'We Are Already at War' (in Iran)

[Nbadan]

Some more 'wild speculation'...

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say


The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.

One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.


According to all three intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.

“They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” one intelligence source said.

Indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.

Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population.

“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.

Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.

In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran.

The British, however, are less enthused about a strike in Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has called an American strike on Iran “inconceivable,” while Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he’s keeping all his options open. Asked about the MEK, a senior British intelligence official said that the Brits are not yet sure of what the situation on Iran’s southern border is, but vehemently condemned any joint activity with the terrorist organization.

“We don’t know who precisely is carrying out those attacks in the south but we believe it is MEK,” the British official said.

When asked if the US military is running the MEK, the source was careful to indicate that while there is a US unit in Iran gathering information, it’s difficult to say if they are in any way involved with MEK.

“The people who are inside Iran are from a US Special mission unit,” the source explained. “They are called by codenames, but would not be involved in the bomb blasts. They want to get in, get the intelligence and go out with anyone knowing they have been there. But the bomb blasts might be diversions away from the operations by this US special mission unit. The British are definitely not involved in any of this.”

Moreover, the British official expressed that any operations with MEK would violate their own military code and would absolutely not be tolerated.

“We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added. "We did it in Northern Ireland. No more.”

The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gat hering_0413.html)

[Nbadan]

In case you have any doubts remaining whether we are already at war in Iran...

These incidents from the OP link show exactly what is going on:

Eight killed in Iran bomb attacks


At least eight people were killed and 46 injured in two blasts in the south-western Iranian city of Ahwaz, police said.

The two bombs exploded outside a privately-run bank and a government office in the city in Khuzestan province, which borders Iraq.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been due to give a speech at a religious centre nearby.

But his office told the BBC the visit had been cancelled due to bad weather.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4642170.st...)

---

Bomb blasts hit Iran oil cities


Two bombs have exploded in the southern Iranian cities of Dezful and Abadan, according to Iranian reports.

In both cities, the devices were planted in the governor's offices, the official Irna news agency says. No serious injuries were reported.

The attacks are the latest in a series to hit the southern Khuzestan province, at the heart of Iran's oil industry.

Eight people died when bombs exploded by a government office and bank in the provincial capital Ahwaz a month ago.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754446.stm)

Bomb blasts rock IranAdd to Clippings


AP< TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 12:44:09 AM>
Bomb blasts struck Iranian government buildings in the capital of an oil-rich border province, followed within hours by two other bombs in central Tehran, killing nine people, days before presidential elections.

Iran’s security service blamed the bombings on Sunday — the deadliest in Iran in more than a decade — on supporters of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. State-run TV quoted hospital officials as saying at least eight people were killed and 86 injured in four explosions in Ahvaz, the capital of the southwestern Khuzestan province bordering Iraq.

Hours later, two small bombs exploded in central Tehran, killing one person and wounding four. Police said one suspect was taken into custody. A spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body, blamed groups affiliated to Saddam’s former Baathist regime in Iraq. State TV quoted spokesman Ali Agha Mohammadi as saying the perpetrators of the Ahvaz bombings had infiltrated into Iran from Basra in southern Iraq.

Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1141214...)

Let's cut the bull about 'wild-speculation', the Iran war has begun. Now let's talk about what's next.

[01Snake]

Now let's talk about what's next.

Gee Dan, why don't you tell us. :rolleyes

[gtownspur]

In case you have any doubts remaining whether we are already at war in Iran...

These incidents from the OP link show exactly what is going on:

Eight killed in Iran bomb attacks



BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4642170.st...)

---

Bomb blasts hit Iran oil cities

What's next is that NBAdan with a single post, brings everyone into awareness about the impending iran war, thus halting the process by his shear bi-partisan bombardment of bi partisan articles at spurstalk. A politician then reads Nbadans articles, and starts to conduct massive rallies agaisnt the NEocon machine in Washington.

THen the republicans lose the house in 06, and the presidency in 08. IRan then goes on to make nukes and threatens a coldwar with Israel. Israel then escalates their own arms race, and now we have every nation in the region trying to join the race.

Nbadan's party then decides to throw down sanctions........




....on Israel. :lol



BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754446.stm)

Bomb blasts rock IranAdd to Clippings



Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1141214...)

Let's cut the bull about 'wild-speculation', the Iran war has begun. Now let's talk about what's next.

[gtownspur]

In case you have any doubts remaining whether we are already at war in Iran...

These incidents from the OP link show exactly what is going on:

Eight killed in Iran bomb attacks



BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4642170.st...)

---

Bomb blasts hit Iran oil cities




What happens next is...

Because of the barage of non partisan threads by Bi partisan Nbadan on spurstalk, a politician as well as many americans read it here first, and then organize impeachment proceedings, and mass protest.

THus the republicans lose in 06 and 08.

IRan acquires nukes and threatens Israel. Israel then escalates arms buildup, and then all the other arab states and iran coalition and start to escalate nuke developments.


NbaDan's party then comes in to save the day by enforcing sanctions on......



..........Israel. :lol



BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754446.stm)

Bomb blasts rock IranAdd to Clippings



Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1141214...)

Let's cut the bull about 'wild-speculation', the Iran war has begun. Now let's talk about what's next.

[Vashner]

You mean when Democrat Jimmy Carter launched an Attack on Iran with 1 plane and 1 chopper and how they think we can't fuck them over?

yea your right we are already at war.

[Nbadan]

yea your right we are already at war.

That's the smartest thing I've heard you say since, well, ever. The fact that we are already in Iran, already trajectory targeting, and in some cases even actively supporting terrorists groups in Iraq to infiltrate Iran and cause havoc, has got to be the worst kept secret in the world.

[Yonivore]

In the sense expressed in this thread, we're already at war in a couple of dozen countries from the middle east to Indonesia to Northern Africa to the Phillipines. I think the EUroweenies, who can't seem to control their Islamofascists, are next.

Read Richard Miniters "Shadow Wars," it's illuminating. Hollywood sensationalism aside, units like "The Unit" do exist.

[Nbadan]

The build-up for war continues...

US Army Troop Build up on Iraq-Iran Borders


After the Tehran administration conducted operations against the terror network Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) by crossing the Iraqi border, the US Army in Iraq is claimed to have increased the military build up of US troops on the Iranian border.

Tehran local radio announced the US stationed army units on the Iraqi border, increased reconnaissance flights in the region, and trained anti-Iran militias in Iraq. Iranian Interior Ministry confirmed the information.

Activity on the 450 kilometer long border is gradually increasing. Tehran radio also recorded that the US aircrafts reconnaissance flights could also be seen from villages along the border.

According to reports on Turkish news channel CNN Turk, Acting Iranian Interior Minister Mohammed Bakir Zulkadir also confirmed the border activity and said they are closely monitoring the situation.

ZAMAN (http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060511&hn=33036)

[Yonivore]

The build-up for war continues...
Well, I certainly hope so.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, I certainly hope so.


I hope you volunteer first

[Yonivore]

I hope you volunteer first
Recruiting is up in all services...no need. Besides, I'm too old.

I suspect this may not involve a large ground force.

I hope you're present at the next terrorist attack.

[Nbadan]

MORE FROM IRAN....Guess what? There's a second letter from Iran. It's from Hassan Rohani, a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and it was published in Time magazine on Tuesday. Here's the concrete part of the proposal:


* Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.

* Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.

* Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.

* Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment — during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.

* Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.

* Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It's hard to say just how serious this is, or how much clout Rohani really has, but it does provide a basis for the United States to talk directly with Iran. And we should.

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008789.php)

Too bad Dubya doesn't read.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Recruiting is up in all services

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1828444

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.

Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.


You're quoting the same UN that was embezzling millions in cahorts with Iraq? :lol

The same UN that just appointed China and Cuba to the UN Human Rights council? :lmao

The same UN that bashed the Serbs for genocide, then stood by while Rwanda and much of Africa turned into killing fields? :pctoss



After the Tehran administration conducted operations against the terror network Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) by crossing the Iraqi border, the US Army in Iraq is claimed to have increased the military build up of US troops on the Iranian border.

Tehran local radio announced the US stationed army units on the Iraqi border, increased reconnaissance flights in the region, and trained anti-Iran militias in Iraq. Iranian Interior Ministry confirmed the information.

Activity on the 450 kilometer long border is gradually increasing. Tehran radio also recorded that the US aircrafts reconnaissance flights could also be seen from villages along the border.

Uh, yeah, and this couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the majority of the IEDs being used in Iraq are coming in from Iran. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1828444
Meanwhile, in the real world, the American Forces Press Service (http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/story.asp?id=2273) released the latest data on military recruitment:


All four services exceeded their active-duty recruiting goals in April for the 11th consecutive month and remain ahead of their year-to-date goals, defense officials announced today.

Year-to-date recruiting numbers were equally impressive, she said. As of April, the Army had exceeded its goal by 4 percent, with more than 37,000 recruits. The Marine Corps and Air Force exceeded their goals by 1 percent, with almost 15,000 and almost 18,000 recruits, respectively. And the Navy met its goal, recruiting almost 18,000 sailors.
The military noted that reenlistment rates remain sky-high, which has the effect of making recruiting tougher for the reserves, which have always relied heavily on former active servicemen for recruits.

The left is busily organizing antiwar veterans' groups, and the Democrats have recruited a number of antiwar veterans to run for Congress. But objective data, including re-enlistment rates, suggest that the large majority of servicemembers continue to believe in the military's mission in general, and the Iraq effort in particular.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The military noted that reenlistment rates remain sky-high

because they have to re-enlist. It's not optional.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's easy to exceed goals when you're forcing people to re-enlist, and when you lower your target goals from previous years. Duh.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Meanwhile, in the real world, the American Forces Press Service (http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/story.asp?id=2273)

The real world? So, in which branch of the Armed Forces did you serve? In what wars did you serve? None? Thought so.

[1369]

It's easy to exceed goals when you're forcing people to re-enlist, and when you lower your target goals from previous years. Duh.

Forced to reenlist? That's quite a reach. Granted, there have been stop/loss for certain MOS's, but forcing folks to reenlist? I don't think so, but would be interested to see your proof.

[Yonivore]

It's easy to exceed goals when you're forcing people to re-enlist, and when you lower your target goals from previous years. Duh.
No one is forced to re-enlist. Stop-loss only prevents you from leaving early but, you're not forced to re-enlist.



The real world? So, in which branch of the Armed Forces did you serve? In what wars did you serve? None? Thought so.
Non sequitur and irrelevant.

[scott]

Stop-loss only prevents you from leaving early but, you're not forced to re-enlist.

Stop-loss doesn't force you to re-enlist, but it also just doesn't "prevent you from leaving early."

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=161


The Stop Loss policy was initiated to allow the Army to retain soldiers, who are determined to be essential to the national security of the United States, on active duty beyond their date of retirement, separation, or release from active duty for an open-ended period.

An enactable policy that "prevents you from leaving early" would be unncessary since "leaving early" is otherwise known as "deserting" unless you are granted a discharge. Stop-loss is not a moratorium on early discharges.

[Vashner]

You mean when Jimmy Carter started the war with Iran and sold Saddam lot of shit like brand now F4's..

Yes Democrats started the war with iran already.. good post.

[Mavs<Spurs]

You're quoting the same UN that was embezzling millions in cahorts with Iraq? :lol

The same UN that just appointed China and Cuba to the UN Human Rights council? :lmao

The same UN that bashed the Serbs for genocide, then stood by while Rwanda and much of Africa turned into killing fields? :pctoss



Uh, yeah, and this couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the majority of the IEDs being used in Iraq are coming in from Iran. :rolleyes


AHF,

I am sure that you know this, but the wild eyed, radical lefties believe their philosophy and believe what the slanted liberal mainstream media reports because they want to. They force all facts to fit into their world view.
Remember if you modify your theory enough, it can never be falsified. (e.g. green aliens from outer space exist; the reason they haven't been photographed is because they are invisible and can't be seen by humans).

Most of these people were born in the 60's, with the "free love", hippie, flower child, protesting generation. My generation, believe it or not, is actually considerably more conservative in a lot of ways than that generation. People just assume if you're college age and a student, you are really liberal. Not true.

We've seen the consequences of the beliefs and lifestyles of that generation.

[Mavs<Spurs]

The real world? So, in which branch of the Armed Forces did you serve? In what wars did you serve? None? Thought so.

Okay, so let's be consistent:

Perhaps only the military should vote or the military should vote on whether we engage in a war. What do you think? Surely you are aware of the fact that the military, by and large, is very conservative and votes Republican. This is precisely why algore tried to disenfranchise the military, overseas ballots (remember the 5 page memo giving democrats the how to remove a military ballot from being counted as a vote).

Most men and women in the US Armed Forces would not agree with your views. So, it seems kind of dumb to bring this up.

You also don't appear to understand how to reason logically. Your line of reasoning appears to be: (1) only those in the US Armed Forces can validly have a viewpoint on military/political topics (2) this other person that you are writing to isn't in the military; (3) therefore, this other person can not validly have a viewpoint or express it on a military/political topic.

Do you have a viewpoint on the space program? Are you an astronaut? This type of argument proves too much for if logically applied would force you to adopt conclusions that you wouldn't like. What is your view on bilingual education? Are you a bilingual educator? What is your view on immigration? Are you a border patrol agent? How far do you want to take this?


The men and women of the US Armed Forces are not forced to reenlist. This is simply a false statement. Stop loss is not equivalent to forcing a soldier to reenlist for another 6 year term... It simply is not. There is no coercion involved in reenlistment. The numbers given for reenlistment do not include those who may have stayed longer than originally expected. Therefore, your explanation of the facts is simply without foundation and false.

Conscription has returned. Wow, you believe anything that anybody says so long as it portrays conservatives in a sufficiently negative light. If Bin Laden himself were to tell you something negative regarding a conservative politician without any evidence at all, you would believe him because you want to. The hatred causes you to look at everything in as hostile a way as possible in respect to conservatives.

[Yonivore]

Not mention that if we'd only let the military opine on matters military, Patton would have marched into Moscow and shot Stalin between the eyes and Schwartzkopf would have done the same to Saddam Hussein.

Korea and Vietnam would have ended differently as well.

Not bad options, in my opinion. So, maybe he's right -- let's all stay out of the fray and let the military do what they do best; fuck people up and break their military toys.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Non sequitur and irrelevant.

You're the one that said "Meanwhile, in the real world," then used a Military source to defend your position. That makes its seem as though you view the military as the real world, which is why I questioned your military background. I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matter because you didn't serve, but you did insinuate that my source didn't matter because it wasn't a military source. In other words, you started it.

[Yonivore]

You're the one that said "Meanwhile, in the real world," then used a Military source to defend your position. That makes its seem as though you view the military as the real world, which is why I questioned your military background. I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matter because you didn't serve, but you did insinuate that my source didn't matter because it wasn't a military source. In other words, you started it.
No, your source doesn't matter because it's ABC News. And, my background has nothing to do with -- nor does yours.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, your source doesn't matter because it's ABC News.

Translate: I only read blogs.


And, my background has nothing to do with

You mean as a security guard for Target?

[George W Bush]

Stick to the plan Yoni!

Don't let em sniff the coward in us.
Stay the course.


God Bless America :tu

[Yonivore]

Translate: I only read blogs.
Well-sourced blogs. If you'd pay attention, most of my posts contain links to the sources from which the bloggers got their information. And, those sources run the gamut from mainstream media to government reports to other bloggers who have done the same.

Nothing wrong with reading blogs.

You mean as a security guard for Target?
What have you got against honest employment -- whatever the position?

[gtownspur]

Okay, so let's be consistent:

Perhaps only the military should vote or the military should vote on whether we engage in a war. What do you think? Surely you are aware of the fact that the military, by and large, is very conservative and votes Republican. This is precisely why algore tried to disenfranchise the military, overseas ballots (remember the 5 page memo giving democrats the how to remove a military ballot from being counted as a vote).

Most men and women in the US Armed Forces would not agree with your views. So, it seems kind of dumb to bring this up.

You also don't appear to understand how to reason logically. Your line of reasoning appears to be: (1) only those in the US Armed Forces can validly have a viewpoint on military/political topics (2) this other person that you are writing to isn't in the military; (3) therefore, this other person can not validly have a viewpoint or express it on a military/political topic.

Do you have a viewpoint on the space program? Are you an astronaut? This type of argument proves too much for if logically applied would force you to adopt conclusions that you wouldn't like. What is your view on bilingual education? Are you a bilingual educator? What is your view on immigration? Are you a border patrol agent? How far do you want to take this?


The men and women of the US Armed Forces are not forced to reenlist. This is simply a false statement. Stop loss is not equivalent to forcing a soldier to reenlist for another 6 year term... It simply is not. There is no coercion involved in reenlistment. The numbers given for reenlistment do not include those who may have stayed longer than originally expected. Therefore, your explanation of the facts is simply without foundation and false.

Conscription has returned. Wow, you believe anything that anybody says so long as it portrays conservatives in a sufficiently negative light. If Bin Laden himself were to tell you something negative regarding a conservative politician without any evidence at all, you would believe him because you want to. The hatred causes you to look at everything in as hostile a way as possible in respect to conservatives.


Oh Gee!! got p3owned!!!!

[gtownspur]

duh..duh... uhhhhhhhh.......security guard...huh huh huh.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What have you got against honest employment -- whatever the position?

Nothing, I just like to insult you since this is an anonymous forum.

[Yonivore]

Nothing, I just like to insult you since this is an anonymous forum.
I'm not insulted.

I appreciate the security guards at K-Mart. And, although I'm not one, I recognize it is they that help keep costs down by apprehending shoplifters. It is also the K-Mart security guard that accompanies my elderly mother, or my wife, or my daughter to her car after the sun goes down.

Yeah K-Mart Security Guards!

[Nbadan]

Settle down Wilbur. Many of us 'borrow ideas' from different blogs and forums. Nobody expects complete originality all the time, but when you copy a post from somewhere else word-for-word the writer of the original post should be given proper credit by linking to the original work.

Yoni got busted, lets all get over it and move on.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

:hat

[Yonivore]

Settle down Wilbur. Many of us 'borrow ideas' from different blogs and forums. Nobody expects complete originality all the time, but when you copy a post from somewhere else word-for-word the writer of the original post should be given proper credit by linking to the original work.

Yoni got busted, lets all get over it and move on.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

:hat
I've been busted several times. The point of the posts don't change.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Settle down Wilbur. Many of us 'borrow ideas' from different blogs and forums. Nobody expects complete originality all the time, but when you copy a post from somewhere else word-for-word the writer of the original post should be given proper credit by linking to the original work.

Yoni got busted, lets all get over it and move on.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

:hat

You're the Yoni of the Left.

[Nbadan]

You're the Yoni of the Left.

I don't think I'm left at all, but everyone is entitled to label everyone else if they so choose.

[Ocotillo]

Okay, so let's be consistent:

Perhaps only the military should vote or the military should vote on whether we engage in a war. What do you think? Surely you are aware of the fact that the military, by and large, is very conservative and votes Republican. This is precisely why algore tried to disenfranchise the military, overseas ballots (remember the 5 page memo giving democrats the how to remove a military ballot from being counted as a vote).

Most men and women in the US Armed Forces would not agree with your views. So, it seems kind of dumb to bring this up.

You also don't appear to understand how to reason logically. Your line of reasoning appears to be: (1) only those in the US Armed Forces can validly have a viewpoint on military/political topics (2) this other person that you are writing to isn't in the military; (3) therefore, this other person can not validly have a viewpoint or express it on a military/political topic.

Do you have a viewpoint on the space program? Are you an astronaut? This type of argument proves too much for if logically applied would force you to adopt conclusions that you wouldn't like. What is your view on bilingual education? Are you a bilingual educator? What is your view on immigration? Are you a border patrol agent? How far do you want to take this?


The men and women of the US Armed Forces are not forced to reenlist. This is simply a false statement. Stop loss is not equivalent to forcing a soldier to reenlist for another 6 year term... It simply is not. There is no coercion involved in reenlistment. The numbers given for reenlistment do not include those who may have stayed longer than originally expected. Therefore, your explanation of the facts is simply without foundation and false.

Conscription has returned. Wow, you believe anything that anybody says so long as it portrays conservatives in a sufficiently negative light. If Bin Laden himself were to tell you something negative regarding a conservative politician without any evidence at all, you would believe him because you want to. The hatred causes you to look at everything in as hostile a way as possible in respect to conservatives.

You're off the mark. It is wise to consult those who have experience in the relevant area. No one advocates the military call the shots and we have civilan leadership to boot.

Your post is a red herring meant to attack and makes no point that is relevant to what it was supposed to be responding to,

[Mr. Peabody]

You also don't appear to understand how to reason logically. Your line of reasoning appears to be: (1) only those in the US Armed Forces can validly have a viewpoint on military/political topics (2) this other person that you are writing to isn't in the military; (3) therefore, this other person can not validly have a viewpoint or express it on a military/political topic.

Do you have a viewpoint on the space program? Are you an astronaut? This type of argument proves too much for if logically applied would force you to adopt conclusions that you wouldn't like. What is your view on bilingual education? Are you a bilingual educator? What is your view on immigration? Are you a border patrol agent? How far do you want to take this?



You do not appear to understand common sense my friend. Merely having a viewpoint on an issue does not make you credible on the issue. Using one of your examples, I would give a bilingual educator's opinion on bilingual education much more attention than I would to the opinion of a random individual. It's just common sense. I mean, when something is wrong with your car, do you just seek random opinions on what it could be, or do you see a mechanic or someone that has experience with auto repair?

[xrayzebra]

You do not appear to understand common sense my friend. Merely having a viewpoint on an issue does not make you credible on the issue. Using one of your examples, I would give a bilingual educator's opinion on bilingual education much more attention than I would to the opinion of a random individual. It's just common sense. I mean, when something is wrong with your car, do you just seek random opinions on what it could be, or do you see a mechanic or someone that has experience with auto repair?

Random opinion: Do you have to be a mechanic to know what is wrong with
a car? In many cases I would rather have a good opinion rather than a
mechanic's opinion since he has a monetary motive in giving you an answer.
He may fix the problem, but tell you it was something else that is more
expensive to repair. You know like a dimm-o-crap who wants to spend a
ton of money on the homeless but still cant fix the problem.

[Mr. Peabody]

Random opinion: Do you have to be a mechanic to know what is wrong with
a car?

No. I said...


...do you see a mechanic or someone that has experience with auto repair?


In many cases I would rather have a good opinion rather than a mechanic's opinion since he has a monetary motive in giving you an answer. He may fix the problem, but tell you it was something else that is more expensive to repair.

I completely agree.


You know like a dimm-o-crap who wants to spend a ton of money on the homeless but still cant fix the problem.

Do you always have to do that?

[scott]

Well-sourced blogs. If you'd pay attention, most of my posts contain links to the sources from which the bloggers got their information. And, those sources run the gamut from mainstream media to government reports to other bloggers who have done the same.

Nothing wrong with reading blogs.



Are these the same blogs that told you that Stop-Loss "only prevents you from leaving early"?

[Yonivore]

Are these the same blogs that told you that Stop-Loss "only prevents you from leaving early"?
A mistatement you graciously corrected. But, stop-loss isn't forced re-enlistment and that was my point.