: dynahunk
[DynaHunk]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 08:22
<<It's that damnable Republican hypocrisy again! They support this war, but most of them won't send their sons and daughters to Iraq...>> But why would they ask their kids to do what they themselves didn't have the balls to? What fuels jingoism is the knowledge that someone else--the tired, the poor, the huddled masses--will ultimately be footing the bill, with their lives if necessary. In the military, that's called "walking the walk." I remember hearing a long spiel about Dan Quayle's draft-dodging from the Vietnam-vet First Sergeant at my first duty station. I would love to hear his take on Bush/Cheney.
From: udontknow [Jack]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 08:41
It sounds like the Republicans are desperate to scapegoat everyone but themselves for Bush's failed policies: Blame Clinton (McCain, Rice) Blame Foley (Hastert) Blame all Democrats (RNC) Blaming a party that hasn't had any real power for almost 4 years smacks of being desperate. No mea culpas, and no plans to change any policies even when most Americans are unhappy with the direction of the country. As evidenced by all beneficiaries of the Peter Principle, loyalty is more important than competence (Heckuva job, Brownie!) Given the historical stupidity of American voters (especially in the South), I am sure that they will continue to elect these retards, who believe that all three branches of government need to be controlled by one party to keep us "safe". No country can be run well without the loyal opposition. The Republicans have had an unprecedented 4 years of domination of the Supreme Court (I believe 6/9 republican appointees), Senate and Congress, and of course the Presidency. Let's face it, the current hegemony of the Republican party doesn't work. Time for new blood. Bush needs to make compromises with people who don't agree with him, but still have the best interests of the country at heart.
From: kuzzy [Kuzzy]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:01
Look at how the Brits held half the fucking world in their grip for so long. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah and a ragtag group of patriots kicked their asses and sent em home. If we start letting the dregs of society join up then thats exactly what the insurgents will do to us.
From: teratomarty
[Self-made man]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:28
Yeah and a ragtag group of patriots kicked their asses and sent em home. If we start letting the dregs of society join up then thats exactly what the insurgents will do to us. Well, there was also the fact that the British were foreigners lined up in neat rows wearing spiffy uniforms, fighting guerilla warriors who were on their own turf, and who could disappear back into the bracken after taking a few potshots. Sound familiar? Has ANYONE, anywhere, at any time in history, ever won a war against guerilla fighters in their home territory?
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:30
Uh, Kuzzy? We lost almost every battle in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Logistics won both of those wars for us. We had shorter supply lines (And the support of the French in the Revolutionary War). They had a 3 month journey through treacherous waters, dealing with disease and lack of nutrients, just to get to us.
From: studgerbil
[Stud]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:32
Well, the US did. In WWII. Island by Island through the Phillipines into Indochina and eventually Japan. Took two nukes to take the homeland, but the rest were strictly island to island.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:33
If memory serves, the only battle we actually won in the War of 1812 was the Battle of New Orleans, which was actually fought months after the war was officially ended (communication lag)
From: rhag6942
[Kewl Han Dluke]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:38
From: kuzzy [Kuzzy] Date: 11-Oct-2006 09:01 __________________________ You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! 
From: kuzzy [Kuzzy]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 10:16
Has ANYONE, anywhere, at any time in history, ever won a war against guerilla fighters in their home territory? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That was the point I was trying to make in my previous posts, and the answer to this queston is HELL NO . Which says that we dont stand a chance in hell of winning the war in Iraq, especialy if we are lowering the standards of who the armed forces will accept.
From: teratomarty
[Self-made man]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 10:44
Well, the US did. In WWII. Island by Island through the Phillipines into Indochina and eventually Japan. Took two nukes to take the homeland, but the rest were strictly island to island. Actually, I think that was two forces *both* fighting on foreign territory. I don't know how into it the Filipinos, etc, were. I think they'd have been happiest if the US and Japan had both gone the hell home. I'm with you, Kuzzy.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 11:40
From: aulduron [Aulduron]
Date: 10-Oct-2006 16:11
It's much better than drafting people who don't want to go. ----- I'm not as convinced of that as I once was. If everyone had an equal chance of being sent off to die, maybe we'd stop electing trigger-happy leaders. When was the last time Switzerland started a war?
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 11:49
It sounds like the Republicans are desperate to scapegoat everyone but themselves for Bush's failed policies:
Blame Clinton (McCain, Rice)
Blame Foley (Hastert)
Blame all Democrats (RNC) Those aren't Bush failures they're being blamed for. Blaming a party that hasn't had any real power for almost 4 years smacks of being desperate. Most policies leave effects far more than 4 years later. And without "real" power Democrats have done one hell of a job dividing the country during a time of war. Given the historical stupidity of American voters (especially in the South), I am sure that they will continue to elect these retards, who believe that all three branches of government need to be controlled by one party to keep us "safe". Northerners are just as stupid when they elect Democrats. No country can be run well without the loyal opposition. The Republicans have had an unprecedented 4 years of domination of the Supreme Court (I believe 6/9 republican appointees), Senate and Congress, and of course the Presidency. It's hardly unprecedented. We had a 48 year Dem domination of both houses of congress. FDR and Truman appointed 11 justices. Time for new blood. Bush needs to make compromises with people who don't agree with him, but still have the best interests of the country at heart. Actually, Bush tried that as soon as he got in, but compromise takes two. All he ended up doing was giving concessions to ungratefull fucks.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 11:52
I'm not as convinced of that as I once was. If everyone had an equal chance of being sent off to die, maybe we'd stop electing trigger-happy leaders. When was the last time Switzerland started a war?
Forcing people to join the service against their will is slavery. The draft proves that citizens are not free.
From: 2muchfun [Wulfgar the having too much fun]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 11:55
From: diamonion [poop] dont have to worry about a draft till our tards are dead brilliant political move and population control _____________________________________________________________ If all the tards are killed off, how will the Republicans stay in power? [Is refusal to use punctuation a symptom or a statement?]
From: atrybus [Draya]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 12:41
The Army could give all new recruits the standard "Francis Farmer" lobotomy.
From: kuzzy [Kuzzy]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 13:33
Here is a few great ideas for a peace plan and we wont have to worry about the draft 1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini and the rest of them 'good old boys'. We will never "interfere" again. 2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence. 3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them. 4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself, don't hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers. 5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby. 6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while. 7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. 8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if any anyway. 9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens. 10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. 11) And lastly bring back the manufacturing from our country, curtail the cheap imports from all over the world and put the middle class back to work in our country. And before you say it.. Robin Williams did NOT come up with this plan.. at least according to Snopes.com
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 13:36
From: aulduron [Aulduron]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 11:49
Most policies leave effects far more than 4 years later. And without "real" power Democrats have done one hell of a job dividing the country during a time of war. ---- I'm not a Democrat, but I was against the invasion of Iraq from the start. A nation should ALWAYS be somewhat divided in a time of war, especially one with as dubious of justifications as this one. There should always be a voice for peace even if it's not immediately attainable. Not that the Dems have been a particularly strong voice for peace, mind you- but at least they offer some degree of dissent. I have a good deal of contempt for both major parties, but blaming the Dems for the current situation is both silly and pointless. If you don't like the way things are going you demand change from the people who are in charge NOW.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 16:30
A nation should ALWAYS be somewhat divided in a time of war, especially one with as dubious of justifications as this one. There should always be a voice for peace even if it's not immediately attainable. Not that the Dems have been a particularly strong voice for peace, mind you- but at least they offer some degree of dissent. Somewhat divided, yes. Not to the extent that they have gone though. You're right, they're not the voice of peace, which makes it even worse. They're doing it for no other reason than political gain. But they're using more than just the war to divide us. They're even bitching about the education reform that Bush let Kennedy write. They're using an attempt by the president to unite congress to divide the people. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I too have a great amount of contempt for both parties too. I'm not a Republican, I'm trying to dispel the popular notion here that Republicans stand for everything bad and Democrats stand for everything good.
From: fauxpas
[regularly regressing]
Date: 11-Oct-2006 21:38
Just about every outgoing administration has left office with unresolved problems that the incoming administration will have to deal with. World events are fluid and ever changing. To believe that ANY administration has left office in perfect order and with a clear calendar for the next administration is pretty unrealistic. The difference between a failed administration and a successful administration is how they deal with the political realities they inherit and the management of the events that occur while they are in office.
From: scrivner99 [scrivner_99]
Date: 14-Oct-2006 13:19
>>Taking a shower with a guy who may be homosexual could conceivably be rather uncomfortable for a straight guy Oh, please. Every time you take/took a communal shower, about 10% of those present were gay. Get over it.
From: scrivner99 [scrivner_99]
Date: 22-Oct-2006 19:10
What, your high school had shower stalls in the men's locker room? Every men's locker room I've seen in an institutional setting (school, military) has had "gang" showers.
Updated: 22-Oct-2006 19:10
| 
