SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (213181)12/12/2004 3:05:25 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577883
 
It is hilarious isn't it. Extremists on both sides, liberals and religious right are a danger to our society. That is why I like to expose the liberal left's ideology to be as much trype as the creationist right. What we need more of in this country are centrists. Who cares if you are Christian or not. Morals are morals, but centrists are uniters and that is what we need more of.

Oh and btw, liberals were in power for years under Clinton, it's true, but they didn't have power in Congress, so we had checks and balances. A lot of people give credit to Clinton for the surpluses of the 90's, but that's stupidity. The Congress was Republican and the way our government works is that the Congress holds the purse strings. So if anyone should get credit for the large surpluses of the 90's, it should be the Republican House and Senate.



To: Road Walker who wrote (213181)12/12/2004 4:52:54 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577883
 
Is there a draft in the wind?

December 12, 2004

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter

Henry Bowles can't believe how many classmates at Northwestern University passed the word along as gospel in the days before last month's election.

"It's just astounding," says Bowles, 20, a junior and president of the College Republicans on the Evanston campus. "They would say, 'Well, you know Bush really is going to reinstate the draft.'

"I would say, 'No, that would be political suicide, and here is why it won't happen.'"

DRAFT FACTS

Number of men drafted during past U.S. wars:

World War I (14 months): 2,810,296
World War II (6 years): 10,110,104
Korea (3 years): 1,529,539
Vietnam (8.5 years): 1,857,304

Last man drafted: Entered Army on June 30, 1973.

Source: Selective Service System

Among college and some high school students and on the Internet, it is the hot topic, the buzz -- the rumor that won't go away.

"Kids, forget those career goals after high school," warns one Web site. "You're going to the desert to fight."

Another offers a $9.99 e-Book titled 10 Ways to Dodge the Draft.

"Prepare for a spring 2005 draft," the site warns. "Fail the minimum eligibility requirements."

Never mind that President Bush says he has no plans to reinstate the draft.

"Forget all this talk about a draft," Bush said in an October debate with Democratic challenger John Kerry. "We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the president."

And such a move would require congressional approval -- and the House overwhelmingly voted down one Democratic attempt to bring it back in October by a staggering 402-2 vote.

Despite all that, half of the nation's 18- to 29-year-olds said they believed Bush wanted to reinstate the draft in the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which was released in October.

'Manpower problems not there'

Such talk of reviving the draft is nonsense, says military expert Jack Spencer.

"The chances, given the current security environment, are zero," says Spencer, senior policy analyst for defense and national security at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Can you say there will never be a draft? No, because you don't know what the future will bring.

"But we are so far away from needing or wanting a draft that it boggles my mind that ... people believe this."

The U.S. military now has 2.6 million people in uniform, both on active duty and in the reserves. A total of 170,647 troops were in Iraq and Kuwait on Sept. 30, and another 10,000 are expected to be deployed in the next month.

"The manpower problems just aren't there," Spencer says.

All branches of the armed forces met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the fiscal year that ended in September, except the National Guard, which signed up just 87 percent of the additional people it needed, said Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "Quite frankly, there are still plenty of Americans that still want to be in the military," she says.

Critics point to the National Guard shortfall as proof that people are thinking twice about signing up because of all the overseas action guardsmen are seeing.

But Krenke argues it's because the Guard generally recruits about 5,000 soldiers who leave the regular Army each year, but those Army troops remain on active duty in Iraq. She said the National Guard is devising strategies to deal with the problem.

'We're stretched'

Not all experts are scoffing at the rumors.

"It boils down to one thing, and that is Iraq and how long can we sustain the military deployment there," says Charles V. Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank.

With the troop levels in Iraq about to be increased to 150,000 and another 30,000 in Kuwait, that might not be too long, Pena argues.

The volunteer military operates under what it calls a 3-1 rotation schedule, which requires two stateside units for every one deployed overseas so that troops can be rotated in and out of harm's way.

That means the armed services need three times as many troops as are actually deployed -- 540,000 in the case of Iraq and Kuwait. More than 1.4 million men and women are on active duty, but just 499,543 of them are in the Army, which is handling the bulk of the fighting in Iraq.

"And that does not take into account the other deployments we have around the globe," Pena says. "The active Army is not large enough to maintain a 3-1 deployment ratio, which is why you see the National Guard and reserves being used.

"We're stretched, and so the question will not go away: Does that mean we might have to resort to a draft?"

'A backdoor draft'

Pena says no -- not exactly.

If the situation worsens in Iraq, he thinks politicians might move toward mandatory national service, in which all young people are required to either perform some sort of community work or enlist in the military.

The military component could be made more attractive by making it a shorter term than, for instance, emptying bedpans at a nursing home. The military option would also carry the added benefit of providing job training.

Pena opposes the concept as "a severe broach of civil liberties" and "a backdoor draft." But he envisions conservatives favoring it for military reasons and liberals for the army of "volunteers" they would reap for social programs.

suntimes.com



To: Road Walker who wrote (213181)12/13/2004 1:39:14 AM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1577883
 
I hope that this is not true, or at least, a gross exaggeration.

***********************************************************

Sun, December 12, 2004

U.S. caught in Kabul

By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor


Excellent news from Afghanistan. A new president, chosen in the country's first democratic election, has just been sworn in.

He pledges to extend democracy across Afghanistan, liberate and educate all women, and wipe out "the last remnants of Islamic terrorism" impeding economic and social development. Foreign troops supporting the Kabul government will remain only until security is assured and terrorism eliminated.

But this was not Kabul, Dec. 7, 2004, where the U.S.-installed regime of Hamid Karzai was inaugurated to great fanfare from Washington and the western media. Both hailed -- quite mistakenly -- "Afghanistan's first elections."


Correction. Afghanistan's first true national elections were in 1986 and 1987, under Soviet military occupation. First, the KGB organized a "loya jirga," or national assembly in 1985 and, through bribes and intimidation, got its new Afghan "asset," Najibullah, positioned to replace the ineffectual Afghan communist puppet then in office.

In 2002, the CIA got its Afghan "asset," Hamid Karzai, nominated president through a loya jirga that seemed to many as rigged as the one that promoted Najibullah.

National elections in 1986 and 1987 confirmed Najibullah, Moscow's man in Kabul, as president of Afghanistan. These elections were manipulated, yet they were arguably more open and fairer than the recent U.S.-staged Afghan election.

Warlords were bribed

How can this be? The Afghan communists allowed genuine opposition parties to run and even sought a coalition with anti-communist forces. But these groups -- mujahedin, or "freedom fighters," as the West called them (Kabul branded them "Islamic terrorists") -- spurned Najibullah as a traitor and quisling.

In the U.S.-run Afghan election, all parties or individuals opposed to the American occupation of Afghanistan were excluded. So only ethnic minorities like Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks bought candidates -- and figures favouring collaboration with the occupation were represented.

Warlords, who control 80% of the nation, were bribed with tens of millions to give at least tacit support to Karzai. Afghanistan's majority, the Pushtun, were represented only by a few minor candidates without any political base. The most important Pushtun leader, Gulbadin Hekmatyar, declared a "terrorist" in 2002 for opposing the U.S. invasion, was, of course, excluded.

Afghans, it is true, turned out in large numbers to vote. Elections are still a novelty in Afghanistan, even fake ones. Only in developed democracies are citizens too lazy or indifferent to vote. But the Afghan election had no more democratic credibility than the Soviet elections of the 1980s. In fact, it's painfully ironic to see the U.S. demanding honest elections in Ukraine -- a position applauded by this column -- while staging what amounts to predetermined elections in Afghanistan, and, next year, in Iraq. What about some honest elections in U.S.-dominated Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, etc.?

An expensive mayor

Afghanistan's new "democratic" president is the world's most expensive mayor. Karzai rules only downtown Kabul, protected by 200 U.S. bodyguards, 17,000 U.S. troops and a token NATO force that includes Canadians. It costs Washington $1.6 billion US monthly to keep Karzai in power. Without the foreign troops' bayonets, Karzai's little puppet regime would quickly be swept away.

The real power behind figurehead Karzai is the Northern Alliance, the rump of the old Afghan Communist Party, made up of Tajiks and Uzbeks.

Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers almost totally ended poppy/heroin production. Today, America's Northern Alliance communist allies have restored the multibillion-dollar drug trade and are now said to control 95% of the world heroin supply. As in Indochina, the U.S. again finds itself in bed with major drug dealers while espousing a platitudinous "war on drugs."

Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is a chaotic mess ruled by warlords, drug kingpins, and the Taliban, which is alive and well, waiting with legendary Pushtun patience for the U.S. to withdraw.

The U.S. has stuck its head in a hornet's nest in Afghanistan. Staying on is hugely expensive and painful. But a U.S. pullout would be hailed as a triumph by anti-American forces across the Islamic world. So the U.S. is good and stuck in Afghanistan -- just what Osama bin Laden wanted.

canoe.ca