Well, we're going to have to have something to continue fighting IraqNam through Election Day 2008. Our current members of the military aren't going to like being on 4+ years of active duty.
It was be just one of many "campaign promises" Shrub will break not long after his next 4 years of failed policies starts.
A few people have CONTINUED to imply that the Bush admin will be instituting a "draft".
Of course, these posters are also some of the more strident critics of the president, and they also seem to have an inability to discuss the current admin. without resorting to childish name calling and ad hominum attacks.
I realize that a link to ANY administration sponsored website will just be siezed upon by these same individuals totally untrustworthy and originated by "those lying crooks and bastards who stole the election", however, this IS from the official Department Of Defense. It does NOT originate from any new organization, be it right or left oriented.
One other thing, thoe of you who keep moaning about sending your "children" off to war, have you actually talked to these "children"? Many of them are actually OFFENDED that they are referred to as children. They volunteered, they know why they are there and the majority are PROUD of what they are doing. Yes, I'm aware a few have complained, but thye majority are serving with only the normally expected gripes-"it's hot, the food isn't like home, etc." (The same complaining that has occurred in the military since time imemorial.)
1) Seems to me that Halliburton fared far better under Clinton than it has under Bush (see link below).
2) Since Bush entered office, HAL has basically performed at the same level as the Dow.
3) Halliburton and the DOD have been absolved of allegations related to no bid contracts. Why? Because investigators discovered that Halliburton was the only company capable of completing the work.
4) Less than 10% of Halliburton's income comes from government contracts. In fact, the margins of its KBR subsidiary, which received most of the Iraq work, have always been amongst the lowest in the company.
Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a nice emotional appeal you had going there.
When Clinton was President, no one wanted to talk of Peak Oil. Now, you see ads from companies like Royal Dutch Shell touting H2 fuels. BP is now known as "Beyond Petroleum", not "British Petroleum".
To my mind, this war has little to do with ideology, although the Crusade element appeals to many in the heartland. Unfortunately, most are not educated enough to have learned the Normans tried this approach a millenia or so ago and got slaughtered for their efforts.
If not for Iraq, where would Halliburton be today? BTW, I spend a little time in Houston every now and then and get to drive by thier HQ occasionally. You look at how it's laid out, you have to drive almost 1.5 mi to get to the office building past the gates, and the building sits on top of a hill. One has to wonder who they think they've pissed off so much to have such high security.
Agreed, the oil companies are decidedly old economy and are desperate to become new economy. Isn't that a good thing? Don't we want BP to stand for Beyond Petroleum? If 8 years of Clinton/Gore didn't advance the dependency agenda, maybe the private sector will.
Where would Halliburton be without Iraq? Probably where they are now. Remember, far less than 10% of the company's revenue comes from US government contracts!!!
I love a good debate but come to me with more evidence than your opinion on the architecture of its corporate HQ. How come you get to call Bush a liar and then spew unsubstantiated nonsense like this?
I've been bringing the evidence every day. You either choose to buy into it or not. It's that simple.
Many believe that one reason for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam wanted to trade in Euros, which is something Iran is considering,. While there's some logic in that argument, it's not the entire solution to the riddle.
Shell and BP are not US companies. Others are. What does that have to do with why we allegedly went to war. Are you saying that the European oil companies are more new economy and the US based ones are more old school? Interesting argument if its true, although I'm still not sure how that correlates to the war.
And how do you respond to Halliburton's relatively minimal benefit from the war? How does that synch with the argument that the war was fought to enrich them?
I'm also genuinely interested (no sarcasm) in the Euro argument. What's the storyline here?
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3337039
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3524 Juan Cole is a Professor of History at Michigan and is well read in Washintong insider circles.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/sharma0204.html
Let's not forget that this is a partisan political stunt by the democraps to divert attention from real issues 'cause they think that this story will have 'legs', guess it does since we are talking about it.
However, does anyone know that the republicans called the bluff on the person that proposed this in the house? Well, lo & behold since the republicans controll the house, they forced a vote on it about a month ago. Did it pass? Obviously not since the press would be talking about it.
Funny though that they aren't talking about the vote on it.
400-2 against.
Stupid democrats.
With 75% plus of the Military Vote going to Bush, how many of those could have been expected to extend their duty?
I would think that quite a few would have opted out at the first opportunity, making the possibilities much greater with Kerry as CIC for a Draft!
Now that the election is over, look for Bush to unshakle the military in Iraq and unleash hell on the Islamo-terrorists! Free elections will take place in January and Iraq will over time turn into a democracy not unlike Turkey.
Well, we're going to have to have something to continue fighting IraqNam through Election Day 2008. Our current members of the military aren't going to like being on 4+ years of active duty.
It was be just one of many "campaign promises" Shrub will break not long after his next 4 years of failed policies starts.
Very simple reason why: the birth rate in the US hasn't been high enough for the last 30 years to make a draft viable. We don't have enough 18-30 year olds. A draft would strip people from other areas of the economy also necessary for defense.
But they will keep the soldiers they have forever.
/Zin
-- Modified on 11/9/2004 1:28:42 AM
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
