NBADAN...why do you hate the US? [Archive]

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-10-2005, 12:29 PM

I am curious... did government agents kill your family or something? you seem to have an unhealthy hatred for the country in which you supposedly live... either that or you are really some al-qaeda op trying to recruit people and are probably becoming very annoyed that nobody buys your bullshit...

but seriously...what is the deal?

If Al-Qaeda's relying on a Spurs Web site, I think they've got bigger problems that a massive military force trying to kill them.

Clandestino

03-10-2005, 12:33 PM

If Al-Qaeda's relying on a Spurs Web site, I think they've got bigger problems that a massive military force trying to kill them.

al qaeda will use any and all means of recruitment.. you can't put anything past any terrorist organization...when you say, "nah, they would never do this or that" it happens...

Opinionater

03-10-2005, 12:33 PM

IMHO, speaking out on issues effecting our country does not necessarily mean one hates their country.

I stand up to my wife all the time but it doesn't mean I hate her.

Clandestino

03-10-2005, 12:35 PM

IMHO, speaking out on issues effecting our country does not necessarily mean one hates their country.

I stand up to my wife all the time but it doesn't mean I hate her.

you must not read his opinions then..

Nbadan

03-10-2005, 12:36 PM

Benjamin Franklin (?) once said that Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Clandestino

03-10-2005, 12:37 PM

Benjamin Franklin (?) once said that Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," said Samuel Johnson on April 7, 1775.

Boswell tells us that Samuel Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. He doesn't provide any context for how the remark arose, so we don't really know for sure what was on Johnson's mind at the time.

However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, only false patriotism.

For more of Samuel Johnson's thoughts on patriotism in general, go to the patriotism page.

For a discussion on a possible false patriot who Johnson might have been thinking of, see this discussion.

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refuge.html

2centsworth

03-10-2005, 12:43 PM

Omg, you're asking NBADAN to think for himself. Get ready for the no response or a response with a ten page editorial written by someone else.

Nbadan

03-10-2005, 12:46 PM

Omg, you're asking NBADAN to think for himself. Get ready for the no response or a response with a ten page editorial written by someone else.

..said the voice in the crowd who sounds like a echo-chamber for Faux News.

Nbadan

03-10-2005, 12:59 PM

However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, only false patriotism.

Correct, Isn't this what Republicans advocate? Nationalism cloaked as patriotism?

2centsworth

03-10-2005, 01:06 PM

..said the voice in the crowd who sounds like a echo-chamber for Faux News.
what's funny is I don't even have that channel. However, I read your other post and it looks like you're trying.

Useruser666

03-10-2005, 01:30 PM

Celebrating the death of our citizens, our troops, and the wish that we as a nation fail in order to prove ones own political agendas are despicable.

JohnnyMarzetti

03-10-2005, 02:54 PM

Useruser666

03-10-2005, 03:49 PM

I've never seen Dan "celebrate" the death of our citizens and our troops.

That remark is dispicable.

Just because you all won't even say Bush's shit stinks doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow blindly.

You all sure sounded like you hated our country when Bill was president.

Give me a break. :rolleyes

Let me clarify some things for you Johnny

I didn't even post here when Clinton was president. I didn't even think he was the worst one either. But none of that matters. I don't blindly follow Bush, nor defend all of his actions. I do think that some of the things he is blamed for are ridiculous.

I think many in here feel like Dan celebrates those things not for the acts themselves, but as failures of Bush, conservatives, or Republicans. That is what I see here every day. Dan displays a very content attitude when tragedies occur that can be some how tied to George Bush. Dan has no love for this country, he is instead filled with a hatred. A hatred that has taken away his ability to think freely about politics, and be able to give things an unbiased take.

JoeChalupa

03-10-2005, 03:59 PM

I know I've been told that I "hate" America or am unpatriotic because of some of my views or our government but I try not to go overboard. I think my sig says it right.

Hook Dem

03-10-2005, 04:24 PM

Let me clarify some things for you Johnny

I didn't even post here when Clinton was president. I didn't even think he was the worst one either. But none of that matters. I don't blindly follow Bush, nor defend all of his actions. I do think that some the things he is blamed for are ridiculous.

I think many in here feel like Dan celebrates those things not for the acts themselves, but as failures of Bush, conservatives, or Republicans. That is what I see here every day. Dan displays a very content attitude when tragedies occur that can be some how tied to George Bush. Dan has no love for this country, he is instead filled with a hatred. A hatred that has taken away his ability to think freely about politics, and be able to give things an unbiased take.
A view you should pay attention to Johnny!

Hook Dem

03-10-2005, 04:25 PM

Useruser666

03-10-2005, 04:36 PM

I know I've been told that I "hate" America or am unpatriotic because of some of my views or our government but I try not to go overboard. I think my sig says it right.

Joe, I have never heard anything from you that would lead me to believe you hate America. That is why I respect your opinions here.

Hook Dem

03-10-2005, 04:59 PM

I know I've been told that I "hate" America or am unpatriotic because of some of my views or our government but I try not to go overboard. I think my sig says it right.
Joe, you served your country( Semper Fi ). Whoever told you that you hate America is full of shit! However, I sincerely doubt that either Dan or Johnny ever served. Big Difference!

mrblonde17

03-10-2005, 05:06 PM

Actually that was Dr. Samuel Johnson that said "the last act of a scoundrel is patriotism."

Nbadan

03-10-2005, 05:40 PM

I think many in here feel like Dan celebrates those things not for the acts themselves, but as failures of Bush, conservatives, or Republicans. That is what I see here every day. Dan displays a very content attitude when tragedies occur that can be some how tied to George Bush. Dan has no love for this country, he is instead filled with a hatred. A hatred that has taken away his ability to think freely about politics, and be able to give things an unbiased take.

Fuck you Chris. It was the W and the adminstration Neocons that once assured us that "Saddam has them", "We know where they are"....Well, its been more than two years since we invaded Iraq and what the fuck do we have? no WMD's, no Iraq links to Al-Queda, no unmanned planes to deliver WMD, 1,500+ of our brothers and sisters dead, a $200 billion bill that we are passing along to our children, a growing insurgency that threatens to make Iraq into a hotbed of Islamic Jihad for years to come, and gives the enablers of our real enemies, the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria plenty of new foot soldiers for future attacks against Americans. Hey, what's not to like about our current adminstration?

Useruser666

03-10-2005, 06:10 PM

Fuck you Chris. It was the W and the adminstration Neocons that once assured us that "Saddam has them", "We know where they are"....Well, its been more than two years since we invaded Iraq and what the fuck do we have? no WMD's, no Iraq links to Al-Queda, no unmanned planes to deliver WMD, 1,500+ of our brothers and sisters dead, a $200 billion bill that we are passing along to our children, a growing insurgency that threatens to make Iraq into a hotbed of Islamic Jihad for years to come, and gives the enablers of our real enemies, the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria plenty of new foot soldiers for future attacks against Americans. Hey, what's not to like about our current adminstration?

Gee, so basically everything right?

I agree that WMD was a reason to go into Iraq. I agree that Bush thought they were there. I don't however believe it was a lie, or that Bush didn't think they were there. I'm also glad that now we can know with much more certainty that they aren't there and that Saddam Hussien is not in power.

I believe that it is very tragic for a single person to die, but I also know that sometimes things are needed to be done that will result in the deaths of many.

I believe the deficit is a very fluid number. I believe it can be dealt with in time, and that time is coming. I don't believe it to be entirely the fault of the current administration.

I believe that what has been done in that area and what talks are underway elsewhere is a new starting point for peace. A peace that can not be created until we can get everyone on the same page.

Nbadan

03-10-2005, 06:29 PM

I agree that WMD was a reason to go into Iraq. I agree that Bush thought they were there. I don't however believe it was a lie, or that Bush didn't think they were there. I'm also glad that now we can know with much more certainty that they aren't there and that Saddam Hussien is not in power.

Pre-invasion, Saddam was doing everything possible to tell as many people as possible that Iraq no longer possessed WMD weapons or technology. The Germans, Russians, French and everyone else with intelligence assets in the area worth a damn did their own digging and found Saddam to be telling the truth. The U.S. out-spends other countries multi-times over on intelligence in the area, and your telling us we are supposed to believe that the adminstration didn't have a clue that Iraq had destroyed its WMD arsenal after the first gulf war? If you believe that, I've got some prime land in the Baka Valley for you that would make a great summer vacation spot.

The Big Chicken

03-10-2005, 06:33 PM

Don't want to interfere but as I read your posts I think that Nbadan loves his(your) country the most. Criticism is a good and necessary thing for all democracys.

exstatic

03-10-2005, 07:22 PM

I don't believe it to be entirely the fault of the current administration.

Hello. Earth to Chris! We had a balanced budget and a surplus going towards paying down the national debt under the BJ prez. Just who's fault WOULD that make the $200B sinkhole of debt?

Guru of Nothing

03-10-2005, 08:17 PM

Don't want to interfere but as I read your posts I think that Nbadan loves his(your) country the most. Criticism is a good and necessary thing for all democracys.

Not true. Dan is just one of those types of people who are drawn to "causes" to fill an inner-void, I presume. It gives him a sense of purpose, much like his political evil twin, the NeoCon.

I don't think Dan hates America; he just loves belonging to a cause, and I regard his very selective use of facts as a sign of disrespect to individuals everywhere.

Clandestino

03-10-2005, 08:19 PM

i understand what user is trying to say... there is a difference in saying your country is wrong, or you are anti-war, or you hate bush... but nbadan goes overboard and gloats when terrible things happen to the u.s.... that is the difference

Clandestino

03-10-2005, 08:20 PM

Pre-invasion, Saddam was doing everything possible to tell as many people as possible that Iraq no longer possessed WMD weapons or technology. The Germans, Russians, French and everyone else with intelligence assets in the area worth a damn did their own digging and found Saddam to be telling the truth. The U.S. out-spends other countries multi-times over on intelligence in the area, and your telling us we are supposed to believe that the adminstration didn't have a clue that Iraq had destroyed its WMD arsenal after the first gulf war? If you believe that, I've got some prime land in the Baka Valley for you that would make a great summer vacation spot.

everything, but provide us with the EVIDENCE... everything, but give us unfettered access... i'm glad you believed saddam nbadan...

Clandestino

03-10-2005, 08:21 PM

Don't want to interfere but as I read your posts I think that Nbadan loves his(your) country the most. Criticism is a good and necessary thing for all democracys.

you probably have never read any of dans other posts...

Bandit2981

03-10-2005, 10:35 PM

but nbadan goes overboard and gloats when terrible things happen to the u.s.... that is the difference
what "evidence" do you have of Dan gloating about something terrible happening to the US? show me something if its so prevalent

exstatic

03-10-2005, 11:06 PM

Dan posts shit that makes them uncomfortable. That's it.

Guru of Nothing

03-10-2005, 11:06 PM

what "evidence" do you have of Dan gloating about something terrible happening to the US? show me something if its so prevalent

Hell, I have no evidence of Al-Jazeera gloating.

Where can we go from here?

desflood

03-11-2005, 12:26 AM

Dan posts shit that makes them uncomfortable. That's it.
No, it's more like... he seems to enjoy being the bearer of bad news more than is proper. Almost as if he were capitalizing on it somehow.

Drachen

03-11-2005, 12:58 AM

I would like to know how it is that he gloats?? Many of yall constantly ask him "are you going to post your own opinions or just continue the cut and past deal?" so obviously he isnt gloating if he isnt offering his own opinion. He is in fact the most active poster on this forum, and maybe this makes yall uncomfortable since he posts things that are contrary to your own opinion.

P.S. I dont agree with some of the things he posts, but they sure make interesting reads.

exstatic

03-11-2005, 01:21 AM

No, it's more like... he seems to enjoy being the bearer of bad news more than is proper.

That's your projection of what he's thinking. Posting that 1500 US servicemen are dead doesn't mean that he's glad that they are dead, but your reaction sure means that you don't want to see it or hear it, much like the Bush administration banning video of coffins rolling off the planes at Dover AFB. It makes war an easier sell if you sanitize it, and don't let people see what the real costs are.

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 01:53 AM

I don't think Dan hates America; he just loves belonging to a cause, and I regard his very selective use of facts as a sign of disrespect to individuals everywhere.

:wtf

What selective use of facts? If there is something worth mentioning in a topic we are discussing, I don't hesitate to present it whether it hurts my cause or not. The pictures of the shot-up Italian car is a good example. I document most of the news I present because if I always presented it merely as my own commentary, it just wouldn't carry the same weight with most forum readers. My way, the readers get to weight the realiability and the credibility of the news being presented at the same time.

Opinionater

03-11-2005, 08:15 AM

IMHO, Dan posts things that won't get reported on FoxNews so it upsets the Bush lovers.

desflood

03-11-2005, 08:15 AM

So, because my opinion differs from yours it means that I "don't want to see it or hear it"? It can't possibly mean that I don't mind seeing or hearing it, but I have a different take on it?

desflood

03-11-2005, 08:17 AM

I could also come on here every day and post new from Drudgereport. I have a feeling that that would make Dan very "uncomfortable" :lol

Clandestino

03-11-2005, 09:12 AM

:wtf

What selective use of facts? If there is something worth mentioning in a topic we are discussing, I don't hesitate to present it whether it hurts my cause or not. The pictures of the shot-up Italian car is a good example. I document most of the news I present because if I always presented it merely as my own commentary, it just wouldn't carry the same weight with most forum readers. My way, the readers get to weight the realiability and the credibility of the news being presented at the same time.

dan, you're the king of only posting select information and leaving out tons of relevant shit in order to make the u.s. look bad. you have been busted many times...

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 09:28 AM

Pre-invasion, Saddam was doing everything possible to tell as many people as possible that Iraq no longer possessed WMD weapons or technology. The Germans, Russians, French and everyone else with intelligence assets in the area worth a damn did their own digging and found Saddam to be telling the truth. The U.S. out-spends other countries multi-times over on intelligence in the area, and your telling us we are supposed to believe that the adminstration didn't have a clue that Iraq had destroyed its WMD arsenal after the first gulf war? If you believe that, I've got some prime land in the Baka Valley for you that would make a great summer vacation spot.

First off, there was a lot of "intelligence" that came from outside that US that supported WMD and the other issues. Those have beenproven wrong now, since none have been found, but look at what Blair and others said before the war.

Even if there were no WMD, I don't believe that to be the sole reason for going into Iraq.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 10:02 AM

Hello. Earth to Chris! We had a balanced budget and a surplus going towards paying down the national debt under the BJ prez. Just who's fault WOULD that make the $200B sinkhole of debt?

Oh really? You mean we had a surplus of money just like Enron did? Or we had a balanced budget just like Worldcom? Oh, I guess it's easily forgotten that all this prosperity was going on BEFORE 9/11, or BEFORE a huge number of major corporations had large financial troubles. Of course uncertainty over the war has hurt the economy. But don't act like Bush is totally to blame for it. If you have a job that deals with international customers, you would know how quiet things got on September 12. Some major events have taken place that had big impacts on the economy.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 10:11 AM

Don't want to interfere but as I read your posts I think that Nbadan loves his(your) country the most. Criticism is a good and necessary thing for all democracys.

I agree totally TBC! But when you criticize people for things that are; A) Not their fault. or B) with biased data and halve truths, you're not being true to your country. When you rather see your country fail, than your political opponent win, you are a traitor to your people.

If Kerry had been elected, I wouldn't be here spouting off ridiculous rants about him. I wouldn't be on the verge of wishing my country to fall apart, just so I could say I was right. That is what Dan is about in this forum.

I welcome criticism of any politics or ideas. Look at the discussions about the mayoral candidates or the rail system. Those are honest discussions about important topics. People there are sharing passionate, yet real points of view. I rather have that any day over the petty little pot shots that we get drowned with from Dan. With Manny and others, they can back their takes up with facts and numbers. They don't run and hide or change the subject when cornered.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 10:15 AM

Dan posts shit that makes them uncomfortable. That's it.

It makes me uncomfortable when people post halve truths or cooked numbers to support totally proposterous ideas.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 10:19 AM

IMHO, Dan posts things that won't get reported on FoxNews so it upsets the Bush lovers.

Great, the Fox news bit again. I don't watch Fox news. I don't even know what channel it is on. I find it funny that people who seem to ridicule it so much make up most of it's viewership. I don't love Bush, just like I didn't hate Clinton.

Newsflash: Yonivore isn't here anymore. We don't need Dan to cancel him out!

dcole50

03-11-2005, 11:49 AM

i think dan just likes attention and seeing everyone get so offended and angry. just a theory.

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 01:04 PM

I could also come on here every day and post new from Drudgereport. I have a feeling that that would make Dan very "uncomfortable"

eh, Drudge is a waste of time, but if you want to post NeoCon propaganda I will be happy to rip it to shreds.

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 01:08 PM

If Kerry had been elected, I wouldn't be here spouting off ridiculous rants about him. I wouldn't be on the verge of wishing my country to fall apart, just so I could say I was right. That is what Dan is about in this forum.

Everyone should take note that my biggest critic, User666 has a tendency to disappear for days at a time from the forum. One has to wonder whether the political forum bit really isn't his game (he can't handle the heat), or whether that is the type of political forum everyone really wants?

2centsworth

03-11-2005, 01:10 PM

eh, Drudge is a waste of time, but if you want to post NeoCon propaganda I will be happy to rip it to shreds.
When have you ever posted something you can claim as your own?

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 01:12 PM

I welcome criticism of any politics or ideas. Look at the discussions about the mayoral candidates or the rail system. Those are honest discussions about important topics. People there are sharing passionate, yet real points of view. I rather have that any day over the petty little pot shots that we get drowned with from Dan. With Manny and others, they can back their takes up with facts and numbers. They don't run and hide or change the subject when cornered.

User666 welcomes political ideas that don't directly contradict his own. This is why he finds Manny's local and state posts so benine. He has no dog in that fight. I commend Manny for taking such an active stand in the forum, but his threads aren't what keep drawing people back, yet - sorry Manny

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 01:14 PM

When have you ever posted something you can claim as your own?

I comment on almost every editorial and news I post.

2centsworth

03-11-2005, 01:21 PM

I comment on almost every editorial and news I post.
Don't claim to have read everyone of your post, but the threads that I'm active in you usually reply with another editorial or you'll make some snide remark but never follow up to defend your position.

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 01:46 PM

Don't claim to have read everyone of your post, but the threads that I'm active in you usually reply with another editorial or you'll make some snide remark but never follow up to defend your position.

The idea is to encourage other people to respond. I defend my position if someone makes a argument worth replying too, however, I don't respond to straw man arguments or those that are so obviously logically flawed that they aren't worth my time.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 02:02 PM

User666 welcomes political ideas that don't directly contradict his own. This is why he finds Manny's local and state posts so benine. He has no dog in that fight. I commend Manny for taking such an active stand in the forum, but his threads aren't what keep drawing people back, yet - sorry Manny

I don't post on the weekends. I also have dealt with a personal matter over the last few days that is none of your business. I don't have to spend hours and hours in here to reveal that most of what you bring is hot air.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 02:12 PM

The idea is to encourage other people to respond. I defend my position if someone makes a argument worth replying too, however, I don't respond to straw man arguments or those that are so obviously logically flawed that they aren't worth my time.

Oh, I guess you're talking about when someone posts the rest of the article your take comes from and either shows how you take statements out of context, or bend them to whatever theory of the momment suits you.

It's gotten better, though. When you posted that pick of the supposedly bullet ridden car", that was funny. I know you will come up with a good "explination" as to how it fits the story.

I think the biggest problem is how you come across here. When I here about something our country is supposedly doing wrong, I want to hear the facts and understand the situation. Putting you in my place, you want to damn our country, make snide remarks, and then somehow tie it to a president that holds different views than your own. You are way to biased to every see the other side of these discussions. I mean, if there were no conservatives, what would do all day?

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 02:24 PM

I don't post on the weekends. I also have dealt with a personal matter over the last few days that is none of your business. I don't have to spend hours and hours in here to reveal that most of what you bring is hot air.

If its all just hotair then it should easily be proven wrong and should take no time at all, right?

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 02:35 PM

I think the biggest problem is how you come across here. When I here about something our country is supposedly doing wrong, I want to hear the facts and understand the situation. Putting you in my place, you want to damn our country, make snide remarks, and then somehow tie it to a president that holds different views than your own. You are way to biased to every see the other side of these discussions. I mean, if there were no conservatives, what would do all day?

How can you understand the facts of a situation if you only get half the story from our MSM? We already know that 'reporters'(i use the term loosely) like Williams and many other right-wing pundits, like Safire, ARE in the adminstrations pockets. Just yesterday Rummy was spotted having lunch with the CEO of Faux News. The adminstration also puts out Video News Releases and presents them as real news, and then we have the ugly Jeff Guckert/Yonivore situation.

2centsworth

03-11-2005, 02:40 PM

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 02:45 PM

If its all just hotair then it should easily be proven wrong and should take no time at all, right?

All I need is a pin to burst your bubble. I just have to post the rest of the article you base you take on, or point out that it comes from the fourth translation of article from a unfriendly source.

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 02:49 PM

That's code for you have no substance to offer.

Substance is in the eye of the beholder. Some people believe that Faux News has real substance.

In the irony of all ironies, ABC has blocked free speech in a Boston Legal episode that deals with free speech

Fox News may report only one side of a story, but at least critics have always had creative license to lace into the roost of Bill O'Reilly. Until now. AlterNet reports that an episode of "Boston Legal" slated to air on Sunday night on ABC has been "scrubbed" of all pejorative references to Fox News and O'Reilly. Top ABC executives heavily censored an earlier version of the script, in which a teacher calls Fox News "hate speech" and installs a "Fox Blocker" on every TV set in his school. A side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the script reveals it has been stripped of any references to the network. The Sunday episode is, ironically, about free speech.

Neither ABC nor David Kelley, the show's creator, would comment on the changes. The script also contained excerpts from "Outfoxed," an anti-Fox documentary by indie filmmaker Robert Greenwald which argues that the cable channel has an explicit conservative agenda. The "Outfoxed" excerpts will be included in the episode, although ABC would not allow Greenwald to buy ad time for his film to air during the episode. "The door has been closed in our face," said the film's distributor.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 02:50 PM

How can you understand the facts of a situation if you only get half the story from our MSM? We already know that 'reporters'(i use the term loosely) like Williams and many other right-wing pundits, like Safire, ARE in the adminstrations pockets. Just yesterday Rummy was spotted having lunch with the CEO of Faux News. The adminstration also puts out Video News Releases and presents them as real news, and then we have the ugly Jeff Guckert/Yonivore situation.

What is the MSM to you? What news organizations make up the MSM? If they are not trust worthy then I never want to see you use them again in an argument.

Again with the Fox news stuff. WHO CARES! I don't watch Fox news!!! Half the people you talk about as right wing pundits I've never even heard of before. It's funny that you classify the MSM as such an enemy to the truth, then jump all over them when the report something that you can twist to suit your own political agenda.

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 02:52 PM

All I need is a pin to burst your bubble. I just have to post the rest of the article you base you take on, or point out that it comes from the fourth translation of article from a unfriendly source.

Just like you did in the Army shortage article in which I coincidently, or not, turned out to be right again?

Nbadan

03-11-2005, 02:56 PM

What is the MSM to you? What news organizations make up the MSM? If they are not trust worthy then I never want to see you use them again in an argument.

Again with the Fox news stuff. WHO CARES! I don't watch Fox news!!! Half the people you talk about as right wing pundits I've never even heard of before. It's funny that you classify the MSM as such an enemy to the truth, then jump all over them when the report something that you can twist to suit your own political agenda.

Fox/News/ABC/CNN/CBS/NBC/MSNBC they are all the corporate media whose owners love to pimp for the GOP.

Useruser666

03-11-2005, 03:21 PM

Just like you did in the Army shortage article in which I coincidently, or not, turned out to be right again?

HOW ARE YOU RIGHT???!!!

Where is the draft? You have been saying there will be one over and over again. Where is it? I never said there weren't shortages of recruits. I said you greatly exaggerate them because of the many factors that you leave out when you posted the articles discussing them.

Here is a quote from you of a posted article.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10693&page=3&pp=26&highlight=recruit+army

First the guard and reserves, then the Marines, now the Army is falling short of recruitment goals...

Quote:

The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers .

For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4 percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the Army is rushing incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary incentives.

Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed to rotate into Iraq (news - web sites) and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq conflict.

Yahoo News

Here is a little bit that you left out when you posted that article.

Army officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.

Seems like an important part to leave out now doesn't it? Well it's not important to you, since it makes your argument worthless.