Way to stick to the party line there Salmo...Write this one down for future us>

''I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys,'' Ahmed says. ''I will tear their bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know.''

Harley,

"Sounds pretty logical and unemotional to me. In fact, to do otherwise would be sheer hypocrisy"

For one it's not a constitutional requirement . Secondly funny a female says that when she can only opt in but not be required to serve. So in a linial line of logic she cannot comment or vote on it because she is not male by birth. Emotion and irresponsible clearly.

It's the latest rage with the socilists to say you should not be involved in a war or planning a war unless you have been in the military. History itself proves this idea to be without merit. It is merely a thinly veiled attack on the admin and gennerally a bunch of hens or vaginzed males attempting to lay doubt about ones manhood.

Since you stated that it's not a constitutional requirement to serve, then Aunty being female is a moot point. No one, male or female, is required to serve. However, it is every American's obligation to give some service to their country.

If they do ever re-instate the draft, it will be non-gender specific. So why aren't women required to register? Because a return to the draft is not a serious option yet.

As far as the socialist comment is concerned, I don't see how that is germane to the discussion, other than another feable attempt at name calling. Don't forget that the DoD itself is a socialist organization that has lasted well over 200 years.

When questioning one's manhood, it seems apparrent to me that those with the loudest voice of committing our troops to battle without first understanding what that entails is trying to live vicariously through those soldiers from the safety of their own living room. They obviously don't have the 'nads to put on the uniform themselves and put the fate of their lives in the hands of their comrades.

Harley,

I think they should make it mandatory to serve 2 years for all.

Your arguement violates the free speach clause of the constitution so the socialist comment is valid. One can comment on anything with no obligation by just being born here. It's a strawman thrown out by those taking the weak side of a debate. It serves no purpose other than a weak attempt to question the manhood of those in the debate. One could do the same by saying "I will meet you at the time and place of your choosing and we can answer your question face to face" childish and pointless because the person that has to resort to the tactic would never show up.

Am,

You need to learn to read before you emotionally comment on something.

Say again, you're coming in broken and stupid. (That's an old Army saying for "you're not making any sense.")

Even if I were violating "the free speach clause of the constitution" (sic), how does that validate the reference to socialism?

H20,

I agree with your earlier post about what our role should be in leading a negotiated settlement for Gaza. That is the type of leadership that our government needs to be engaged in regardless of whatever roll our military plays in Iraq after June 30th.

Again, I think that Bush's total neglect in this area just shows a lack of vision and leadership. Mr Bush is running out of time to show the world that he is a capable diplomat and has more tools up his sleeve than just turning the military loose. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's decisions probably make any new attempt at diplomacy by his administration moot.

Harley,

The first thing socialist take away is free speach. Here we have the Socilaists or the extreme Left(the Democratic party today clearly has a socialist agenda) trying to say that we cannot say anything supporting war unless we have been in the military. Clearly against the principals of our country and clearly a step towards socialism. Clearly an assinine idea.

I think you're confusing socialism with fascism. There are many countries out there that have a socialist economic system that are not lacking in freedom of speech. In fact, some are even democratic in choosing their leaders.

I'm sure you're just hung up on the Marxist-Leninist days when they had a fascist government and socialist economic system, thinking one equates to the other.

Socialism in and of itself is not that bad save for the fact it won't feed the greed of human nature. Usually, however, you find communism on small organic farms turned communes, like Rajneesh, Jones, Manson, etc.

Harley,

No it exists in both and is not mutally exclusive . The common definition is as you state but if you look at line 3 in websters def. you will see this. "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" This is clearly the aim of the Democratic party and therefore making it socialist.

... and that's got nothing to do with freedom of speech or any other freedom, except maybe freedom from poverty.

Socialism is simply state-run economics.

Harley,

True by definition. But we all know one leads to the other and one cannot exist without the other ultimately thats why it is considered transitional. European states are transitional and as the people give up more and more rights for what they see as security the faster it will happen.

Elvis, one question - Have you ever lived in a Socialistic State? I'm not talking about Washington State I'm talking about Scandanavia, New Zealand (prior to the mid 1980's), any of the Communistic countries, maybe England. I'm trying to understand why a guy with reasonable credibility (even though I think you are wrong most of the time) and the ability to make a well reasoned arguement, would risk it by making an asinine statement that the Democratic Party is socialistic. Please explain what version of Socialism, the Dems represent.

I think once again the paint brush is being applied too wide.

But you can't argue that those who claim to be socialist in this country (and that would be many) will vote Democrat 99.9% of the time...

Socialism is alive and well in this country (as in Europe, Canada, etc. Not as strong here yet, but working on it...)

Eddie,

Just a couple,

1.Redistribution of wealth.
2. Fedral govt. exerting control over states rights
3. Gun control.

The states you mention are transitional and fit the definition of "socialist" each and everyone of them. They may be fun t

Elvis, It looks like your post got cut off in mid sentence. I would prefer to see your entire post and its context before I reply.

Eddie,

fun to visit but in transition none the less.

Elvis, you said:

"Just a couple,

1.Redistribution of wealth.
2. Fedral govt. exerting control over states rights
3. Gun control.

The states you mention are transitional and fit the definition of "socialist" each and everyone of them."

1. I would like to hear more from you how the Dems are doing redistrubition of wealth. When I lived in New Zealand, the top tax rate was 90%. Even in that Socialistic country, that did not constitute redistribution of wealth, only the Govt. desire to have a very broad and very deep Middle Class. Nowhere did they (or do we) have a situation where we take from the rich to give to the poor.

2. Such a very unique circumstance only applicable to the US (and a few other countries) - I don't see how that fits into any traditional (or transitional) definition of socialism.

3. Much more akin to #2 than any Socialistic premise. There are only a few countries in the world that do not have a more rigorous form of gun control than here in the US. As with #2, this is much more of a Constitutional law issue than one of Socialism (which is fundamentally economic in nature).

eddie...tax the rich.....(class warfare?) They pay most of the taxes after all.

tax breaks for those who pay no taxes (redistribution of wealth?)

healthcare for all.....

DSHS.....Gary Locke....Ron Simms.....aaaaaaaaaaa

Eddie,
"I would like to hear more from you how the Dems are doing redistrubition of wealth. When I lived in New Zealand, the top tax rate was 90%. Even in that Socialistic country, that did not constitute redistribution of wealth, only the Govt. desire to have a very broad and very deep Middle Class. Nowhere did they (or do we) have a situation where we take from the rich to give to the poor."

Eddie are you high. Where did the funds come from to braoden the middel class private donations? No taxes ,same thing here. If you do't want to use taxes lets take affirmative action. If all esle is equal on a Federal or state bid between two companies , except that one is owned by white males and the other is a Women or minority owned business, Who would win the bid? The WMOB by federal and state law. Even though the non-WMOB has more expirence and better references.

2. Such a very unique circumstance only applicable to the US (and a few other countries) - I don't see how that fits into any traditional (or transitional) definition of socialism. That was the Soviet Union and essentially what China is doing to Tiawan right now.

3. Much more akin to #2 than any Socialistic premise. There are only a few countries in the world that do not have a more rigorous form of gun control than here in the US. As with #2, this is much more of a Constitutional law issue than one of Socialism (which is fundamentally economic in nature). No it is unique to free people to be able to over throw and unjust govt. if all else fails. Cannot be done without guns. So in the transition stage guns along with other freedoms are slowly taken away. All under the guise of the state providing more security.