Full Version: Do these articles make valid points?
I have read these two very different articles. They both relate - from totally different angles - to the War on Terror. I'd like to know if there are any weak facts being put forward here.
This one: http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/052505_back_door.shtml does contain some swearing, so do not click if particularly offended by two curse words contained therein.
It focusses on whether the "state of emergency" is legitimate, whether Stop Loss is legal - or even constitutional - and so on.
This one has no swearing: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606.html
It focuses on a barely reported element of the Iran/Iraq story that we at least should pay attention to.
Now, as ever, what I care about is not opinion within these articles but the veracity of the facts. Because however you look at it, without hard facts no argument is worth diddly.
I think they both throw an interesting light on Bush's tactics both internally and externally (of the US) in contrast to all the public bluster and rhetoric he has employed on the WOT.
Can anyone totally debunk key facts stated in these articles or are they strong?
If they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
Schooly
This one: http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/052505_back_door.shtml does contain some swearing, so do not click if particularly offended by two curse words contained therein.
It focusses on whether the "state of emergency" is legitimate, whether Stop Loss is legal - or even constitutional - and so on.
This one has no swearing: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606.html
It focuses on a barely reported element of the Iran/Iraq story that we at least should pay attention to.
Now, as ever, what I care about is not opinion within these articles but the veracity of the facts. Because however you look at it, without hard facts no argument is worth diddly.
I think they both throw an interesting light on Bush's tactics both internally and externally (of the US) in contrast to all the public bluster and rhetoric he has employed on the WOT.
Can anyone totally debunk key facts stated in these articles or are they strong?
If they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
Schooly
Can anyone totally debunk key facts stated in these articles or are they strong?
Here are quotes from these two far left pieces of garbage. What “facts” are you referring to? Looks like a diatribe of anti-American nonsense from the left.
This administration, which has posited expansionary war as the organizing principle of its nation, now shifts the onus for Hitler's lethal failure of his own project of expansion from the perpetrators to those who were most savagely victimized by it. Any self-respecting Russian within arm's reach of George W. Bush should slap the taste out of his mouth.
Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:
• Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
• Coup d'état-this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans
If they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
This trash is not likely to teach anyone anything unless you happen to agree with this particular view – I don’t
Here are quotes from these two far left pieces of garbage. What “facts” are you referring to? Looks like a diatribe of anti-American nonsense from the left.
This administration, which has posited expansionary war as the organizing principle of its nation, now shifts the onus for Hitler's lethal failure of his own project of expansion from the perpetrators to those who were most savagely victimized by it. Any self-respecting Russian within arm's reach of George W. Bush should slap the taste out of his mouth.
Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:
• Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
• Coup d'état-this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans
If they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
This trash is not likely to teach anyone anything unless you happen to agree with this particular view – I don’t
I'll tackle a couple of these points concerning Stop-Loss. Let me preface by saying that I do not like the policy, but I can see the need for it on occasion. I have not been affected by it, but it could happen to me as I near retirement.
First, according to Presidential Proclamation 7463:
How does this affect a member of the military?
From the DoD Enlistment Contract, DD4/1:
Now you'll notice the use of the term 'war'. I suppose it could be argued that we are not in a state of declared war, so we could debate on whether the contract refers to that specific declaration by congress or the common definition of armed conflict, as according to Dictionary.com:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The period of such conflict. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
Further, in the case of Santiago v. Rumsfeld, the 9th Circuit has issued an opinion denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a service member who had fallen victim to the stop loss policy. The court based that decision in part, by quoting yet another portion of the Enlistment Contract:
Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment document.
The fine print of this contract and it's implied conditions servitude may seem draconian, and I may be inclined to agree. But until the President's power to issue Declarations of National Emergency and/or the Department of Defense's assertion of power concerning contract law is successfully challenged and overturned, the Stop-Loss policy is constitutional in my opinion.
Concerning the first link's reference to a retention crisis, I disagree. We all know the pitfalls of the recruitment drives, but re-enlistment is another story.
From USA Today"
Now these numbers are due in a small part to the fact that some soldiers earn re-enlistment bonus's based on their job specialty, and that bonus is tax free if they re-enlist in a combat zone. My point however, is that a significant decrease in retention numbers would be heralded by some as proof that our war in Iraq is a failure, since the voices of those that actually served there were being heard. It stands to reason that a similar sentiment can be felt by those veterans re-enlisting after knowing the hazards.
First, according to Presidential Proclamation 7463:
QUOTE
A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World
Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing
and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the
national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and, pursuant
to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I intend to utilize
the following statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201©, 12006, and 12302
of title 10, United States Code, and sections 331, 359, and 367 of title
14, United States Code.
Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing
and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the
national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and, pursuant
to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I intend to utilize
the following statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201©, 12006, and 12302
of title 10, United States Code, and sections 331, 359, and 367 of title
14, United States Code.
How does this affect a member of the military?
From the DoD Enlistment Contract, DD4/1:
QUOTE
10. MILITARY SERVICE OBLIGATION FOR ALL
MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS,
INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.
a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment,
I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part
of that service not served on active duty must be served
in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.
b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an
Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or
national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become
a member during that period, my military service may be
extended without my consent until six (6) months after
the end of that period of war.
c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of
war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I
may be required to serve on active duty (other than for
training) for the entire period of the war or emergency
and for six (6) months after its end.
d. As a member of the Ready Reserve I may be
required to perform active duty or active duty for
training without my consent (other than as provided in
item 8 of this document) as follows:
(1) in time of national emergency declared by the
President of the United States, I may be ordered to
active duty (other than for training) for not more than
[B]24 consecutive months.
(2) I may be ordered to active duty for 24
months, and my enlistment may be extended so I can
complete 24 months of active duty, if:
a. I am not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily
in, a unit of the Ready Reserve; and
b. I have not met my Reserve obligation; and
c. I have not served on active duty for a total of
24 months.[/B]
(3) I may be ordered to perform additional active
duty training for not more than 45 days if I have not
fulfilled my military service obligation and fail in any
year to perform the required training duty satisfactorily.
If the failure occurs during the last year of
my required membership in the Ready Reserve, my
enlistment may be extended until I perform that
additional duty, but not for more than six months.
(4) When determined by the President that it is
necessary to support any operational mission, I may be
ordered to active duty as prescribed by law, if I am a
member of the Selected Reserve.
MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS,
INCLUDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.
a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment,
I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part
of that service not served on active duty must be served
in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.
b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an
Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or
national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become
a member during that period, my military service may be
extended without my consent until six (6) months after
the end of that period of war.
c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of
war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I
may be required to serve on active duty (other than for
training) for the entire period of the war or emergency
and for six (6) months after its end.
d. As a member of the Ready Reserve I may be
required to perform active duty or active duty for
training without my consent (other than as provided in
item 8 of this document) as follows:
(1) in time of national emergency declared by the
President of the United States, I may be ordered to
active duty (other than for training) for not more than
[B]24 consecutive months.
(2) I may be ordered to active duty for 24
months, and my enlistment may be extended so I can
complete 24 months of active duty, if:
a. I am not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily
in, a unit of the Ready Reserve; and
b. I have not met my Reserve obligation; and
c. I have not served on active duty for a total of
24 months.[/B]
(3) I may be ordered to perform additional active
duty training for not more than 45 days if I have not
fulfilled my military service obligation and fail in any
year to perform the required training duty satisfactorily.
If the failure occurs during the last year of
my required membership in the Ready Reserve, my
enlistment may be extended until I perform that
additional duty, but not for more than six months.
(4) When determined by the President that it is
necessary to support any operational mission, I may be
ordered to active duty as prescribed by law, if I am a
member of the Selected Reserve.
Now you'll notice the use of the term 'war'. I suppose it could be argued that we are not in a state of declared war, so we could debate on whether the contract refers to that specific declaration by congress or the common definition of armed conflict, as according to Dictionary.com:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The period of such conflict. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
Further, in the case of Santiago v. Rumsfeld, the 9th Circuit has issued an opinion denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a service member who had fallen victim to the stop loss policy. The court based that decision in part, by quoting yet another portion of the Enlistment Contract:
Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment document.
The fine print of this contract and it's implied conditions servitude may seem draconian, and I may be inclined to agree. But until the President's power to issue Declarations of National Emergency and/or the Department of Defense's assertion of power concerning contract law is successfully challenged and overturned, the Stop-Loss policy is constitutional in my opinion.
Concerning the first link's reference to a retention crisis, I disagree. We all know the pitfalls of the recruitment drives, but re-enlistment is another story.
From USA Today"
QUOTE
From Oct. 1 through June, the Army had re-enlisted 53,120 soldiers, 6% ahead of its goal of about 50,000 for that period. At that pace, the Army would finish the year 3,850 troops ahead of its target of 64,162.
Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.
Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.
Now these numbers are due in a small part to the fact that some soldiers earn re-enlistment bonus's based on their job specialty, and that bonus is tax free if they re-enlist in a combat zone. My point however, is that a significant decrease in retention numbers would be heralded by some as proof that our war in Iraq is a failure, since the voices of those that actually served there were being heard. It stands to reason that a similar sentiment can be felt by those veterans re-enlisting after knowing the hazards.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 20 2006, 05:28 PM)
Can anyone totally debunk key facts stated in these articles or are they strong?
Here are quotes from these two far left pieces of garbage. What “facts” are you referring to? Looks like a diatribe of anti-American nonsenIf they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
This trash is not likely to teach anyone anything unless you happen to agree with this particular view – I don’t
Here are quotes from these two far left pieces of garbage. What “facts” are you referring to? Looks like a diatribe of anti-American nonsenIf they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
This trash is not likely to teach anyone anything unless you happen to agree with this particular view – I don’t
Nice reply Ted, really well done.
"two far left pieces of garbage" ... "This trash is not likely to teach anyone". This is exactly the type of response I see too many times when somebody looks at the U.S. critically. "Anti-Americanism", always handy when you do not have a good argument. Although I do not completely agree with the second source, he does point to some important underlying economic developments. The world is slowly throwing away the Dollar and is buying in a lot of Euros. He tries to explain why this is happening and what consequences it has for the U.S. and its dominant position in the world.
Instead of attacking views like this with words like "lefties" or "anti-americanism" you could also try to understand what it is they are saying?
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 20 2006, 11:28 AM)
Here are quotes from these two far left pieces of garbage. What “facts” are you referring to? Looks like a diatribe of anti-American nonsense from the left.
<snip>
This trash is not likely to teach anyone anything unless you happen to agree with this particular view – I don’t
Don't inflame others. Debate in a civil fashion.<snip>
This trash is not likely to teach anyone anything unless you happen to agree with this particular view – I don’t
TOPICS:
Can anyone totally debunk key facts stated in these articles or are they strong?
If they are strong and you have learned something, have they changed your mind in any respect?
I read the last article because I saw it was being hosted on a gold bug site...oh yeah it's got to be legitimate.
It is theusual stuff you would expect to find on a gold bug site, so I wasn't disappointed, but I must admit I couldn't finish it...zzzzzz. Why would anyone assume Iran is in a more stable and stronger economic position than America? Iran operates under deficits too and has to rely on the sale of oil for close to 80% of her budget. I tried to start a topic a while back on Iran's ailing economic conditions and only one person here took any interest in it, but combine it with the idea that America is going to be defeated, or destroyed or pushed around and it's a hot topic of debate.
If you guys are really and truly interested in bizarre economic theories and unexplained realities check out the economic ideas and debates going on about about dark matter, far more interesting and relevant then this boring ol dollar will die infomerical.
It is theusual stuff you would expect to find on a gold bug site, so I wasn't disappointed, but I must admit I couldn't finish it...zzzzzz. Why would anyone assume Iran is in a more stable and stronger economic position than America? Iran operates under deficits too and has to rely on the sale of oil for close to 80% of her budget. I tried to start a topic a while back on Iran's ailing economic conditions and only one person here took any interest in it, but combine it with the idea that America is going to be defeated, or destroyed or pushed around and it's a hot topic of debate.
If you guys are really and truly interested in bizarre economic theories and unexplained realities check out the economic ideas and debates going on about about dark matter, far more interesting and relevant then this boring ol dollar will die infomerical.
Ok From the article 1
IMO CNN is ‘news” and the insinuation that it is insipid is not backed up here.
And this quote
Is not supported by any facts I see in the piece. Renger want to explain to me why I should be impressed by this idea.
More correctly the US huge demand for cash to fund our deficits has provided individuals and governments around the world the ability to gain income by buying into our debt. Nowhere is this more true than in Japan, one of the largest buyers of US debt. The interest rate in Japan is essentially 0 and since our bonds “price” is market driven any devaluation real or expected in the dollars “value” is reflected in the prices bid for the bonds. We do not “set” the rate. Thus the above statement is not valid. Our “debt” is one of if not THE safest investment in the world and I don’t see that changing.
In addition the “euro” has seen it’s ups and downs in the past few years.
Yes Saddam who hated the US for spoiling his dreams of Conquest in Kuwait did try this little ploy – worthless as it was. We don’t buy directly from Iran so their demands would seem more aimed at middlemen. And the idea that the invasion of Iraq was about “the dollar” as opposed to WMD and the numerous un fulfilled UN resolutions for 12 years is simply ludicrous.
Nothing here has changed my mind about US policy, Iraq or the dollar
QUOTE
One was the absolute saturation of airports by televisions piping in the insipid and vacuous chattering of CNN "news."
IMO CNN is ‘news” and the insinuation that it is insipid is not backed up here.
And this quote
QUOTE
This administration, which has posited expansionary war as the organizing principle of its nation,
Is not supported by any facts I see in the piece. Renger want to explain to me why I should be impressed by this idea.
QUOTE
For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax.
More correctly the US huge demand for cash to fund our deficits has provided individuals and governments around the world the ability to gain income by buying into our debt. Nowhere is this more true than in Japan, one of the largest buyers of US debt. The interest rate in Japan is essentially 0 and since our bonds “price” is market driven any devaluation real or expected in the dollars “value” is reflected in the prices bid for the bonds. We do not “set” the rate. Thus the above statement is not valid. Our “debt” is one of if not THE safest investment in the world and I don’t see that changing.
In addition the “euro” has seen it’s ups and downs in the past few years.
QUOTE
The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields
Yes Saddam who hated the US for spoiling his dreams of Conquest in Kuwait did try this little ploy – worthless as it was. We don’t buy directly from Iran so their demands would seem more aimed at middlemen. And the idea that the invasion of Iraq was about “the dollar” as opposed to WMD and the numerous un fulfilled UN resolutions for 12 years is simply ludicrous.
Nothing here has changed my mind about US policy, Iraq or the dollar
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 20 2006, 05:45 PM)
I'll tackle a couple of these points concerning Stop-Loss. Let me preface by saying that I do not like the policy, but I can see the need for it on occasion. I have not been affected by it, but it could happen to me as I near retirement.
/Snip/
My point however, is that a significant decrease in retention numbers would be heralded by some as proof that our war in Iraq is a failure, since the voices of those that actually served there were being heard. It stands to reason that a similar sentiment can be felt by those veterans re-enlisting after knowing the hazards.
/Snip/
My point however, is that a significant decrease in retention numbers would be heralded by some as proof that our war in Iraq is a failure, since the voices of those that actually served there were being heard. It stands to reason that a similar sentiment can be felt by those veterans re-enlisting after knowing the hazards.
This is all interesting stuff. I've come at all this with an open mind, I'm not American, after all. With all essays and Op-eds I always aim to strip away whatever spin is present and concentrate on anything stated as fact, something verifiable, because that is something to form opinions on and will allow me to assess anyone's point of view on the subject.
Now, in response to your post, does the first article's assertions about the 13th Amendment ring true? Is Stop-Loss not breaking that, given that Congress has not declared a national state of emergency or renewed it?
I ask because I don't know the answer. This whole thread is merely a personal enquiry for the truth - these articles put forward hypotheses and I'm asking if you guys can disprove them (not just say they're trash without proving, as Jaime scolded someone about) so I can either chuck them away and forget about them or not.
Schooly
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.