Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda

[[email protected]]

Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda



http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424

[lostparts]

Gooooooood I think there should be a draft........
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>

[POIUYT]

Well, with Rangel being a Democrat, I bet his motivation is to get all of
the young able bodied men out of the way so he can chase some of that lonely
wife tail that will be around!

Typical Democrat.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>

[POIUYT]

BUT SERIOUSLY -

I have ALWAYS advocated mandatory military service! We learn things while
in uniform, especially in war time that cannot be learned anywhere else and
everyone who has gone thru has come out a much better person for it.

AND - before you loud liberals start talking crap - I served for a little
over 20 years in uniform and was in MANY messes from Vietnam thru Desert
Storm.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>

[POIUYT]

Only draft males - allow females to volunteer only.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"POIUYT" > wrote:

> Well, with Rangel being a Democrat, I bet his motivation is to get all of
> the young able bodied men out of the way so he can chase some of that lonely
> wife tail that will be around!
>
> Typical Democrat.

Indeed...because if he was a Republican, he would be going after all the
lonely husband tail.


--Mike

>
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
> >

[Matt Wiser]

wrote:
>
I wonder if Rangel will vote against his own bill again? Typical Democrap.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Joe King]

"POIUYT" > wrote in message
...
> Only draft males - allow females to volunteer only.
>
That would be sexist and illegal.
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>>
>
>

[Bob Matthews]

Michael Wise wrote:
> In article >,
> "POIUYT" > wrote:
>
>> Well, with Rangel being a Democrat, I bet his motivation is to get all of
>> the young able bodied men out of the way so he can chase some of that lonely
>> wife tail that will be around!
>>
>> Typical Democrat.
>
> Indeed...because if he was a Republican, he would be going after all the
> lonely husband tail.

More like "teen age boy" tail.

==bob

>
>
> --Mike
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>>>

[tomcervo]

POIUYT wrote:
> BUT SERIOUSLY -
>
> I have ALWAYS advocated mandatory military service! We learn things while
> in uniform, especially in war time that cannot be learned anywhere else and
> everyone who has gone thru has come out a much better person for it.
>
> AND - before you loud liberals start talking crap - I served for a little
> over 20 years in uniform and was in MANY messes from Vietnam thru Desert
> Storm.
>

>From his bio:
"Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which
time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze
Star. "

So he's coming from a similar place as you. He does this every so
often, when millionaires in the Congress and the Chattering Classes
start talking about enforcing America's strength in the world--whose
sinews don't include any of their children or their friends' children.
I mean, who's seen Jenna and Not-Jenna lately? I know the press office
says they're in Africa, changing diapers on AIDS babies, at least the
ones who make it to the resort beaches.

[Bob Matthews]

wrote:
> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda

If the neocons and Bushies thought that their kids might have to serve
in Iraq, the shrub would quit babbling about victory and we'd have our
timetable.

It'll be good to have a real man in charge of Ways & Means. Watch for
Republican junketeering to Bangkok.

==bob
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>

[SeaWoe]

I've been Republican most of the tiime since the mid-1960s.

Some years ago I saw a TV interview with a Don King look-alike
representative from New York.. For some reason, I liked whatever he was
saying and almost every time since then when I have seen / heard him on
the air, I have found him saying something that I had said or thought
myself.
Obviously, I'm with him on this issue, as is my retired CDR.sister
(1954 -1974) I still wish that he would get a hair-cut.. and I wish I
had hair to cut.

SeaWoe


wrote:
> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424

[POIUYT]

Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or families
because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced into uniform
nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.

EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas to
finally appreciate what we have here.

The boys go fight and get blown up and shot at while the girls stay in
support functions where they may be a little safer. Iraq is special now
because no place is any safer than any other so many of our girls get hurt
and killed anyway.

Charlie Rangel is just about sensible enough to be a true Conservative if
his views on anything else are as sound.

I SO MUCH HATE having to agree with a Democrat!!!

But, what is right is just - RIGHT!

....and the left is wrong!


"tomcervo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> POIUYT wrote:
>> BUT SERIOUSLY -
>>
>> I have ALWAYS advocated mandatory military service! We learn things
>> while
>> in uniform, especially in war time that cannot be learned anywhere else
>> and
>> everyone who has gone thru has come out a much better person for it.
>>
>> AND - before you loud liberals start talking crap - I served for a little
>> over 20 years in uniform and was in MANY messes from Vietnam thru Desert
>> Storm.
>>
>
>>From his bio:
> "Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which
> time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze
> Star. "
>
> So he's coming from a similar place as you. He does this every so
> often, when millionaires in the Congress and the Chattering Classes
> start talking about enforcing America's strength in the world--whose
> sinews don't include any of their children or their friends' children.
> I mean, who's seen Jenna and Not-Jenna lately? I know the press office
> says they're in Africa, changing diapers on AIDS babies, at least the
> ones who make it to the resort beaches.
>

[POIUYT]

I have NO PROBLEM with sexism in this case!


"Joe King" > wrote in message
...
>
> "POIUYT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Only draft males - allow females to volunteer only.
>>
> That would be sexist and illegal.
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"POIUYT" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or families
> because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced into
> uniform nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>
> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas to
> finally appreciate what we have here.
>

No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "POIUYT" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or
>> families because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced
>> into uniform nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>>
>> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas
>> to finally appreciate what we have here.
>>
>
> No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.

One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the price. I
know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we aren't willing
to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom.

[Peter Skelton]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:00:01 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
> wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "POIUYT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or
>>> families because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced
>>> into uniform nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>>>
>>> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas
>>> to finally appreciate what we have here.
>>>
>>
>> No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.
>
>One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the price. I
>know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we aren't willing
>to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom.
>
>
The last time you went for a slave army, it didn't work out too
well.


Peter Skelton

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:53:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"POIUYT" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or families
>> because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced into
>> uniform nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>>
>> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas to
>> finally appreciate what we have here.
>>
>
>No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.

Damn straight. That son of a bitch FDR who instituted a PEACETIME
draft must have been a real tyrant.

<please note the tongue stuck firmly in the cheek when considering the
above comment>

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Bob Matthews]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> "POIUYT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or
>>> families because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced
>>> into uniform nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>>>
>>> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas
>>> to finally appreciate what we have here.
>>>
>> No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.
>
> One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the price. I
> know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we aren't willing
> to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom.

Ironically, freedom also requires us to tolerate drooling half-wits with
Internet access. Why don't give us a break and go back to teaching
junior college poli-sci?

Cheers

==bob

>
>
>

[SeaWoe]

POIUYT wrote:

> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas to
> finally appreciate what we have here.
>
If they spend time examining the foreign society, they will note many
ways that we could improve our society here, too.
But, I'm sure some "USA is best" idiot will shut them up and not let us
get to be best.

SeaWoe

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.
>>
>
> One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the price. I
> know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we aren't
> willing to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom.
>

You don't have freedom if you're forced to do something.

[Robert M. Gary]

POIUYT wrote:
> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or families
> because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced into uniform
> nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>
> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas to
> finally appreciate what we have here.
>
> The boys go fight and get blown up and shot at while the girls stay in
> support functions where they may be a little safer. Iraq is special now
> because no place is any safer than any other so many of our girls get hurt
> and killed anyway.

Very true. In fact the death count in D.C. continues to be higher than
the count in Iraq. You're safer in Iraq than the streets of D.C.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:26:46 -0500, Peter Skelton >
wrote:

>>One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the price. I
>>know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we aren't willing
>>to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom.
>>
>>
>The last time you went for a slave army, it didn't work out too
>well.

By your definition all the major forces of WWII were "slave" armies.

The NVA was also a "slave" army.

So was Saddam's. So is Israel's.

So maybe your as full of **** as a Thanksgiving turkey.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:26:03 -0500, wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:26:46 -0500, Peter Skelton >
>wrote:
>
>>>One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the price. I
>>>know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we aren't willing
>>>to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom.
>>>
>>>
>>The last time you went for a slave army, it didn't work out too
>>well.
>
>By your definition all the major forces of WWII were "slave" armies.
>
>The NVA was also a "slave" army.
>
>So was Saddam's. So is Israel's.
>
>So maybe your as full of **** as a Thanksgiving turkey.
>
Those armies are either losers, countries under real peril, or
both. Nonetheless, you are correct, they were slave armies by the
definition I used.

My statement is obviously correct, you could not challenge it.

It's interesting that you stuff your turkeys with ****, it
possibly explains a lot. We have better recipies here in
Canukistan.

Peter Skelton

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:02:31 -0500, Peter Skelton >
wrote:

>My statement is obviously correct, you could not challenge it.

I did not challenge it. I only pointed out a historical fact. Some
"slave" armies won, some lost.

>It's interesting that you stuff your turkeys with ****, it
>possibly explains a lot. We have better recipies here in
>Canukistan.

I met some fine Canadians at Ft. Knox earlier this year. I've
relatives in Toronto. I've visited many times over my 12 lustrums.
Most I've met were "salt of the earth" folks.

But there are exceptions to every rule.

My comment addresses the following exchange:

Regarding mandatory, uniformed service, McNicoll says, "No
freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform."

Hunt replies:

"One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the
price. I know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we
aren't willing to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom."

You then chime in with a non-sequitur: "The last time you went for a
slave army, it didn't work out too well."

Aside from the sheer illogiic of your comment you display the typical
lack of historical knowledge or perspective common in North American
Yuppiescum and their spawn. I'm not sure what your point was. I
doubt you know what your point was.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[tomcervo]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Very true. In fact the death count in D.C. continues to be higher than
> the count in Iraq. You're safer in Iraq than the streets of D.C.

Take that DC death count--the real one--and subtract from that the
number of "drug-related" corner boys killing corner boys. Take the Iraq
death count and add to it the number of catastrophic body
damage--people who will never walk, talk, see, think straight again.
And your Iraq death count, of course, will include the thousands of
Iraqis caught in the crossfire. I mean, their welfare was the point of
this war, according to the neo-cons--or are they some kind of non-human
casualty not to considered in your debased calculations?

[Dan[_2_]]

tomcervo wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> Very true. In fact the death count in D.C. continues to be higher than
>> the count in Iraq. You're safer in Iraq than the streets of D.C.
>
> Take that DC death count--the real one--and subtract from that the
> number of "drug-related" corner boys killing corner boys. Take the Iraq
> death count and add to it the number of catastrophic body
> damage--people who will never walk, talk, see, think straight again.
> And your Iraq death count, of course, will include the thousands of
> Iraqis caught in the crossfire. I mean, their welfare was the point of
> this war, according to the neo-cons--or are they some kind of non-human
> casualty not to considered in your debased calculations?
>

Is there logic to that argument?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:25:36 -0500, wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:02:31 -0500, Peter Skelton >
>wrote:
>
>>My statement is obviously correct, you could not challenge it.
>
>I did not challenge it. I only pointed out a historical fact. Some
>"slave" armies won, some lost.
>
In other words, you could not challenge it, I pointed out a
historical fact.

>>It's interesting that you stuff your turkeys with ****, it
>>possibly explains a lot. We have better recipies here in
>>Canukistan.
>
>I met some fine Canadians at Ft. Knox earlier this year. I've
>relatives in Toronto. I've visited many times over my 12 lustrums.
>Most I've met were "salt of the earth" folks.
>
>But there are exceptions to every rule.
>
>My comment addresses the following exchange:
>
>Regarding mandatory, uniformed service, McNicoll says, "No
>freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform."
>
>Hunt replies:
>
>"One can be a freedom loving American but have to understand the
>price. I know of a whole two generations that paid that price. If we
>aren't willing to pay that price then we don't deserve freedom."
>
>You then chime in with a non-sequitur: "The last time you went for a
>slave army, it didn't work out too well."
>
Are you calling it a non-sequiter because it is true, because it
disagrees with your opinion, or both?

>Aside from the sheer illogiic of your comment you display the typical
>lack of historical knowledge or perspective common in North American
>Yuppiescum and their spawn. I'm not sure what your point was. I
>doubt you know what your point was.
>
What illogic? Are you trying to say that the Vietnam draft had a
good effect on the US? When a Repubnazi accuses someone of
something, like lack of knowledge, it is invariably a description
of himself.

Incidentally I agree with what Mr. Hunt has to say, but he fails
to address a crucial issue, whether such a draft would result in
a capable military.

If you're bloody stupid enough to go against modern military
opinion which holds that very high standards of personal
capability and character are essential to operate a modern
military, there's little hope for you.

Peter Skelton

[SeaWoe]

I'm not going to try to work through who said what and for what reason,
but would like to point out that at least two people think that the
draft was good.

My sister and I were discussing "our era" draft recently. She's a
retired Commander and my sign-off hints at my pay grade. We came from a
navy background and joined during the 1950s.
We grew up in a uppr-class bedroom suburb of Boston and it's unlikely
that we would have been exposed so closely to the American mixture of
races, religions, national backgrounds, etc had the draft not been in
effect during our time.
We both feel that we gained from this long-term exposure. Everyone is
an individual and we know enough not to think that we "know" their
thoughts or likely actions because of their ethnic background.

You can argue about what, if any, gain or loss the forces had from the
draft (I think it did), but it is damn certain that the nation, as a
whole, did gain.

> What illogic? Are you trying to say that the Vietnam draft had a
> good effect on the US? When a Repubnazi accuses someone of
> something, like lack of knowledge, it is invariably a description
> of himself.

SeaWoe

[fudog50]

Hi Mike Wise,

Totally off topic but,

If you are who I think you are ( CWO4 retired USN?) then 'Id just like
to say hey. If you are, I'd like to chat sometime about the mess
currently at Whidbey with 1 CWO5 biilet and 1 combined
7341/7381,,,what a mess CDR E. and George made! Thanks to them for
contributing to the demise of shore billets for CWO's!

If not disregard.....

Regards,

CWO3 S.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:26:49 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> "POIUYT" > wrote:
>
>> Well, with Rangel being a Democrat, I bet his motivation is to get all of
>> the young able bodied men out of the way so he can chase some of that lonely
>> wife tail that will be around!
>>
>> Typical Democrat.
>
>Indeed...because if he was a Republican, he would be going after all the
>lonely husband tail.
>
>
>--Mike
>
>>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>> >

[POIUYT]

Well, you are wrong once again! I am a freedom loving American and I FULLY
advocate it!

Try again!


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "POIUYT" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or
>> families because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced
>> into uniform nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>>
>> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas
>> to finally appreciate what we have here.
>>
>
> No freedom-loving American advocates forcing anyone into uniform.
>

[POIUYT]

EXACTLY!

Also, the HIV/AIDS count in DC is higher than anywhere is Africa!


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> POIUYT wrote:
>> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or
>> families
>> because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced into
>> uniform
>> nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>>
>> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas
>> to
>> finally appreciate what we have here.
>>
>> The boys go fight and get blown up and shot at while the girls stay in
>> support functions where they may be a little safer. Iraq is special now
>> because no place is any safer than any other so many of our girls get
>> hurt
>> and killed anyway.
>
> Very true. In fact the death count in D.C. continues to be higher than
> the count in Iraq. You're safer in Iraq than the streets of D.C.
>
> -Robert
>

[POIUYT]

This looks like Al Gore's fuzzy math.


"tomcervo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> Very true. In fact the death count in D.C. continues to be higher than
>> the count in Iraq. You're safer in Iraq than the streets of D.C.
>
> Take that DC death count--the real one--and subtract from that the
> number of "drug-related" corner boys killing corner boys. Take the Iraq
> death count and add to it the number of catastrophic body
> damage--people who will never walk, talk, see, think straight again.
> And your Iraq death count, of course, will include the thousands of
> Iraqis caught in the crossfire. I mean, their welfare was the point of
> this war, according to the neo-cons--or are they some kind of non-human
> casualty not to considered in your debased calculations?
>

[-\)> .... -- ..-. .. -.-. . ---- ...-- -.... ----.]

It's obvious that You were a LIFER...............as for the mess's you've
seen I'll attribute them to mess hall disasters and ribbons getting knotted
up in your Remington Rand!




"POIUYT" > wrote in message
...
> BUT SERIOUSLY -
>
> I have ALWAYS advocated mandatory military service! We learn things while
> in uniform, especially in war time that cannot be learned anywhere else
> and everyone who has gone thru has come out a much better person for it.
>
> AND - before you loud liberals start talking crap - I served for a little
> over 20 years in uniform and was in MANY messes from Vietnam thru Desert
> Storm.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Rangel wants to draft 18-42 to continue with the war for Israel agenda
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=309424#309424
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Mandatory national service of some sort would be a great idea. 2 years,
right after HS, get some $ to pay for college...some sort of national
service, from Military to helping out in a VA hospital, everything in
between.

POIUYT wrote:
> Well, we cannot attack the Bush twins nor any others their age or families
> because we still have an all volunteer force. No one is forced into uniform
> nowadays and I believe that is just plain wrong.
>
> EVERY AMERICAN should spend some time in uniform and somewhere overseas to
> finally appreciate what we have here.
>
> The boys go fight and get blown up and shot at while the girls stay in
> support functions where they may be a little safer. Iraq is special now
> because no place is any safer than any other so many of our girls get hurt
> and killed anyway.
>
> Charlie Rangel is just about sensible enough to be a true Conservative if
> his views on anything else are as sound.
>
> I SO MUCH HATE having to agree with a Democrat!!!
>
> But, what is right is just - RIGHT!
>
> ...and the left is wrong!
>
>
> "tomcervo" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > POIUYT wrote:
> >> BUT SERIOUSLY -
> >>
> >> I have ALWAYS advocated mandatory military service! We learn things
> >> while
> >> in uniform, especially in war time that cannot be learned anywhere else
> >> and
> >> everyone who has gone thru has come out a much better person for it.
> >>
> >> AND - before you loud liberals start talking crap - I served for a little
> >> over 20 years in uniform and was in MANY messes from Vietnam thru Desert
> >> Storm.
> >>
> >
> >>From his bio:
> > "Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which
> > time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze
> > Star. "
> >
> > So he's coming from a similar place as you. He does this every so
> > often, when millionaires in the Congress and the Chattering Classes
> > start talking about enforcing America's strength in the world--whose
> > sinews don't include any of their children or their friends' children.
> > I mean, who's seen Jenna and Not-Jenna lately? I know the press office
> > says they're in Africa, changing diapers on AIDS babies, at least the
> > ones who make it to the resort beaches.
> >

[Robert M. Gary]

tomcervo wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > Very true. In fact the death count in D.C. continues to be higher than
> > the count in Iraq. You're safer in Iraq than the streets of D.C.
>
> Take that DC death count--the real one--and subtract from that the
> number of "drug-related" corner boys killing corner boys. Take the Iraq
> death count and add to it the number of catastrophic body
> damage--people who will never walk, talk, see, think straight again.
> And your Iraq death count, of course, will include the thousands of
> Iraqis caught in the crossfire. I mean, their welfare was the point of
> this war, according to the neo-cons--or are they some kind of non-human
> casualty not to considered in your debased calculations?

Then take the second derivative on a ham on rye... Wait, what were we
talking about again? Media math?

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

tomcervo wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Take the Iraq
> death count and add to it the number of catastrophic body
> damage--people who will never walk, talk, see, think straight again.
> And your Iraq death count, of course, will include the thousands of
> Iraqis caught in the crossfire. I mean, their welfare was the point of
> this war, according to the neo-cons--or are they some kind of non-human
> casualty not to considered in your debased calculations?

That was supposed to be the point of the Geneva Convention. In exchange
for wearing a clearly identifiable military uniform you will receive
certain rights if you become a POW. However, some wieners in D.C. have
decided that the insurgence in Iraq don't really need to wear military
uniforms to make them distinctive from civilians and we'll give them
Geneva Convention rights anyway (an in some case U.S. constitutional
rights). Sad, sad, very sad.

-Robert