100 year wars require more soldiers

[freddyv]

I've italicized the sections he is quoting for ease of reading and included his links. It's a compelling argument that if things continue a draft could very well be imminent.

100 year wars require more soldiers
February 6th, 2008 by Matt Hawes

It is no secret by now (at least to us) that Senator McCain doesn’t have a problem keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We will momentarily look past how quickly he answered that the troops could stay in Iraq www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk for a million years and how he recently said that he would start more wars (with a callous mention of how much Post-Traumatic Stress there would be), and instead turn our attention to a statement found on his website. I will quote this statement in its entirety, because it’s just too interesting (that’s one word for it) to summarize:

Increasing the Size of the American Military

The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few –(sic) with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.

Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.

John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation’s defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.

John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm’s way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation’s values and interests absolutely demand it.

Does anyone else see the writing on the wall for the draft in this statement?

It absolutely amazes me that Senator McCain recognizes that these operations have overstretched our troops, yet he says:

John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation’s defense requirements.

Let’s not look at these commitments that are wearing our troops out and driving many over the edge www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/31/army.suicides.ap/index.html; let’s just recruit more soldiers to fight these overreaching occupations! Senator McCain has made no attempt to disguise the fact that he wants to fight more wars and doesn’t care how long they take, and here he makes no attempt to disguise that he wants more of us, and more of our children, and more of our grandchildren, to fight these wars.

On second thought, this doesn’t amaze me so much. Such is the philosophy we have been fighting for so long now. This philosophy says that America has the right - the duty - to interfere in any country it pleases to attack, as long as there is democracy to be spread.

We are accused of adhering to a foreign policy that is supposedly best left to the 1700’s. I would accuse all the other candidates of adhering to a foreign policy that should have died with the Middle Ages. This is not “Risk.” We’re not trying to occupy as many spaces on the map as possible and reshape the world in our image.

Foreign policy should be aimed at not making enemies to have to fight, while guarding against those who would harm us. The Founders knew this and taught this, but if the other candidates cannot follow the Constitution for what it clearly says in the matters of declaring war and executive powers, I do not expect them to know what else the Founders had to say.

Yes, Senator McCain, I have no doubt that you will keep your promise of more wars. And I have no doubt that if you get your way, you will be coming for us to fight them.

How about some real straight talk youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA on foreign policy for a nice change of pace.

[freddyv]

good thing he's not going to win...if he does...hello draft!




McCain: I Could Send U.S. Troops ‘Anywhere’ For ‘A Long Period of Time’

On ABC’s Good Morning America today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked if he has “regrets” about “saying that the U.S. could be in Iraq for a hundred years.” McCain said he didn’t because — in his mind — the U.S. could have a military presence “anywhere” for a long period of time:

ROBERTS: So it’s clear you have no regrets in saying that the U.S. could be in Iraq for a hundred years.

MCCAIN: The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time.

Last month, McCain warned about the wars that he says will come after the war in Iraq, telling an audience, “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars.” And perhaps there will be more long-term occupations too

[freddyv]

Secret US plan for military future in Iraq
Document outlines powers but sets no time limit on troop presence
Seumas Milne
The Guardian, Tuesday April 8 2008


US troops conduct a foot patrol along the Tigris river south of Baghdad, Iraq. Photograph: David Furst/AFP/Getty images

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."

It is also likely to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection by US forces.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic Congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.

Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."

Significantly - given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter's close relations with the Iraqi administration's Shia parties - the draft agreement specifies that the "US does not seek to use Iraq territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states".

General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, is to face questioning from all three presidential candidates on Capitol Hill today when he reports to the Senate on his surge strategy, which increased US forces in Iraq by about 30,000 last year.

Both Clinton and Democratic rival Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain troop levels until the country is secure.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

[JeffD5Buddy]

The Guardian....really??? It's the New York Times of the UK. Good source

[freddyv]

unfortunately so is the state of the media. you have to read about a dozen different sources, and then figure out what is truth and what is bullshit.

but really, that's besides the point. you honestly think we're getting out of there anytime soon? I sincerely doubt it.

haven't you heard? wmd's are the new gulf of tonkin.

[seanx]

jeffd5buddy said:

The Guardian....really??? It's the New York Times of the UK. Good source

c'mon now jeffy...........you know that the Administration isn't in Iraq to protect our citizens. if we were protecting the people, wouldn't our borders be secured, out ports be owned and secured by American companies/security firms, investing in more organic farming methods and farms and manufacturing in our country instead of outsourcing or creating genetic foods, sending 100 billion to Iraq which their government is wasting while our economy is in the shitter, doing nothing to stop poisonous imports, allowing pharmaceutical companies to continue to poison and kill our people while funding the political machine...........do you need me to go on and on? or DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS IS ALL A COINCIDENCE/ACCIDENT? we've had alternative energy sources to oil and gas since the late 1800s and they 100% work. natural cures are being outlawed and drugs and vaccines are being forced on the population. there is a reason to this.................... Mickulz knows this too but he is in denial (I like to believe he is a good person at heart and isn't supporting it)

[sayten]

It's 5 more days till my birthday.....

nothing will change

[JeffD5Buddy]

I'm not really saying it isn't true.... just gotta laugh when a Liberal rag reports they have, or have seen, a document marked "secretive and sensitive."

[geminibleeding]

good.

perhaps they'll lighten up the restrictions on enlistment and re-enlistment. i tried to re-enlist but am ineligable due to a whole list of stupid disqualifiers that in no way, shape or form would hamper my ability to do my job.

hell, i'd rather be dodging bullets and throwing grenades at terrorists in the middle east than suffering through economic slavery here in the united states.

you younger folk with perfect vision, joints, criminal records, etc. should be serving your country instead of bitching about it.

enlistment in the armed forces should be mandatory to become an american citizen.

*nodnod*

[sayten]

geminibleeding said:

good.

perhaps they'll lighten up the restrictions on enlistment and re-enlistment. i tried to re-enlist but am ineligable due to a whole list of stupid disqualifiers that in no way, shape or form would hamper my ability to do my job.

hell, i'd rather be dodging bullets and throwing grenades at terrorists in the middle east than suffering through economic slavery here in the united states.

you younger folk with perfect vision, joints, criminal records, etc. should be serving your country instead of bitching about it.

enlistment in the armed forces should be mandatory to become an american citizen.

*nodnod*

I have a runny nose so I'm out.......


My friend is now on his 5th tour... 2 in Afgan... 3 in Iraq....

He said he is having a blast!

[JeffD5Buddy]

I believe Israel makes everyone join.... I know a guy, years ago, that was moving there with his wife and he had to. I think a 2 year tour could change a lot of young people perspective of life.

[freddyv]

jeffd5buddy said:

I think a 2 year tour could change a lot of young people perspective of life.

I think it could probably end a lot of young people's lives too, especially if they have no interest in joining the military.

Who would you rather have next to you in the trenches...someone that enlisted and wants to be there, or someone that's only there because the government is making them be there?

I'd imagine that most people would vote for the former...

[seanx]

geminibleeding said:

good.

perhaps they'll lighten up the restrictions on enlistment and re-enlistment. i tried to re-enlist but am ineligable due to a whole list of stupid disqualifiers that in no way, shape or form would hamper my ability to do my job.

hell, i'd rather be dodging bullets and throwing grenades at terrorists in the middle east than suffering through economic slavery here in the united states.

you younger folk with perfect vision, joints, criminal records, etc. should be serving your country instead of bitching about it.

enlistment in the armed forces should be mandatory to become an american citizen.

*nodnod*

........hmmmm and I thought you were better than this..........

as to mandatory military service: I have a brain and free will and we pay plenty of taxes, so that would not be happening EVER in my case...............this is a tough subject to broach because I think most of the guys and gals in the trenches have their hearts in the right places, however they are forced to blindly follow leaders who have agendas which are not moral or humane..........

a true American patriot stands up against tyranny (even from within) and stands up for the Constitutional rights and the citizens of this country, and stands against any corrupt and dishonest power which threatens it or it's allies (currently our government has been hijacked by a group of zionist warmongers).........from some of the things that some of the vets who post in here state, I am left to question whether they really are true American patriots.................just because you served in the military DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PATRIOT.........and some of you are proving that point

[sayten]

freddyv said:

jeffd5buddy said:

I think a 2 year tour could change a lot of young people perspective of life.

I think it could probably end a lot of young people's lives too, especially if they have no interest in joining the military.

Who would you rather have next to you in the trenches...someone that enlisted and wants to be there, or someone that's only there because the government is making them be there?

I'd imagine that most people would vote for the former...

Not all of these people are placed into combat roles... Countries with border issues are usually the ones who have these mandates (but not all) (Israel, South Korea, Greece, Algeria, Hungary, Germany, Croatia, Armenia, Switzerland, Turkey, Taiwan, Chile and Nicaragua)

I think that it would be a huge benefit if you have a child (which whom needs help in direction) that doesn't plan on going to college to earn and secure a place in the workforce. College doesn't even guarantee that anymore...

Not everyone is as smart as Freddy.... actually I'm pretty sure that you fucked up the curve for most people....

[freddyv]

sayten said:

Not all of these people are placed into combat roles... Countries with border issues are usually the ones who have these mandates (but not all) (Israel, South Korea, Greece, Algeria, Hungary, Germany, Croatia, Armenia, Switzerland, Turkey, Taiwan, Chile and Nicaragua)

I think that it would be a huge benefit if you have a child (which whom needs help in direction) that doesn't plan on going to college to earn and secure a place in the workforce. College doesn't even guarantee that anymore...

Our border with Mexico is an extremely dangerous place right now. There's a serious war going on down there between the drug lords and the Mexican police/military.

That's kind of besides the point though. Currently soldiers in our National Guard are deployed abroad. That's certainly not what they signed up for.

I think you make a great point about careers in the military. In some ways I wish I would've been more informed about the opportunities that a military career can afford. I had a tough time finding a job when I was fresh out of college, and even when I was able to find employment I had to work some pretty crappy jobs in the process.

It should still be the individual's choice though. Constitutionally speaking, the government doesn't really have the authority over us to make us do anything. Government is for the people, people aren't "for" the government. That's probably the biggest problem that the average American faces these days...it's not "terror" or "drugs" and the wars being waged on them, it's our own tyrannical government and its unquenchable thirst for control over our lives, our property, our wages, etc.

How ridiculous is it that the government takes the money out of your paycheck before you even get it? It makes it seem like they own you...like they are entitled to take whatever they want and you just have to deal with it.

I think I'm going to vote against all incumbents during this election cycle, and I'm probably going to continue to do it until they get the point and start acting right. We should all do that. There are very few people in office right now that are doing right by us.

[sayten]

freddyv said:

That's certainly not what they signed up for.

That's not true... For several years there has been the understanding that active guard peeps have the "Duty" I think it was somewhere in the (yelling) 1920's

WW1 was when they first realized that they had the ability to manipulate the words of the constitution within context...

There has always been the potential... until we exenterate our politicians and make the changes needed.....

we might as well live on a carousel.



I haven't smoked weed all week... sorry

[geminibleeding]

seanx said:

........hmmmm and I thought you were better than this..........

i'm talking mandatory enlistment to become a citizen with all the rights and privledges that would come with it, ie, a citizen would have the right to vote, the right to reap certain benefits and the right to be covered by the bill of rights.

if one didn't want to become a citizen they could just stay a "civilian" but they wouldn't be able to vote, collect welfare, etc.

it is my opinion that to be a citizen of the united states of america, one should serve their country and actually earn any government provided rights and/or entitlements.

[freddyv]

this is what I'm talking about...this should concern people.

Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.
Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; A03

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea's legal authority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department's new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities -- such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The department has previously said the program will not intercept communications.

"There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans," Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released yesterday.

"I think we've fully addressed anybody's concerns," Chertoff added in remarks last week to bloggers. "I think the way is now clear to stand it up and go warm on it."

His statements marked a fresh determination to operate the department's new National Applications Office as part of its counterterrorism efforts. The administration in May 2007 gave DHS authority to coordinate requests for satellite imagery, radar, electronic-signal information, chemical detection and other monitoring capabilities that have been used for decades within U.S. borders for mapping and disaster response.

But Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics cited its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic law enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies against Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the existing civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to security uses.

Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office's operating procedures and safeguards. The department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly said the response was inadequate.

"I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration," said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, which included warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the United States and overseas. "I won't make the same mistake. . . . I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program."

Thompson called DHS's release Thursday of the office's procedures and a civil liberties impact assessment "a good start." But, he said, "We still don't know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided."

DHS officials said the demands are unwarranted. "The legal framework that governs the National Applications Office . . . is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all other U.S. laws," said DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner. She said its operations will be subject to "robust," structured legal scrutiny by multiple agencies.

[sayten]

once again... I'm not worried about the government spying on me...

I got nothing to hide...

[freddyv]

I thought you were down with the green...last time I checked that's a big no-no with our government.

[sayten]

Freddy... seriously...

Think for a minute about the minuscule chance that a father of two who has worked in the same establishment for 14 years... doesn't drink... I could keep going on about the normalcy of my life but......

It's not going to happen... there are much bigger fish to fry.... much bigger....


The day that it does come to some one listening into my phone calls they will just die of boredom because I hate using the phone... I'm a listener... usually that means I'm not paying attention because I don't care what the other person is saying... it's not personal.. my brain just shuts off as soon... anyway......

just not going to happen....

to become a target you must make it onto the radar...

I'm fucking stealthy....

[freddyv]

I don't think you're seeing the big picture. Regardless of whether you feel that you're a "big fish" or not, the government is silently collecting information on you and if they find out something that they don't like (which could be as simple as your political views...take a look at what's going on/gone on in other countries/eras) you don't really have any recourse.

Are you familiar with National Security Letters? The government doesn't use these self-written warrants to get narrowly construed information on one person...it writes them in such a way that they get entire databases of information at a time. The current administration is trying to push through legislation to protect companies like AT&T that have allowed the NSA to create secret rooms within their offices that reroute and copy all transmissions (phone conversations, emails, etc.). The amount of data copied each day is many times the size of the entire Library of Congress.

Say that you use a bonus card at Giant. It tracks your purchases. Guess what...the government has access to that information if they want. You might say "who cares if they know that I buy jelly donuts and turkey hill iced tea?" The point is that you have a right to privacy that is constitutionally protected that is being completely invaded. Maybe the government is being "good" right now and not using any of this information in shady ways...there is no way for us to know if it's happening or not as they typically hide behind "state secrets" doctrine and there is no way for us to insure that they don't take advantage of this in the future...if they're not already doing so.

Companies that pledge to protect your privacy and not sell your information to third parties are just giving it away to the government. The Patriot Act was supposed to keep us safe from terrorists...but not a single terrorist has been convicted in a court of law as a result of information obtained by the Patriot Act. Instead it's bringing down people like Elliot Spitzer, and it's being used as a tool to bring down organized crime.

Clearly our government isn't looking out for our best interests. They're trying to take every shortcut they can and trampling all over our inalienable rights in the process. They're taking away more and more each day...little by little...and if we all remain docile and do nothing one day we'll take a look around and wonder where all of our rights have gone.

[freddyv]

sayten said:

once again... I'm not worried about the government spying on me...

I got nothing to hide...

Also, this attitude is kind of troubling. I used to feel the same way, and after 9-11 happened I, along with many other Americans, let the current administration use this rationale to sneak quite possibly the single-most damaging piece of legislation of our time (as far as our civil liberties go), if not ever, right by us (the Patriot Act).

If the government wants to question you and you knowingly and of your own free will choose to offer up information, that's perfectly fine. The government should not, however, be able to invade your privacy without your knowledge or consent for any reason. Protection from terror and liberty/freedom/privacy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how much the government wants you to believe that it is.

I don't think it's fair for the government to hold its citizens to a higher standard of obeying the law than they themselves personally hold. No one is above the law!

Seriously, we can't pull half the shit that the government does and gets away with every single day.

We just had tax day...think about how our constitutionally protected rights are violated with that garbage.

[sayten]

I feel your compassion... I understand where you are coming from...

But my way of thinking is that ignorance is bliss....

If I just do what ever it is.. be it trivial or sensational... they require...

I'm not going to be on this earth that long... so the time that I make of it right now with my kids... family and friends... that's what matters in my head...

not what some douche bags with big interests are cooking up...



Once people in this country get sick of it... things will change... lazy people...



change this....
get rid of welfare and start killing death row inmates.....see what happens... please... thin the herd in biblical proportions... nothing civil..... Enact the Murderbus and allow me to pilot it across the country taking care of all things murderous....




The bus is now completely operational...

[seanx]

geminibleeding said:

seanx said:

........hmmmm and I thought you were better than this..........

i'm talking mandatory enlistment to become a citizen with all the rights and privledges that would come with it, ie, a citizen would have the right to vote, the right to reap certain benefits and the right to be covered by the bill of rights.

if one didn't want to become a citizen they could just stay a "civilian" but they wouldn't be able to vote, collect welfare, etc.

it is my opinion that to be a citizen of the united states of america, one should serve their country and actually earn any government provided rights and/or entitlements.

............semantics......same bullshit statement utilizing alternate wording............

[seanx]

sayten said:

I feel your compassion... I understand where you are coming from...

But my way of thinking is that ignorance is bliss....

If I just do what ever it is.. be it trivial or sensational... they require...

I'm not going to be on this earth that long... so the time that I make of it right now with my kids... family and friends... that's what matters in my head...

not what some douche bags with big interests are cooking up...

.........if I'm not mistaken, people like this (indifferent, complacent, and apologetic) were labeled "Loyalists" to the King........

........and we all know what happened to them.................

[sayten]

seanx said:

.........if I'm not mistaken, people like this (indifferent, complacent, and apologetic) were labeled "Loyalists" to the King........

........and we all know what happened to them.................

whatever... I don't feel I have anything to apologize for... indifferent...no... apathetic... YES


I just don't feel like wasting my time on stupid shit... I'd rather look for people to slander anonymously...

[seanx]

sayten said:

seanx said:

.........if I'm not mistaken, people like this (indifferent, complacent, and apologetic) were labeled "Loyalists" to the King........

........and we all know what happened to them.................

whatever... I don't feel I have anything to apologize for... indifferent...no... apathetic... YES


I just don't feel like wasting my time on stupid shit... I'd rather look for people to slander anonymously...

........your children must be proud.........


........now THAT'S some funny shit..........

[geminibleeding]

sayten said:

thin the herd in biblical proportions...

a-fucking-men.

[sayten]

Apr 18, 2008 16:34:04 GMT -5 geminibleeding said:

sayten said:

thin the herd in biblical proportions...

a-fucking-men.

tell me it's not needed... I dare you