Army in Worst Recruiting Slump in Decades

[sandman]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

Everything you said after this was ignored because this statement was so ignorant.? This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a long time.? Let me use your approach to describe this sentence.? If you think this war was about settling a score for Bush Sr. or for oil, then you must be a moron.? ?As the left likes to say all the time...show me a link.? ?

 

Of course it wasn't for the oil

Strange that North Korea with proven WMD capabilities was left alone and yet Iraq was hit!

I wonder why! Maybe...err....let's see.....oil? Settle a score for Bush snr?

Maybe it was all that evidence that showed the 9/11 bombers were from Iraq - oh wait, no, ithey were from Saudia Arabia!

Or maybe the war was to help those poor Iraqi's being repressed - which would kind of beg the question, why not Sudan? (I'd imagine u won't even know what I mean by that)

Maybe u can offer a reason why North Korea which has developed, and threatens to use, its weapons was ignored (and is still ignored) but Iraq was hit despite no reliable evidence of WMD's being there at all?

U can do it!

this post just shows that you really do not have an understanding of what is going on.

now try to have an open mind for a second, cause it actually makes sense.

the U.S. has not invaded north korea because they have cooperated. iraq did not cooperate. so the U.N. issued several Resolutions to force them to comly. (and these Resolutions, they're pretty serious stuff.)

and the Resolution promised force if not followed.

therefore, IT IS NOT STRANGE WE DID NOT INVADE NORTH KOREA!

[Surfrider]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

I have to agree with Charity on this one.  Once this statement is made the rest pretty much gets ignored.  Talk about being ignorant or moronic.  This is the same as saying that the reason France and Germnay didn't support us is because they were involved in the oil for foods scandal and that these countries were doing pretty well "dealing" with Suddam.  For someone that I had seen make some intelligent posts in some other threads, I am dissapointed.

[Surfrider]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

Everything you said after this was ignored because this statement was so ignorant.? This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a long time.? Let me use your approach to describe this sentence.? If you think this war was about settling a score for Bush Sr. or for oil, then you must be a moron.? ?As the left likes to say all the time...show me a link.? ?

 

Of course it wasn't for the oil

Strange that North Korea with proven WMD capabilities was left alone and yet Iraq was hit!

I wonder why! Maybe...err....let's see.....oil? Settle a score for Bush snr?

Maybe it was all that evidence that showed the 9/11 bombers were from Iraq - oh wait, no, ithey were from Saudia Arabia!

Or maybe the war was to help those poor Iraqi's being repressed - which would kind of beg the question, why not Sudan? (I'd imagine u won't even know what I mean by that)

Maybe u can offer a reason why North Korea which has developed, and threatens to use, its weapons was ignored (and is still ignored) but Iraq was hit despite no reliable evidence of WMD's being there at all?

U can do it!

this post just shows that you really do not have an understanding of what is going on.

now try to have an open mind for a second, cause it actually makes sense.

the U.S. has not invaded north korea because they have cooperated. iraq did not cooperate. so the U.N. issued several Resolutions to force them to comly. (and these Resolutions, they're pretty serious stuff.)

and the Resolution promised force if not followed.

therefore, IT IS NOT STRANGE WE DID NOT INVADE NORTH KOREA!

You are wasting your time.  I have learned that once these people have made up their minds there is no convincing them otherwise.

[Kurupt Girl]

good.

[Izzy]

the U.S. has not invaded north korea because they have cooperated.

Of course they have. Then they start making their weapons all over again. Then they cooperate. Then they start all over again.

Co-operation? Really?

Naive? Oh yes u r.

[Axls Locomotive]

the U.S. has not invaded north korea because they have cooperated.

Of course they have. Then they start making their weapons all over again. Then they cooperate. Then they start all over again.

Co-operation? Really?

Naive? Oh yes u r.

ya know...when sandman says cooperation i get the feeling that its more a threat than cooperation....

[Izzy]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

I have to agree with Charity on this one.? Once this statement is made the rest pretty much gets ignored.? Talk about being ignorant or moronic.? This is the same as saying that the reason France and Germnay didn't support us is because they were involved in the oil for foods scandal and that these countries were doing pretty well "dealing" with Suddam.? For someone that I had seen make some intelligent posts in some other threads, I am dissapointed.

Disappointed? ?I'm text on a screen and u get disapointed by it? Hell if u ever got a girlfriend and she dumped u ur so emotional fragile i doubt u'd ever recover

Getting ur self killed for a pointless war the rest of the world realised was such is moronic. But they did it for their nation, how noble! And yes, the 1940's want their attitudes back.

If the war's so just how come u haven't joined up?

How many more Iraqi's need to die before u turn against the war - do we need to hit 200,000 dead?

[Genesis]

How many more Iraqi's need to die before u turn against the war - do we need to hit 200,000 dead?

No number is going to make them turn against the war. They'll learn when they lose someone close. Till then it's all blah blah blah... 

[Surfrider]

U'd have to be mad to join the army and get urself blown up by some suicide bomber just so ur glorious president can settle daddy's score and get hold of more oil!

I have to agree with Charity on this one.? Once this statement is made the rest pretty much gets ignored.? Talk about being ignorant or moronic.? This is the same as saying that the reason France and Germnay didn't support us is because they were involved in the oil for foods scandal and that these countries were doing pretty well "dealing" with Suddam.? For someone that I had seen make some intelligent posts in some other threads, I am dissapointed.

Disappointed? ?I'm text on a screen and u get disapointed by it? Hell if u ever got a girlfriend and she dumped u ur so emotional fragile i doubt u'd ever recover

Is that an attempt to take a shot at me?? I said I thought you had made some intelligent posts in the past, not funny ones.? Your attempt at humor bombed.?

I expect some people to spew the uneducated bullshit.? Others I expect a little more from.? I guess, from the few posts that I had read of yours, I placed you in the wrong category.? Sorry.?

Getting ur self killed for a pointless war the rest of the world realised was such is moronic. But they did it for their nation, how noble! And yes, the 1940's want their attitudes back.

Some people don't agree with you.? In fact, most of those that are serving and going to war for what they believe is in the best interest of their nation disagree with you.? I think it is disgraceful that you would dishonor their service and their willingness to serve their countries by calling them morons.

So we have finally crossed over from bad mouthing the administrations to bad mouthing the troops?

And Izzy, the 60's want their attitudes back.

If the war's so just how come u haven't joined up?

I am not defending the war.? In fact, I think it was a mistake.? However, I realize that there are others that feel differently, including most that are actually on the ground.? I will not dishonor their service nor their willingness to do what I am not, and probably won't ever, by calling them morons.? Furthermore, just because I don't believe that the intentions of our country were to make revenge for our President's father nor to gain oil, doesn't mean that I think this war was right or just.? I would think you could figure that out.

How many more Iraqi's need to die before u turn against the war - do we need to hit 200,000 dead?

How many will die once we leave?? After Vietnam millions were slaughtered.? I think this war was a mistake and wrong, but either way Iraqis are going to die, and in fact were dying before the war.  I think we should look to see what is best from the point where we are at now, not from where we were before the war.  As I have said before, I think it is hard to argue that waging this war was a good decision.

[pilferk]

All we have to do is pull troops out of where we don't need them at this point. How many troops do we really need in Germany? The cold war is over.

It cracks me up when people call it an Illegal war. Saddam violated UN mandates and we enforced them. This isnt even bringing the WMD fiasco into it.

Not quite so cut and dry.

WE argue that we were within our rights to enforce UN Resolution 1441? via force according to UN Resolutions 678 and 687.

The UN, and member countries, argue otherwise.

Here's some good links on the subject:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

The claims the war are illegal aren't all that sensational or unrealistic....? The war MIGHT be legal, it might not be.? I doubt we'll ever actually get to hear arguements in front of the World Court on the issue, or in any other court, for that matter.?

Edit: Note that Isreal, FYI, is in violation of about 30 UN Resolutions...and in much more "serious" violation than Iraq was of 1441.  Just something I saw in one of the articles that I thought was interesting....

[SLCPUNK]

It cracks me up when people call it an Illegal war. Saddam violated UN mandates and we enforced them. This isnt even bringing the WMD fiasco into it.

A war against the sovereign state of Iraq without the express authorization of the UNO is illegal under international law, running against the UN Charter and against the Resolution 1441.

Under international law, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is clear:

?All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?.

Article 51 spells out the right of nations to wage war:
?Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security?.

Since Iraq has neither waged an act of war against the USA or UK and since international peace and security is put at risk not by Iraq but by the USA and United Kingdom, the provisions for self-defence are not met.

Much is said by the warmongers about Resolutions 678 and 687 (1991), claiming that they allow a military attack to be launched against Iraq under the principle that their provisions were not met. However, the UNO does not enact ghost or voodoo resolutions, which are passed, acted upon, forgotten and resurrected twelve years later when the time is deemed right. If the context of the question is different, the Security Council has to deliberate a further resolution.

This was the case with 1441, which under paragraph 3, instructs Iraq to ?provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council?a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems?. Iraq subsequently provided a 12.000 page report.

Evidently, questions were asked about details and naturally, time is needed to reply. 12.000 pages and numerous weapons programmes involve a universe of materials and Iraq has complied consistently with the inspections teams.

Under paragraph 4, ?material breach will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below?. Material breach has not been reported to the Council, rather, the inspections teams have both stated that Iraq is cooperating and that they need more time to carry out their duties determined under Resolution 1441.

The ?immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access? guaranteed under Paragraph 5 of 1441 has been fulfilled by Iraq. Paragraph 10 ?Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates?.

The United States of America has not been forthcoming with this material, despite its many insinuations. There was even a ridiculous report presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell, who referred to foreign intelligence reports which turned out to be no more than a 1991 thesis copied from the internet by the British Intelligence Services and vague references, picked up by the biased western media, about links between Saddam Hussein?s Ba?ath regime and Al-Qaeda, never proved because they are untrue.

Under Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, the United States of America is hereby challenged to produce the documentation behind these allegations. Should this documentation not be produced, the USA is guilty of lying to the UNSC or is in breach of its provisions.

Under Paragraph 12, should the provisions of Paragraph 4 (failure to comply and cooperate fully with this resolution will constitute material breach, which is not the case) or Paragraph 11 (interference with the inspection process or failure to comply with the disarmament process, also not the case), not be fulfilled, the UNSC ?decides to convene immediately?to consider the situation and the need for full compliance of all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security?.

Fundamentally, Paragraph 13 continues, that ?In that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations?.

Not guilty. This has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and under the fundamental elements of international law, fundamental equality in human rights is a basic, guaranteed principle. What is evident here is that the jury has been tampered with (veiled threats about suspension of aid programmes and economic consequences if members of the UNSC voted against the USA), that the UN Charter and International Law have not been followed and that if there is military action in which any civilian dies, the US and British governments will be liable under international law for prosecution for war crimes.

I personally shall make every effort to this end here on Pravda.Ru to see that international law is adhered to and that the world is ruled on principles of multi-lateralism, equality of rights among nations, diplomacy, discussion and dialogue.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/index.html