They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.

I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.

Oh, ps:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(

Yes, Charles Rangel, Democrat, New York (representing Harlem)
has said essentially the same thing, about siz months earlier.
He sponsored a bill to re-establish the draft.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.

I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.

Oh, ps:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:12:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.

I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.

Oh, ps:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139



Yes?

Is that your final answer?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.

I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.

Oh, ps:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139


I just responded to what I heard on the news. I see there's rumblings from
Hagel but Hollings and Rangel have sponsored legislation. I don' see
anything about Hagel introducing legislation.

The report I heard said that CBS reported that there was a secret campaign
to re-introduce the draft and it was being done by the Administration.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...-SearchStories

CBS News' Josh Gross reports that it wouldn't be surprising if some of
today's questions are about the draft.

Trail Byte: It is an issue that has been tackled on television network news,
the Internet and in newspapers, but it still pops up sporadically during
Vice President Cheney's town hall meeting: does the Bush administration have
plan to reinstate the military draft?

Not surprisingly, the question is usually asked by young men between the
ages of 18 and 25 who will preface their question by saying they heard it
from someone else. On Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, the vice president again
tried to clarify his position.

"Senator Kerry has said that you and President Bush have a secret plan to
reinstitute the draft. Is that true?" inquired a young man of draft age.
Unable to resist a shot at Kerry, Cheney quickly shot back, "As far as I
know, he's the only one with secret plans."

"I don't know anybody in a position of responsibility who would advocate
going back to the draft," Cheney continued. "We keep it there, it's on the
books, the statute is there in the eventuality of some totally unforeseen
set of circumstances that nobody can contemplate today."

In part, the vice president has the Internet to thank for the perpetuation
of this line of questioning. While it has revolutionized the way campaigns
raise money and reach voters, political rumors abound in cyberspace.
Recently, emails have been circulating around the country, especially among
males on college campuses, concerning the return of conscription.

While the emails are filled with factual errors, like most Internet rumors,
these stories are somewhat based in reality. They mention actual bills in
the House and Senate (introduced by Democrats) that have wording suggesting
mandatory service for both men and women. Neither presidential candidate
supports the legislation and it has gone nowhere on the Hill.

But that doesn't stop the topic from being brought up in the vice president's
public forums. In fact, earlier this month, one attendee risked disciplinary
action over the question. On September 17th, at another town hall meeting in
Oregon City, Ore. a student said to the vice president, "Yesterday, a
teacher of mine refused to sign an absence slip to come here. And she said,
'Do you realize once, if, Bush gets reelected, that he'll make a draft.'"

As at the event in Iowa, the vice president shot down the rumor. "The
all-volunteer force has produced an absolutely remarkable group of men and
women in the service," he said. He continued by adding a personal
observation. "And I think it works. It works extraordinarily well. And I'm a
great believer in it, from having sat there as Secretary of Defense and
watched it operate."

Hoping to put an end to the draft talk, on Monday he finished his answer
with the most definitive answer possible. "The suggestion that somehow there's
a plan out there for a secret draft is, I'd call it, you could call it
either an urban legend or a nasty political rumor, but it's not true."


So I guess it's also partly bull**** from Kerry, since he keeps bringing it
up.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(

You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.

I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.

Oh, ps:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139


CBS says that even though they know they are debunked rumors that's beside
the point.

They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(

Yes, they're Democrats.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:23:34 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They just did a story claiming that the Administration has a campaign to
bring back the DRAFT!

The problem is there is no such plan by the Administration, there is
however
a bill being sponsored by CHARLIE RANGEL a Democrat.

Rangel was talking about this months ago and made the rounds on the cable
news channels then.

Does CBS have a new policy that eliminates research?

I think that you're imagining things. Would you like to describe this
story in depth or provide a link? Because if you're talking about the
Richard Schlesinger story recently aired, you're full of ****.
Completely and totally misrepresenting the story aired on CBS.

I'll be waiting, because this isn't the first time that you've
misinterpreted a story that you saw or heard.

Oh, ps:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139


I just responded to what I heard on the news.

Once again, you really should stop and think before you post nonsense.
If you see below, you'll find a link that shows the video of what you
probably saw. In that very report, they show a clip of the President
saying that he wasn't going to reinstitute the draft.

I see there's rumblings from
Hagel but Hollings and Rangel have sponsored legislation. I don' see
anything about Hagel introducing legislation.

Nor did I say that he did. I just wanted to point out that some
Republicans are advocating as well. But it's not germane to your claim
anyway, which was total bull****. And they say CBS is bad.

The report I heard said that CBS reported that there was a secret campaign
to re-introduce the draft and it was being done by the Administration.

What does "Neither presidential candidate
supports the legislation and it has gone nowhere on the Hill" mean to
you exactly?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...-SearchStories

CBS News' Josh Gross reports that it wouldn't be surprising if some of
today's questions are about the draft.

Trail Byte: It is an issue that has been tackled on television network news,
the Internet and in newspapers, but it still pops up sporadically during
Vice President Cheney's town hall meeting: does the Bush administration have
plan to reinstate the military draft?

Not surprisingly, the question is usually asked by young men between the
ages of 18 and 25 who will preface their question by saying they heard it
from someone else. On Tuesday in Dubuque, Iowa, the vice president again
tried to clarify his position.

"Senator Kerry has said that you and President Bush have a secret plan to
reinstitute the draft. Is that true?" inquired a young man of draft age.
Unable to resist a shot at Kerry, Cheney quickly shot back, "As far as I
know, he's the only one with secret plans."

"I don't know anybody in a position of responsibility who would advocate
going back to the draft," Cheney continued. "We keep it there, it's on the
books, the statute is there in the eventuality of some totally unforeseen
set of circumstances that nobody can contemplate today."

In part, the vice president has the Internet to thank for the perpetuation
of this line of questioning. While it has revolutionized the way campaigns
raise money and reach voters, political rumors abound in cyberspace.
Recently, emails have been circulating around the country, especially among
males on college campuses, concerning the return of conscription.

While the emails are filled with factual errors, like most Internet rumors,
these stories are somewhat based in reality. They mention actual bills in
the House and Senate (introduced by Democrats) that have wording suggesting
mandatory service for both men and women. Neither presidential candidate
supports the legislation and it has gone nowhere on the Hill.

But that doesn't stop the topic from being brought up in the vice president's
public forums. In fact, earlier this month, one attendee risked disciplinary
action over the question. On September 17th, at another town hall meeting in
Oregon City, Ore. a student said to the vice president, "Yesterday, a
teacher of mine refused to sign an absence slip to come here. And she said,
'Do you realize once, if, Bush gets reelected, that he'll make a draft.'"

As at the event in Iowa, the vice president shot down the rumor. "The
all-volunteer force has produced an absolutely remarkable group of men and
women in the service," he said. He continued by adding a personal
observation. "And I think it works. It works extraordinarily well. And I'm a
great believer in it, from having sat there as Secretary of Defense and
watched it operate."

Hoping to put an end to the draft talk, on Monday he finished his answer
with the most definitive answer possible. "The suggestion that somehow there's
a plan out there for a secret draft is, I'd call it, you could call it
either an urban legend or a nasty political rumor, but it's not true."


So I guess it's also partly bull**** from Kerry, since he keeps bringing it
up.

Unbelievable. I think that you owe CBS *and* RAO an apology *and* an
explicit retraction immediately.

PS, you you go here, you can see CBS airing a clip of the President
saying that he is *not* going to reinstitute the draft (probably aired
on Tuesday):

http://tinyurl.com/3rsld

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

It's amazing what you can read on these blogs, and I welcome the free
exchange of information, but there's a reason why you don't get your
news over the backyard fence listening to your neighbor.

However, its good to know somebody is looking over CBS'
and Rather's shoulder. For a mainline network journalist, I prefer Sam
Donaldson.
He admits his personal moderately liberal leanings and consciously tries to
park
them and to be fair, and at least look at both sides, and he will ask both
sides
tough questions.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:10:15 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

It's amazing what you can read on these blogs, and I welcome the free
exchange of information, but there's a reason why you don't get your
news over the backyard fence listening to your neighbor.

To be fair, I should have added USENET, present company included.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.

You are *such* a liar. They said "But Beverly's not buying it. She's a
Republican, but also a single-issue voter".

That sounds ridiculous, the only single issue republicans I ever heard of
were the anti-abortion crowd.

I wasn't lieing, I was telling what they were saying on the news. Any
inaccuracies were unintentional.



That's hardly an "average
citizen". Not only that, but are you saying that if someone is
concerned enough to be a "single-issue voter", that they might not
naturally work toward that issue?

I didn't see the report, I passed on what was being said on the news. I
also posted the entire story so there would a chance for people to have it
all in context. That's hardly disingenous.

Are you being disingenuous by not identifying her as a Republican?
chuckle

You've been reading too many blog entries like this one:

I don't read any blogs.

My biggest problem with the whole deal is why were they running a story
about a non-issue?

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and pay some price?"

NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
pay some price?"

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself, isn't
worth defending.


NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil wrote:



On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
pay some price?"


Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself, isn't
worth defending.

Note that in this particular case USA don't defending but attacking.
It's a big, big, big difference, you know.




NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:04:14 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and pay some price?"

NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
. net

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
isn't worth defending.

And that's why we lost WW2 - all those darn draftees!

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and
pay some price?"

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself, isn't
worth defending.

Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?

NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
. net

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
isn't worth defending.

And that's why we lost WW2 - all those darn draftees!
There were lots of volunteers as well.

I stand by my statement, a country who people aren't willing to defend it
voluntarily is not worth defending.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and
pay some price?"

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
isn't
worth defending.

Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?

We didn't lose we quit.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and
pay some price?"

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
isn't
worth defending.

Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?

We didn't lose we quit.

Wow! Now *that's* an admirable American trait to emulate!

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

The Devil wrote:


On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?

We didn't lose we quit.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!*

--
td

* Forgive the apparent excess, but that was exactly my reaction.








Another "gem" from DM. ROFLMAO!!!!



Bruce J. Richman

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:04:14 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil wrote:



On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and pay some price?"

NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.


I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.


I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?

And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
1917?

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.


I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?


And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
1917?

More deads.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.


I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?


And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
1917?

More deads.

And you get to speak French because of it.

Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
after you were invaded? Twice?

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel
wrote:



NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.


I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?


And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
1917?

More deads.


And you get to speak French because of it.

Why ? Did you have any historic facts to bring to this debate ?
Are you also one of these naive guys who use to think that US entry in
WWI have brought the victory and solve all the problems ?

Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
after you were invaded? Twice?

Why are you saying "to your aid" ? Why are you adding "Twice" ?
Sincerely you are sounding exactly like ScottW.
Why the **** you US guys are you always looking for kind of "Disney
tales" or other demagogic explanations.
What the **** are you waiting for ? A "thank you" ?
So you get mine "thank you !". Happy now ? Sorry but if you are asking
for a kind of reward, I haven't enough money for all French people and
you will be deceived.

But don't forget the main purpose, a US deputy is calling for :
"Americans to pay the price for the furture..."

Between you and me I would have prefer that he wrote "to built the
future". Just a question of terminology... :-(

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
. net

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
isn't worth defending.

And that's why we lost WW2 - all those darn draftees!


In the 40's, the unsophisticated masses were technologically up for shooting
with
"obsolete buggy whips". The weaponry is so sophiticated now, we
need better motivated, more intelligent, and better eductaed troops
than we would get through the draft.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:39:45 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:27:52 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:59:43 +0200, Lionel
wrote:



NB : note that it is perhaps a kind of irony that I haven't understood.


I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

It is very simple, in fact the above sentences remember me the
discourses which have preceded the 1915, 1916 and 1917 massacres in Europe.
Is it better now ?


And what was the result of the US responding to such "sentences" in
1917?

More deads.


And you get to speak French because of it.

Why ? Did you have any historic facts to bring to this debate ?
Are you also one of these naive guys who use to think that US entry in
WWI have brought the victory and solve all the problems ?

I'm pretty sure that it was a major factor. It certainly was the
second time around (WWII). The French were almost a non-factor the
second time around, unfortunately.

Let me get this straight - the US was wrong for coming to your aid
after you were invaded? Twice?

Why are you saying "to your aid" ? Why are you adding "Twice" ?

Because of the Second World War as well, a war where we had to
REINSTATE the draft (1940).

Sincerely you are sounding exactly like ScottW.
Why the **** you US guys are you always looking for kind of "Disney
tales" or other demagogic explanations.

Look who's talking, EuroDisneyGuy. I simply posted that there is a
Republican who believes that the draft should be reinstated and you go
off of some weird tangent about 1915. I actually happen to sympathize
with the idea that if your're going to have people defending your
country, it might not be a bad idea to assure that it isn't onlly the
poor and lower middle class bearing the burden. This doesn't mean that
I'm in favor of the draft though. I simply can see the point.

What the **** are you waiting for ? A "thank you" ?
So you get mine "thank you !". Happy now ? Sorry but if you are asking
for a kind of reward, I haven't enough money for all French people and
you will be deceived.

No, you missed the point. You brought up the draft in the context of
the First World War. I'm pointing out that without that draft and the
US' entry into the war, actually many more dead might have been
suffered *and* the Germans might have won the war. You and the Allies
were facing a deficit of 38 divisions against the Germans. Things
would have been very bloody for a long while without America entering
the fray and you guys were close to a defeat.

But don't forget the main purpose, a US deputy is calling for :
"Americans to pay the price for the furture..."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Between you and me I would have prefer that he wrote "to built the
future". Just a question of terminology... :-(

Once again, no idea...

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:55:54 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

there's the violation of 17 UN resolutions and the refusal to verify
disposal of WMD known to have existed in the 90's.

Well, *that's* worth 17,000 lives and a few billion dollars...



It is. The price of appeasement ultimately is higher.

I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
Bush) that the international community should drive our security
concerns.

When did you go to the dark side? chuckle

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:55:54 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

there's the violation of 17 UN resolutions and the refusal to verify
disposal of WMD known to have existed in the 90's.

Well, *that's* worth 17,000 lives and a few billion dollars...



It is. The price of appeasement ultimately is higher.

I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
Bush) that the international community should drive our security
concerns.

When did you go to the dark side? chuckle

where did yo come up with this?

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:39:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:55:54 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

there's the violation of 17 UN resolutions and the refusal to verify
disposal of WMD known to have existed in the 90's.

Well, *that's* worth 17,000 lives and a few billion dollars...



It is. The price of appeasement ultimately is higher.

I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
Bush) that the international community should drive our security
concerns.

When did you go to the dark side? chuckle

where did yo come up with this?

Well, you *were* using the UN as justification for action, right?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

LOL, Scott
"I-need-to-be-banned-from-RAO-to-take-the-time-to-weld-a-cap-on-my-speakers"
is giving lessons of life to potential draftees' mothers.
Hey, son of *bitch* I'm ready to pay you the plane ticket in order you
give your point of view to one of those Mothers.

Wanna buy a plane ?

Poor senseless Lionel. Did you know that the release of recent polls
showing 9 of 10 frenchboys prefer John Kerry essentially dooms the Kerry
campaign to defeat?

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:43:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:58:47 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
.. .
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:02 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:58 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"

[snip]


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38139

Do you really have such ****ing *******s in USA ? :-(


You guys just ended the draft in 2001, right? We actually did it in
1972.

You are right. But the following remember me 1916 :

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are
engaged
in today and what the prospects are for the future."

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility
and
pay some price?"

Because a country that can't raise a volunteer Army to defend itself,
isn't
worth defending.

Hence the loss in Vietnam, right?

We didn't lose we quit.

Wow! Now *that's* an admirable American trait to emulate!

It's a trait that was hammered into the conscience of America by all the
anti-war protests.



Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:39:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news


I see. So you now believe very strongly in the UN. That's a good
thing. I'm glad that you are in agreement with Kerry (according to
Bush) that the international community should drive our security
concerns.

When did you go to the dark side? chuckle

where did yo come up with this?

Well, you *were* using the UN as justification for action, right?

I think the UN has some useful purposes. But not
as a world 'government'. Nor should UN inaction
or failure prevent us, or any other nation, from unilaterally
acting to protect vital national interests and defending itself.
Overall, I would say the world is a little safer for
having the UN, despite its obvious shortcomings.
Diplomacy is very important, and it is a ready
vehicle for diplomatic contacts.
But I NEVER said or implied that it should,
as you put it, "drive our security concerns".

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:36:15 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

You're just not willing to admit that you shot your mouth off without
doing the research, are you?

I've already stated that it was on the news.

What news? Bet you can't even remember.

I also posted the story from
CBS website.

You just can't admit that the story was an example of CBS bias trying to
bring cast aspersions on the administration.

Well, since it had a clip of the President saying directly, "No, we
don't need a draft", I don't know how that's possible.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 20:52:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

I think the UN has some useful purposes. But not
as a world 'government'. Nor should UN inaction
or failure prevent us, or any other nation, from unilaterally
acting to protect vital national interests and defending itself.
Overall, I would say the world is a little safer for
having the UN, despite its obvious shortcomings.
Diplomacy is very important, and it is a ready
vehicle for diplomatic contacts.
But I NEVER said or implied that it should,
as you put it, "drive our security concerns".

It's an interesting question: do you feel the United States should be
able to invade any country whenever it deems it to be in its own
interest, without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? This
seems to be Bush's position. This is currently a violation of U.S.
treaty obligations, as far as I can see. Or maybe he's just saying he
should be able to act to enforce U.N. resolutions unilaterally--and
with any other countries that choose to cooperate--without
authorization from the Security Council.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:33:54 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They also quoted a woman who they insisted was an average citizen, they
failed to identify her as an anti-draft activist.

You are *such* a liar.

I just can't read the above without wondering, did you stomp your foot when
you wrote it?