Skip to main content

Since the US is occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran and Syria seemed to have formed an alliance against her wont the US have to reintroduce the draft in order to get a fighting force to control and occupy both countries?

The only way I see America avoiding sending troops to both Syria and Iran is to play both nations against each other just like America did in the 1980s with Iraq and Iran.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

According to the manifesto prepared by the Project for the New American Century, back in 1998, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush's objective was to first overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and then do the same in Syria and Iran. So they won't play them against each other. They'll have to actually invade and topple the regimes of both countries, so they can replace them with US-friendly ones. If necessary, they'll probably have to institute a draft. Although they may not have to, because the upcoming ROBOT SOLDIERS could help provide some substitution.
The only way their plan can work is to bring back the draft. There is no way that he can continue to fight these undeclared wars across the entire middle east with the same troops that he has now. The Army is spread to thin, the national guard is all used up, where the hell is he going to get the troops to fight these wars.

While the lie might have worked with Iraqi, what lie is he going to tell to justified invading Syria or Iran. WMD's, oh freaking please the North Koreans are closer then the Iranians but you don't see us getting ready to invade them, because we know those folks will fill body bags up with american dead in numbers not seem since World War II.
MBM, to the head of the class!

I'm gonna have to get serious about getting back into my article/book/whatever about the true meaning of the Second Amendment. That Amendment was intended to prevent the formation of 'standing armies,' paid professional troops, chosen from among the wealthy elite classes whose interests are more in line with the powerful sovereign than with the poorer masses. The idea was that a more broad-based pool of fighters, comprised of people from the poorer classes, would never turn on their people at the direction of the men in power.

Obviously, robot soldiers are the 21st century's standing army. What fighting force would be more loyal to the sovereign than robotic ones????? The way the founders intended the constitution to be read, robot soldiers are unconstitutional. Especially in the hands of these neo-fascists.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

Although they may not have to, because the upcoming ROBOT SOLDIERS could help provide some substitution.


I can just see them next deploying these in 'da hood'! scream


You know, you're not the first person who actually mentioned this. Farrakhan said something similar about it in a speech "Countdown to 2000" back in 1989.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
The only way their plan can work is to bring back the draft. There is no way that he can continue to fight these undeclared wars across the entire middle east with the same troops that he has now. The Army is spread to thin, the national guard is all used up, where the hell is he going to get the troops to fight these wars.

While the lie might have worked with Iraqi, what lie is he going to tell to justified invading Syria or Iran. WMD's, oh freaking please the North Koreans are closer then the Iranians but you don't see us getting ready to invade them, because we know those folks will fill body bags up with american dead in numbers not seem since World War II.


You're right. Nothing makes the US move but cash money. North Korea already has WMDs, and they're not invading a nation and risk an ass-kicking unless it has resources the US craves.

Unless scientists can find a way to squeeze a diamond or uranium out of a microwave or DVD player, we're not going North Korea anytime SOON.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×