Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: CONSPIRACY of MILITARY ESCALATION
"Surge" or "Involuntary" Military Conscription: The Neo-Conservative Architects of Military Escalation
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 26, 2007
Was it a coincidence? The Bill to restore the Draft (Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393)) was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed, in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.393:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
The "surge" in US forces in Iraq has been presented by the Bush administration as a short term necessity to confront "the terrorists":
"So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." (President Bush's TV address to the Nation, 10 January 2007)
Within days of Bush's announcement, Congress responded by formally rebuffing the White House's proposal to send more troops:
"The defiant White House stance comes as both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, prepare to vote on resolutions that oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney said those nonbinding votes would not affect Bush's ability to carry out his policies" (AP, Jan 14, 2007)
While differences have emerged between the presidency and the US Congress regarding troop deployments, real opposition to Bush's "surge" largely emanates from the broader American public, which is putting pressure on its (elected) members of Congress.
US troops in Iraq are facing fierce and organized armed resistance.
Occupation forces no longer exercise control over part of Iraqi territory.
The "Green Zone" is threatened. The more than 20,000 troops are, according to the White House, to be deployed in Baghdad, with a view to securing the "Green Zone" enclave.
Despite these developments, the decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
Some analysts have suggested that the "surge" is intended in relation to a planned war on Iran.
The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"
The decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.
Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute is credited as being on of the main architects of Bush 's "Surge". Fred Kagan together with General (ret) Jack Keane, argue that "any troop increase must be large and lasting"... [involving] a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so". (Quoted in the the Financial Times, 2 January 2007).
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.99,filter.all/scholar.asp
AEI - Scholars & Fellows
"Kagan was arguing that while "the high end of estimates" suggested the need for another 80,000 US troops to stage an effective counter-insurgency operation in Iraq, "it is very likely that a surge of 50,000 troops would be sufficient to stabilise the capital". In the event, it seems unlikely that Mr Bush will commit even half that number".(Ibid)
Frederick Kagan is the brother of Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [you mean for International War] who coincidentally is also on the board of Directors of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC) [aka NWO]. The latter is a Washington based think tank headed by William Kristol, with direct ties to the Bush Cabinet.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=16
Robert Kagan - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
William Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the main founding figures of Neoconservatism. Irving Kristol sits on the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington based Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. All of these people are firmly committed to America's "long war", a war without borders, inspired by the teachings of the late Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago.
Surge and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
An overall expansion of US forces worldwide is an integral part of the NeoConservatives mission, as formulated in the Project of the New American Century's key document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Bush's "Surge" is essentially derived from this document, which constitutes the PNAC's manifesto. The authors of Rebuilding American Defenses are Donald Kagan, (Professor of History at Yale University and father of Frederick Kagan and Robert Kagan)., Gary Schmitt (PNAC Project Coordinator together with Donald Kagan) and Thomas Donnelly (main author), Both Schmitt and Donnelly are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and colleagues of Frederick Kagan [Oh, what a surprise that is, ].
http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/kagan.html
Yale History Faculty : Donald Kagan
In Part IV of Rebuilding American Defenses, the PNAC recommends an overall expansion of "active-duty strength" from 475,000 (2000 figure) to 525,000. It also points to the reinforcement of the Army National Guard as:
"a hedge against the need for a larger-than-anticipated force in combat.... It should not be used primarily to provide combat service support to active Army units engaged in current operations"
The Army National Guard should according to the PNAC "play its essential role in fighting large scale wars", while minimizing its civilian functions.
PNAC Pressures US Congress
Two years ago (28 January 2005), the PNAC submitted a Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, addressed to the Senate and House Majority and Minority leaders. The Letter asserts that "the United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume" and that steps must consequently be taken:
"to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm
Project for the New American Century
The authors of the January 2005 PNAC Letter, who describe themselves as "a bipartisan group with diverse policy views" include (among others) the key Neo- Conservatives ideologues and protagonists of Bush's "surge", namely William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly. Other prominent members include former CIA director James Woolsley, John Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen, who has acted as an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz and has participated in several PNAC activities, former CIA specialist Reul Gerecht who is a Senior PNAC fellow. and a resident scholar at the AEI, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, etc. .
In this regard, there is a consistent Neo-Conservative thread characterized by a working relationship between Washington based think tanks (CFR, AEI, PNAC, Carnegie, etc) as well as a complex net of personal and family ties between the various NeoCon protagonists.
The "Surge" is De Facto
Bush's "Surge" has de facto already been put in place in the form of what Mahdi Nazemroaya describes as "a concealed military draft":
"[T]he U.S. Marines have started recalling or legally summoning thousands of ‘inactive servicemen’ to serve in Iraq and the Middle East, where the number of U.S. troops and contracted security personal are dropping towards hap-hazardous levels. ... The U.S. Army too, undermined by shortfalls in manpower, has ordered over a reported 14,000 ‘inactive servicemen’ back to fight" (Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, August 2007)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060823&articleId=3042
Beating the Drums of War. US Troop Build-up: Army & Marines authorize "Involuntary Conscription"
Similarly, the Bush administration has taken measures to increase the recruitment of private mercenary-soldiers, who constitute a significant and growing force in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Ibid)
"Many young men from within the United States and around the world seeking American citizenships or green cards have also been lured into the circuits of the U.S. military and mercenary groups." (Ibid)
The Universal National Service Act
Barely noticed, in early 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced a bill in the US Congress which requires:
"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
Ironically, Rangel's initiative to restore the draft was described as "an anti-war tactic" directed against the Bush administration:
"Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But whether or not one agrees with Rangel's rationale, many Americans would agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force in society."
The 2006 version of the bill (which followed earlier versions) was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There have been no actions taken at the committee or subcommittee levels since it was introduced in February of last year.( See Library of Congress)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04752:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04752:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Restoring the Draft?
However, following the victory of the Democrats in the November 2006 elections, Rep. Charles Rangel reaffirmed his commitment to "bringing back the draft" as part of the House of Representatives' Democratic agenda.
On January 10th 2007, Rep. Rangel reintroduced his bill, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393) (For full text see Annex below).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.393:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Was this a coincidence? The Bill to restore the draft was introduced on exactly the same day as Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in a nationally televised address. In this address the President and Commander in Chief confirmed that he was going to "surge" more than 20,000 troops and that this decision would be implemented without seeking the authorization of the U.S. Congress. (See Francis Boyle, January 2007)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOY20070120&articleId=4528
Immediate Impeachments: Preventing "The Guns of August" in Eurasia
Meanwhile Rangel's bill HR 393 has been referred both to the Arms Services Committee and the Ways and Mean Committee. .
What are the implications of Rangel's timely January 10, 2007 proposed Universal National Service Act?
Although Rep Charles Rangel is opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, the reintroduction of the Draft is on the books of the US Congress. His proposed bill directly serves the interests of the Bush Administration, which can now blame the Democrats for attempting to reintroduce compulsory conscription. Bill HR 393 is opposed by ranking democrats. While it has little chance of being adopted, it could indeed be used, in an opportune fashion, to manufacture a shaky bipartisan legitimacy, which ultimately would support Bush's proposed "Surge" in troops. .
Given the dynamics and hidden agendas behind these various initiatives, a combination of the NeoCon Surge on the one hand and the "Universal Service Act" proposed by a leading Democrat on the other, might ultimately serve the interests of military escalation, as formulated by the NeoCons, leading to some form of bipartisan "consensus" on "involuntary" conscription.
The decision and discussions would be reached behind closed doors in the Armed Services committees of the House and the Senate. There are many formal mechanisms to recruit servicemen and women, which could be applied outside the outright reintroduction of the Draft.
This form of bipartisan dialogue would serve to deflect attention from the more fundamental issue of military escalation, not to mention the war on Iran, which are being implemented without Congressional approval.
If the Bush/Cheney White House refuses to seek authorization from Congress for an increase in troop deployments to Iraq, this could constitute a violation of the United States Constitution. (for further details see Francis Boyle, op. cit)
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
ANNEX
Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 393 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 393
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 10, 2007
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2007'.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. National service obligation.
Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.
Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.
Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.
Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.
Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.
Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.
Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.
Sec. 111. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.
Sec. 112. Relation of title to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.
TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT
Sec. 201. Favorable treatment of combat pay under earned income tax credit made permanent.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.
(3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
(4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.
(5) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(6) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--
(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.
SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.
(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
(1) a declaration of war is in effect;
(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or
(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.
(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--
(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services; and
(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels.
(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(d) Selection for Induction-
(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).
(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--
(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or
(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.
(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--
(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or
(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.
(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:
(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.
(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.
(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.
SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.
(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.
(b) Matter to Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:
(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.
(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.
(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.
(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.
(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.
(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.
(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.
(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.
SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.
(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.
(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.
SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.
(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--
(1) obtains a high school diploma;
(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or
(3) attains the age of 20.
(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--
(1) extreme hardship; or
(2) physical or mental disability.
(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.
(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.
SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.
(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.
(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--
(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or
(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.
SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.
(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--
(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or
(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.
(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.
SEC. 111. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;
(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and
(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.
SEC. 112. RELATION OF TITLE TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.
(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.
TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT
SEC. 201. FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.
(a) In General- Clause (vi) of section 32(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining earned income) is amended to read as follows:
`(vi) a taxpayer may elect for any taxable year to treat amounts excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 as earned income.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2006.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
Interview: Paul Craig Roberts On Iraq, Iran and the Neo-Con crazies
Alex welcomes Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and National Review, Paul Craig Roberts, to discuss Iraq, Iran, Ed Brown’s tax protest, the increasing militarization of police forces and his new book The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
More Deception from the War Criminal
by Paul Craig Roberts
Bush’s State of the -Union address did not describe the deplorable State of the -Union. The speech’s importance consists of Bush’s plea to Congress to please let him fool them one more time in order that he can attack Iran and start a bigger war that Congress will have to support in order to support Israel.
That is all the president had to say.
The “surge” of US troops for Iraq is another deception. The surge’s purpose has nothing to do with achieving victory in Iraq. Its purpose is to counter the pressure from the American public, Congress, and the US military to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Once a withdrawal begins, the neoconservative misadventure in the Middle East is at an end before its goals can be achieved. Delaying the withdrawal by proposing an escalation and provoking a debate gives Bush and Israel time to orchestrate an attack on Iran.
No one in Congress or print and TV media is prepared to call Bush on this transparent deception. Instead, critics focus on the fact that the surge cannot succeed. For example, in the Democratic response to Bush’s address, Senator Jim Webb, who served as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, stressed the recklessness and cost of Bush’s invasion of Iraq:
“The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed.”
Senator Webb is the best that the Democrats have and with Ron Paul the best that Congress has. Yet, not even Webb can cut to the chase.
Consequently, while Congress wastes time with non-binding resolutions against the surge in Iraq, Bush proceeds to implement plans to start war with Iran.
I have said that the only hope of stopping Bush from initiating war with Iran is for the leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress to make unequivocally clear that Bush will be impeached if he attacks Iran without the approval of Congress. Even this might not be enough. The Bush Regime is capable of orchestrating an incident, such as an attack on a US aircraft carrier, that can be blamed on Iran and, in that way, sweep Congress along on a patriotic outburst against “Iranian aggression against US forces.”
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 2680
Location: Texas North - Alberta
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: Re: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
IAM1 wrote:
Was it a coincidence? The Bill to restore the Draft (Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393)) was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed, in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.393:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Oh for the love of god people...
The democrats have been introducing a version of this bill for years now as a protest.
Get a grip on reality will you please.
Or at the very least try and do a little bit of fact checking before you post. 2 seconds on google would have put paid to this one.
Un-freaking-believable.
_________________ Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
provwind wrote:
Woooooo...The Draft????????????
Hi provwind!
Are you prepared to be drafted, and if not you, are you ready to see friends, and or family members drafted? Drafted to go to war for crazy guy Bush and his conquer the Middle East agenda?
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: Re: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
uxo_tech wrote:
IAM1 wrote:
Was it a coincidence? The Bill to restore the Draft (Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393)) was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed, in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.393:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Oh for the love of god people...
The democrats have been introducing a version of this bill for years now as a protest.
Get a grip on reality will you please.
Or at the very least try and do a little bit of fact checking before you post. 2 seconds on google would have put paid to this one.
Un-freaking-believable.
What in the world is your comment supposed to mean???? Introducing this bill is supposed to be protesting what? Why don't you post the information you've commented about that was left out and should have been checked by doing a two second google search?
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 2680
Location: Texas North - Alberta
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
IAM1 wrote:
What in the world is your comment supposed to mean????
IAM1 wrote:
Introducing this bill is supposed to be protesting what? Why don't you post the information you've commented about that was left out and should have been checked by doing a two second google search?
Fine... here it is in Rangel's own words from when he introduced the same bill 2003...
Quote:
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
uxo_tech wrote:
IAM1 wrote:
What in the world is your comment supposed to mean????
It means your a credulous twit who jumps on the bandwagon when it supports his theories but can't be bothered with due diligence to check his posts jsut in case it upsets your precious little delusions.
IAM1 wrote:
Introducing this bill is supposed to be protesting what? Why don't you post the information you've commented about that was left out and should have been checked by doing a two second google search?
Fine... since your too dim to be able to do it yourself here it is in Rangel's own words from when he introduced the same bill 2003...
Quote:
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."
In other words it's a protest... not that I expect you to be able to grasp that but... no one can say you weren't warned.
Wow.... You really missed the whole point and premise of this topic and article, as I thought you did. That's why I asked you those questions. This is the beginning of the article:
Was it a coincidence? The Bill to restore the Draft (Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393)) was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed, in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
And if you take the topic of the article also, in addition to the body/context of the article, you would see it has nothing to do with your assumption that the current introduction of HR 393 is any type or kind of protest in regard to the present war situation..... Maybe when Rangel tried to introduce it in 2003 (I went to the link you left for me) it was to get all income levels of people equally involved in the draft, not just the poor. But still that is introducing the draft and consequently forcing people to go to war! and also the rich know very well how to avoid the draft!
I fail to see the correlation with the article/info. I've posted here other than it was Rangel introducing the draft back then as now. No person should be forced to go to war, especially for crazy guy Bush and his twisted agenda. Besides, HR 393 was obviously a Bush/Cheney and now Rangel tactic all correlating with the present "surge" and hype to force Americans to fight Bush's crazy war agenda and increase troops and invade Iran. That's what the article is about, not about using the draft as a tool for protest, how crazy, counterproductive, and useless that would be.
Bush's "surge" is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription, and he correlated them all together in his neat little agenda package. And so we're back at the original question of--was it a coincidence - That the Bill to restore the Draft - Universal National Service Act of 2007 HR.393 - which was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq?
Remember Fred Kagan together with General Jack Keane, stated that "any troop increase must be large and lasting" and involving a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so". And there will probably be more troops than that deployed and, the time/length they're at war will be ongoing. All of the people involved in this current surge agenda are committed to a long lasting war without borders. And I don't agree with Rangel's rationale at all which was mentioned lightly at the end of this article. Democrats and Republicans, especially the players at the top, always put on aires that they are against each other, when in fact they are working towards the same goals. War is cruel, brutal, murderous, and futile.... It only serves the elite's agenda.
FYI - In the future, aka, from present on...I won't engage with you at all if you can't be civil and post without throwing out childish bully-like name calling, which you've done here and in the past on my other threads .
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 2680
Location: Texas North - Alberta
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
IAM1 wrote:
Wow.... You really missed the whole point and premise of this topic and article, as I thought you did. That's why I asked you those questions. This is the beginning of the article:
No I didn't miss the point... you don't have one.
IAM1 wrote:
And if you take the topic of the article also, in addition to the body/context of the article, you would see it has nothing to do with your assumption that the current introduction of HR 393 is any type or kind of protest in regard to the present war situation.....
this is the great thing about pointing reality out to you IAM1...
You just brush it aside and keep on trucking.
IAM1 wrote:
I fail to see the correlation with the article/info.
WOW!!!!
Colour me surprised!
Not...
IAM1 wrote:
I've posted here other than it was Rangel introducing the draft back then as now. No person should be forced to go to war, especially for crazy guy Bush and his twisted agenda.
You are aware Rangel is a Democrat aren't you IAM1?
Oh never mind... I forgot.
He's probably the bastard love child of Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis and the end product of the Bene Gesserit breeding program to produce the Kwisatch Haderach... the Illuminati Politician that can breach time and space and make the Democrats vote for a Bush idea!
IAM1 wrote:
Besides, HR 393 was obviously a Bush/Cheney and now Rangel tactic
See above
IAM1 wrote:
all correlating with the present "surge" and hype to force Americans to fight Bush's crazy war agenda and increase troops and invade Iran.
Ummm... yeah sure...
Discounting of course the little fact it would actually take longer to train said drafted troops than Bush has time left in office.
Oh wait... Rangel can breach time and space!
I forgot... he could train them and then send them back in time to before they were drafted to win the war before it even started!!!
That devious bastard... wow, I'm in AWE!!
I wonder if I can weasel some stock tips out of him.... hhhhmmm...
IAM1 wrote:
That's what the article is about, not about using the draft as a tool for protest, how crazy, counterproductive, and useless that would be.
Uh... yeah IAM1. You see it works as a protest because no one would ever vote for it.
Not that your going to understand that mind you but...
IAM1 wrote:
Bush's "surge" is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription, and he correlated them all together in his neat little agenda package.
Once again... Rangel is a capital L liberal Democrat IAM1...
Repeat after me...
capital L liberal Democrat...
capital L liberal Democrat...
capital L liberal Democrat...
IAM1 wrote:
And so we're back at the original question of--was it a coincidence - That the Bill to restore the Draft - Universal National Service Act of 2007 HR.393 - which was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq?
No... it wasn't coincidence IAM1
It was a deliberate protest by Rangel of said surge.
He didn't want to be in Iraq in the first place remember?
No of course you don't....
IAM1 wrote:
Remember Fred Kagan together with General Jack Keane, stated that "any troop increase must be large and lasting" and involving a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so".
Realistically the time frame is more like 8-10 years not 18 months but...
IAM1 wrote:
And there will probably be more troops than that deployed and, the time/length they're at war will be ongoing. All of the people involved in this current surge agenda are committed to a long lasting war without borders.
1) You can't deploy troops you don't have
2) A draft isn't going to be reinstated
QED
1+2= nothing happening
IAM1 wrote:
And I don't agree with Rangel's rationale at all which was mentioned lightly at the end of this article. Democrats and Republicans, especially the players at the top, always put on aires that they are against each other, when in fact they are working towards the same goals. War is cruel, brutal, murderous, and futile.... It only serves the elite's agenda.
Well see the thing is here you don't have to agree with Rangel.
It's really irrelevant if you do or not since that's his motivation in proposing the bill.
IAM1 wrote:
FYI - In the future, aka, from present on...I won't engage with you at all if you can't be civil and post without throwing out childish bully-like name calling, which you've done here and in the past on my other threads .
And that's about the third time you've said that.
You could no more turn down responding to someone challenging your beliefs IAM1 than a heroin addict could turn down a free hit.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
FYI-that wasn't any where near a challenge .
When people attempt to razz or point out one area on a thread topic that is minor without details included, in comparison to the topic/premise of an article and then debate on that alone, it just proves that they don't understand the article and questions directed to them. Also, they prove their immaturity by name calling and attempting to razz, not able to conduct themselves in a civil manner at all. So why engage with these people? Have they earned interaction with any poster by harassing and calling them names, NO!
It's a waste of time to discuss topics with these bullies because that is all they do is bully. I've attempted to give most of these bullies another chance at proving they can be civil but alas few succeed while others continuously falter. Anyone can read the article here and see that that is why its posted in the government conspiracy forum, because it's a conspiracy article, not a protest article against drafting only poor people and not preserving the rich/wealthy from being drafted . And as I said earlier, the rich and privileged can always find a way to dodge the draft. It's happened before and it will continue to happen in the future .
But there is a lot more of a conspiracy to this thread than one responder failed to see/know. Bush and his Cabal are pushing their agenda forward, trying to convince the American people and Congress that he requires thousands of additional troops and the draft to accomplish peace in Iraq, when he has other non-peaceful intentions for the Middle East, oil, and Iran.
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 2680
Location: Texas North - Alberta
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: Re: Conspiracy of Military Escalation
IAM1 wrote:
FYI-that wasn't any where near a challenge .
Not so much a challenge as challenged then...
IAM1 wrote:
When people attempt to razz or point out one area on a thread topic that is minor without details included, in comparison to the topic/premise of an article and then debate on that alone, it just proves that they don't understand the article and questions directed to them.
I'd hardly call Rangel's intent a "minor detail"...
But again... your not going to let reality interfere with your theories so...
IAM1 wrote:
Also, they prove their immaturity by name calling and attempting to razz, not able to conduct themselves in a civil manner at all. So why engage with these people? Have they earned interaction with any poster by harassing and calling them names, NO!
Once again IAM1 fact checking is not harassment.
IAM1 wrote:
It's a waste of time to discuss topics with these bullies because that is all they do is bully. I've attempted t
].
Woooooo...The Draft???????????? 
