Col. Hackworth on the draft.

[arsbanned]

Don't mind the FUD was shot down quite handily today in the House. Woot for the left's fearmongering.

As if it can't be brought back in a heartbeat. Just because they pulled a stunt in the house doesn't mean it's cast in concrete.
And Hackworth is anything but a bleeding heart.

Oh, I would be. Not that the FUD is actually going to happen(if Bush is re-elected) but I've stated I'd be down at the recruiter's office asap so some whiny ass pansy like you doesn't have to go. Have you done anything except shoot your mouth off on the war? Where is your principled stand? Why weren't you there with the human shields? Hmmm...yeah...go figure.

Attacking a superior intellect is a sure sign of a weak mind. I'm serious.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

*Yawn*

Don't mind the FUD was shot down quite handily today in the House. Woot for the left's fearmongering.:roll:

CsG

You might want to actually read the article. I don't think it's fair or accurate to paint Col Hackworth as a bleeding heart.

Oh, he's far from a bleeding heart, alright. Perhaps the term "opportunist" fits better, if you will. He sold out.

Alvin C. York advised a movie production in 1939 only after much persuasion from politicians. Much of his profits were donated to a school in Fentress County, Tennessee. When York was near death, President Kennedy initiated legislation on his behalf to hold the IRS in check because "hick from the sticks" never understood such matters.

Audie Murphy starred in sixteen films before acting in "To Hell and Back". Murphy also originally declined the role, citing war profiteering.

James Stockdale retired as a flag officer. His work on Stoicism is highly regarded by many philosophical scholars as modern insight into ancient thought.

And Mike Howard now works for the VA after retiring as O6. His name crops up in the news about once every three or four years.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Don't mind the FUD was shot down quite handily today in the House. Woot for the left's fearmongering.

As if it can't be brought back in a heartbeat. Just because they pulled a stunt in the house doesn't mean it's cast in concrete.
And Hackworth is anything but a bleeding heart.

Oh, I would be. Not that the FUD is actually going to happen(if Bush is re-elected) but I've stated I'd be down at the recruiter's office asap so some whiny ass pansy like you doesn't have to go. Have you done anything except shoot your mouth off on the war? Where is your principled stand? Why weren't you there with the human shields? Hmmm...yeah...go figure.

Attacking a superior intellect is a sure sign of a weak mind. I'm serious.

a "stunt"? Surely you mean the "stunt" to be the ones trying to introduce this type of legislation -right?

Yeah, He shouldn't have tried to underhandedly tried to accuse me of being all talk. Maybe he'll learn to think before he types...but I won't be holding my breath.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

but I've stated I'd be down at the recruiter's office asap so some whiny ass pansy like you doesn't have to go.

I must have touched a nerve because you seem angry. Sorry about that.

Listen, Bremer just said we're short on troops. People that were supposed to return home can't because there's a shortage. So will you do the troops there a favor, put your money where your mouth is, and fight for your country against terrorists intsead of fighting on a P&N board?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

but I've stated I'd be down at the recruiter's office asap so some whiny ass pansy like you doesn't have to go.

I must have touched a nerve because you seem angry. Sorry about that.

Listen, Bremer just said we're short on troops. People that were supposed to return home can't because there's a shortage. So will you do the troops there a favor, put your money where your mouth is, and fight for your country against terrorists intsead of fighting on a P&N board?

No, no nerve. I'm just sick of having to repeat it because some whiny ass pansy tries to attack me saying I should go. I would go first if they started a draft(I'd volunteer), before you whiny ass pansies had to.

Again, are you going to be a human shield since you seem to think the war is wrong?

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
whiny ass pansy

Getting personal huh? Perhaps you should read the forum rules...

And I don't need to be a personal shield beacause I dont' advocate it. You advocate war in Iraq, so go out there and war instead of having our boys do your dirty work for you. 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
whiny ass pansy

Getting personal huh? Perhaps you should read the forum rules...

And I don't need to be a personal shield beacause I dont' advocate it. You advocate war in Iraq, so go out there and war instead of having our boys do your dirty work for you. 🙂

No, try reading. "I'm just sick of having to repeat it because some whiny ass pansy tries to attack me saying I should go"

Again, if you think someone who supports the war has to go fight it - the someone against the war should(according to you "logic") try to stop it. Some people had enough principle to try to stop it as shields...I guess you weren't one of those types of people. You just sit here whining on the intarweb.

There is NOT going to be a draft so long as Bush is in office.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, if you think someone who supports the war has to go fight it - the someone against the war should(according to you "logic") try to stop it. Some people had enough principle to try to stop it as shields...I guess you weren't one of those types of people. You just sit here whining on the intarweb.


CsG

Actually, that is YOUR flawed logic. Not mine.

I don't advocate sending human shields while sitting at home. BUT you advocate sending young people in harm's way to do something you are too frightened to do. Get it?

If I were advocating the use of human shields, then under my logic I should go do it. But I don't advocate being a human shield. In other words, I dont' ask other people to do what I'm not willing to do. But you ask people to do what you're too scared to do.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Say what you want about Hackworth, but I've read some of his books and I think he has good grasp military thinking and thorough knowledge of the use of troops.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

*Yawn*

Don't mind the FUD was shot down quite handily today in the House. Woot for the left's fearmongering.:roll:

CsG

You might want to actually read the article. I don't think it's fair or accurate to paint Col Hackworth as a bleeding heart.

I don't ever recall disagreeing with his opinion? I must have, but he is usually right on about what he writes about.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's be honest people. Nobody WANTS a draft but everybody and their uncle keeps talking about "taking the war to the terrorists" and "killing them before they can hurt us in America." Neither GOPie platitudes nor Michael Moore's crappy movies will get that job done.

Everybody wants the Iraqi police force, Iraqi National Guard, Iraqi Border Patrol, Iraqi Army, and Iraqi Secret Police to be trained, equipped, and deployed in sufficient numbers to draw down US forces in the region. But it ain't gonna happen any time soon . . . if at all. In the meantime, it ain't exactly Pacific Heights in Baghdad. Hell it's not even the Mission District. (Those are SF references for the uninitiated.)

We've already made it clear that we are not going to fight North Korea (at least not with OUR troops). Accordingly, most of the forces in South Korea and Japan should be redeployed to Iraq (we're not fighting China, either). Unfortunately, that's just a bandaid. The long term strategic goals (either Bush's BS or Kerry's wishful thinking) will require a larger military (at least a dramatic increase in Special Forces).

In the very plausible scenario of Iraq getting worse . . . we will not be able to depend on the fledgling (and unreliable) Iraqi forces. We certainly have no allies that will send more troops. Under such a scenario we will be compelled to either draft our own "fledgling force" composed largely of people more adept at killing from the comfort of a couch and a PS2 . . . or . . . packing our shyte and leaving. Both options will have dire consequences.

But this is definitely a discussion that should not be swept under the rug. It's perfectly fine to prepare for the best case scenario but only a fool would ignore the worst.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, if you think someone who supports the war has to go fight it - the someone against the war should(according to you "logic") try to stop it. Some people had enough principle to try to stop it as shields...I guess you weren't one of those types of people. You just sit here whining on the intarweb.


CsG

Actually, that is YOUR flawed logic. Not mine.

I don't advocate sending human shields while sitting at home. BUT you advocate sending young people in harm's way to do something you are too frightened to do. Get it?

If I were advocating the use of human shields, then under my logic I should go do it. But I don't advocate being a human shield. In other words, I dont' ask other people to do what I'm not willing to do. But you ask people to do what you're too scared to do.

No, you are trying to claim that I should go there(on principle) because I "advocate" it. Thus using that "logic" you should take a principled stand and do what others did to try to stop the war. Keep whining on the intarweb and think you are actually doing something:roll:

Again for the weak of mind: There is NOT going to be a draft so long as Bush is in office.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, you are trying to claim that I should go there(on principle) because I "advocate" it.

You should go there on principle because you want people to fight. So fight if you're not scared.

I dont' want people to be human shields, so I don't think I should have to be a human shield.

You have built a nice straw man. Now address the issue, that you don't put your money where your mouth. Redirecting focus on me is merely obfuscation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, you are trying to claim that I should go there(on principle) because I "advocate" it.

You should go there on principle because you want people to fight. So fight if you're not scared.

I dont' want people to be human shields, so I don't think I should have to be a human shield.

You have built a nice straw man. Now address the issue, that you don't put your money where your mouth. Redirecting focus on me is merely obfuscation.

Again, your "logic" is flawed. Based on your "logic" those who are against the war should show their support with action - which could be human shields. You want those who support the war to show their support - thus the question can be asked of you who are against it. Sorry you can't handle your own game.

CsG