Why don't you people who think Kerry would start a DRAFT wise up?

[Dems Will Win]

We are trying to get parents and families to defeat Bush, not Kerry.

Please check your program:

Bush: Republican PNACer who wants to invade several more countries and have the US hold onto Iraq until 2136 AD.

Kerry: Known Democrat Internationalist, thinks the UN and France are peachy keen and even looks French! Cannot even eat a Philly Cheese Steak Sandwich without looking European. Will run to the center and then end the occupation and turn Iraq over to the UN and get out. Even said "no more soldiers will die for oil" and "I will not let Ideology trump the truth!"

Now since the draft is such a hot-button issue, why o why would you want a young person or their family to ever think Kerry would HAVE TO start the DRAFT too?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Doesn't make sense does it, when the fate of the world hangs in the balance? Even if you think Kerry will restart the DRAFT, can't you just talk about Bush spending the $28 million to get it ready instead and SHUT UP about Kerry? Are you so sure Kerry would restart the draft to think its OK to give the election back to Bush?

I don't think you people are thinking at all--you are just reacting.

Don't forget that DU posts are reported now! What would we do if Freepers started talking about Bush restarting the DRAFT. We would publicize it. Even the Freepers think Bush is going to reinstate, we would tell the media! Let your fingers be guided by your head rather than your heart for the next 133 days.

Then you can go back to your regularly scheduled program...

BUSH '04 =DRAFT '05

KERRY '04 = PNAC OUT THE DOOR!!!

[MadHound]

1. Gee, could it be because we get worried when Kerry states

That he is willing to throw 40,000 more troops into the meat grinder? Or that his withdrawl timetable is some vague statement about "before he ends his firt term". Or that his stance vis-a-vis Iraq is very similar to LBJ's in regards to Vietnam(and we all know just how much LBJ abhorred the draft:eyes:)

Look, Kerry has got most anti-war activists only slightly less worried than Bush. Kerry has made no definitive timetable on when he will bring the troops home, or whether he will bring the troops home at all. He has shifted stances from wanting to build an international force to wanting to commit more troops, from voting for the IWR to coming out against it. What Kerry needs to do in order to solidify the anti-war vote behind him is to come out solidly against it, with a plan and timetable for getting the troops home. His continued waffling on the issue, while understandable(after all, he does feel he needs to appeal to the hawks in the voting public), quite frankly turns off a lot of the anti-war people, and if he continues to follow this course, a lot of the anti-war votes will stay home.

Plus it simply doesn't help that his fellow Dems in the Senate are already introducing draft legislation. This war has been proven to be a sham and a lie. The Democratic party needs to stop beating around the bush and come out solidly against it.

[Dems Will Win]

5. First of all, kerry's opposed to the Rangel bill and said so and second

he has a NO-DRAFT PLAN that you obviously don't understand. Adding 40,000 troops to ACTIVE-DUTY means there would be less need for a draft, not more. 20,000 by the way are combat and the rest are engineers. Try to understand this.

If we don't try to bring down the insurgents and then get out of Iraq, Kerry will clearly not need a draft.

If you need more info on Kerry's NO-DRAFT PLAN, I would be happy to explain it to you!

[MadHound]

8. So with troops stretched thin, and war on two fronts,

The Reserve and National Guard drained dry, where on God's green Earth is Kerry going to get 40,000 more troops? Sorry friend, but such unanswered questions make people nervous.

I also notice that you haven't addressed my questions vis-a-vis Kerry's timetable for getting us out of Iraq. Could that be because Kerry has no such timetable?

Many many of us learned our lesson from LBJ, and would like to see something more concrete than the vague promises that Kerry is making.

[redqueen]

14. So are you saying

that if Kerry can't stop a draft from happening, that you won't vote for him?

If the answer to that question is yes, then by all means keep this up and get yourself booted after the convention.

If the answer is no, then why not STFU about it already?

[MadHound]

31. Now that is an interesting, rather ironic, attitude

Coming from somebody who supports Kucinich(who hasn't bowed out, is speaking truth to power and hasn't "STFU about it already"). Had a little too much of the Kerry Koolaid there RQ?

Look, the Iraq war is THE major issue for a lot of people in this country, most of whom are part of the traditional leftist base of the Democratic party. We have become sick to death of being railroaded and taken for granted, and want some solid serious answers, something that Kerry isn't giving out. A lot of these people are like me, caught on the horns of a serious dilemna, voting for more of the same ol' same ol' lesser of of two evils, or striking out on our own and boosting a third party in hopes to change the direction our country is going. What Kerry says and does vis-a vis the Iraq war is going to have a HUGE influence on how this group of people vote. His current swings from condemnation of the war to promises to stay the course in Iraq are quite disconcerting, and this makes us very leary of voting for the man. And face it, judging from the lessons of the '00 and '02 election cycles, the Democratic Party needs the leftist vote. If Kerry wants to secure it, he needs to come out foursquare against the war, with a solid plan and timetable to get us out of Iraq.

Demands to STFU and march in lockstep as we all merrily traipse down the PNAC/PPI path only turn the progressive/left voting block off, with the consequence of this voter block either staying home or voting third party in droves. All we want is a solid yes or no in regards to the war. Kerry's yes/no two step only confuses the matter and turns voters away from him. If the man cannot have the courage of his convictions, especially in the now public light of the lies this war is based on, then how are we supposed to trust him once he is in office?

[redqueen]

36. Not Kerry Koolaid, just pragmatism

I understand about the Iraq war. But do you honestly think that voting for a third party now will help at all? Honestly?

I, like you, am tired of being taken for granted. Tired of being told to be quiet so the less informed can feel all safe and secure. I am tired of watching this party drift further and further to the right while this country reverts to the bad old days. But I know that the answer is not splintering, the answer is strategy. BY all means do all you can to influence Kerry. But associating him with negatives, IMO, is counterproductive.

Is it too much to expect the people in our camp to think logically? Kerry's swinging back and forth, you say? Now just why might a candidate in an election be doing that? THINK!

The plain truth is YOU HAVE NO CHOICE! If we do not mobilize for Kerry, we might just get kicked in the head again and suffer even more horrific scandals and outrages under another bush reign. If you don't want that, then why tie oneself as an anchor around Kerry's neck? Can we really not recognize that until major changes are made, we are dependent on swing voters? (Changes involving the media, electoral laws, etc.)

I'm not saying we need to march in lockstep. I'm saying we should consider the results of our actions more carefully.

And to be honest, I understand your issue with respect to the *appearance* that he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, but at this point I don't know that it's anything but an *appearance*. I'm not willing to flush my childrens' futures down the toilet because I thought that maybe Kerry wasn't good enough. He's good enough. He's WAY PAST good enough. And let's not forget, he's what we've got. So logic tells me, that we wait until AFTER the election to start unveiling all our deeply held fears about what Kerry MIGHT do.

[MadHound]

44. Sorry friend, but disappointment and the painful lessons

Of hard experience have made me very wary of anybody stating "wait until after the election" in regard to anything, much less a war. If Kerry can't come out NOW, when public opinion is against the war, when the people are starting to wake up to the fact that they were herded into a war based on lies, when will he come out against it? If he is against the war, why is he promising to throw more troops into the meat grinder?

Quite frankly I hold no hope for this country no matter who is elected this year. We have arrived in the Second Gilded Age, and reverted to the two party/same corporate master system of government. If we want to change the direction this country is going, not just the speed with which we are approaching the cliff edge, then NOW is the time to start. And quite frankly, the Dems have pulled out fearmonger/bogeyman card one too many times. I lived through the terms of Reagan, Nixon and Bush, and I don't scare easily.

Third party voting in this country isn't a matter of instant change, it is a matter of building over years. It is also a matter of applying leverage to the two main parties in order to get some sort of concession, to regain one's voice. The left hasn't had a real voice for years now, and it is time for us to regain it. If that means that Bush wins, so be it, the world won't end. Look, the Dems have the lessons of the '00 and '02 election before them, why don't they learn from them? Compromise, compromise, compromise! Instead we are told to get in line, march in lockstep and shut the fuck up for the good of the party. Sorry, but that smacks of facist tactics to me. Hell, even FDR had the great good sense to throw the left a bone in order to get them to vote for him. That is how we got Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Why doesn't the Kerry campaign have the same common sense?

Like I said, I'm caught on the horns of a serious dilemna, as are many on the anti-war left. If Kerry wants our votes to fall into his camp, then give us something solid to hang onto. With more and more people waking up to the realities of why the US went into Iraq, I doubt seriously that he would lose many votes on a stance of peace.

And one always, always has a choice. What Kerry does in the remainder of the campaign will influence my choice. Kerry's choice is whether or not to obtain a spine, to have the courage of the convictions that he displayed when he was a younger man. His future, our future depends on his choice.

[redqueen]

45. Not much I can argue with there

I would have agreed with you completely 2 years ago. But now, not so much.

Now I think that the time to advocate for significant social change is *not* during the presidential election. I think, if it's involved in any election whatsoever, it's the congressional elections. That's *if* it's involved in elections *at all*.

Lately I think that it's more subtle than who's in the office in DC. I think it's about who influences the minds of the masses. Right now it's the mainstream media, and look where we are. I think people are waking up, slowly. The right wing woke up under Clinton, and now the left has heard the alarm under Bush. I understand people in both camps were awake before, but I'm referring to large numbers of the voting public. I think the situation in this country, in all kinds of ways, is new and very far from business as usual.

I have to disagree about having a choice. I don't think we do have one. I think that if bush wins, the world will not come to an end, but we may as well be signing off our approval for it to be brought to an end. His willingness to destroy the environment, our economy, and our very lives is unmatched. Allowing him to win because Kerry isn't perfect enough is just stupid.

And I don't expect Kerry to pull an FDR. Things were different in FDR's day. People were starving in the streets then. People were camping in tents on the WH lawn. Not only that, but the corporations were not as powerful then as they are now.

The President can't save us. After Kerry's elected, we can't just sit down and wait for him to fix everything. If anything, that's when the real work begins. Because of this fact, I don't put a lot of importance on whether or not he says the right thing to please me.

[MadHound]

63. Hate to sound Machiavellian and cold about it

But now IS the time to apply leverage. Kerry realizes that he needs all the votes he can get, therefore he should be willing to deal in order to get them. This is exactly how the fundamentalist Christians came to exercise so much power within the Republican Party.

And quite frankly, it is all about who is in office. Government, be it local, state or federal, is there to protect the public from the accesses of corporations and individuals, to level the playing field for all. The takeover of both parties by the corporate elite has radically skewed the balance, in effect making our government an agent for those corporations. However we the people can make a difference with our vote. If we elect people who aren't beholden to the corporations, who do not take corporate cash, then they are responsible only to us, their constituents. This is why publicly financed election campaigns are such a necessity, and why they are the most feared thing in the two big parties.

And it isn't simply a matter of Kerry not being perfect enough, I'm not that shallow. It is a matter of looking at the man's positions and seeing only differences of degree with Bush, not differences in substance. Staying the course in Iraq is only the most obvious one. Tax cuts for corporations(in order to promote some vague notion of trickle down job creation), support and expansion of "free" trade, continuation of the Patriot Act, the list goes ever onward. Real change is needed in this country, yet Kerry is simply offering us Bush lite. ABB was never the ideal way to select a candidate, and I fear we are all going to pay the price for that mistake.

Just a historical note, things weren't that much different in FDR's day, the Great Depression was simply the denouement of the First Gilded Age. FDR was forced to enact change, for the people had finally woken up to the excesses committed under the two party/same corporate master system of government that was occurring at the time.

All I'm asking for is what is my right, for Kerry to EARN my vote, not just expect it out of sheer fear. Nobody wants to be taken for granted, is it too much to ask that Kerry and the Dems throw me a bone? Is it too much to ask that they exhibit a spine?

[redqueen]

67. Is it too much to ask

that people admit that things were different then? Yes, I guess it is. (And in so many ways, even: media concentration, corporate power, severity of economic conditions... *sigh*)

You can sit and demand that Kerry do whatever you want. Doesn't mean it will happen. Nor does it mean that things will magically get better if bush is re-selected. It only means that you made your stand. I suppose if that makes you feel good, then there's that. But, to me, goal numero uno is ousting bush, not making myself feel good.

In light of that fact, I'm not wasting any energy trying to morph Kerry into what *I* want him to be. I'm more interested in helping Kerry to appeal to what *everyone else who hasn't pledged their vote* wants him to be.

[Andy_Stephenson]

46. Dare I say this?

A vote for Kerry is a wasted vote.

Makes no difference unless you are a pregnant woman that wants to abort. Otherwise same old same old.

[redqueen]

49. ????

!!!!

:wow:

[Andy_Stephenson]

52. The only real difference I see....

Kerry is for choice.

Pick your jaw up...It is no secret I don't like Kerry! I have always made myself plain on that fact.

EDIT:

Skull and Bones vs. Skull and Bones...Skull and Bones Wins.

Edit 2:

I am not so sure I will vote for him. Desperate times DEMAND bold action, I do not see Kerry taking any bold action.

What has he done for me lately? Not a damned thing. Oh except send my great nephew to war!

[redqueen]

55. *sigh*

That's great. So the only difference is one that won't help any less pro-choice than pro-life people to help us oust bush.

I prefer Kucinich. I have made myself plain on that fact as well. It doesn't mean I'd say something as outrageously nuts as 'a vote for Kerry is a wasted vote'.

[Andy_Stephenson]

58. I am sorry you have given up on Dennis!

I still stand with him.

[redqueen]

59. I stand with him as well

But I'm not dragging my countrymen into a hellhole because Kerry isn't perfect.

Standing with Dennis doesn't mean helping bush. Criticism of Iraq policy can be addressed without tarnishing the only hope we have of ridding ourselves of bush (that would be Kerry).

[Andy_Stephenson]

62. Malarkey!

If your not backing Dennis 100%...You have given yourself over to the Dark Side I am afraid!

Enjoy neverending war cause with Kerry that is what you get!

[redqueen]

65. How can I back Dennis 100%?

He's OUT of the national media, and he's OUT of the national dialogue.

We will be having an election in less than 5 months, and right now my priorities are:

- increasing awareness of BBV issues,
- supporting Kucinich's petitions,
- ensuring Kerry gets as many votes as possible

Dennis will be backing Kerry too, in a matter of months. Who will you pin your hopes and dreams on then?

[Andy_Stephenson]

68. Not Kerry!

I will vote for hiim...But nothing will change! Nothing...

[redqueen]

71. No, one thing will change

We will have someone who is MORE LIKELY than NOT to listen to us in the WH. That is a positive change. What *WE* do with it is on US.

[Andy_Stephenson]

78. Did he listen to us in regards to Iraq?

No!

What makes you think he will listen now...after all the rhetoric I have heard from him...I expect nothing from him. You OTH are getting your hopes up...only to be dashed. It is a nice dream you have, but the reality is far different.

[Cronus Protagonist]

25. The anti-war votes will not stay home

Kerry could shit on a flag and they would come. You, however, are able to do whatever you want. I don't think your plan will be good for the country.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH

Click here for "ANYBODY BUT BUSH", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[MadHound]

33. Then I guess that you too

Didn't learn the lessons of the '00 and '02 election cycles, when the progressive/leftist vote went third party or stayed home in droves.

And another question friend, how is peace and bringing the troops home ever ever not good for the country, especially when we are engaged in an illegal, immoral occupation of a sovereign country? What, do like having Pax Americana spread around the globe? Do you like the idea that our soldiers, our brothers and sisters, husbands, wives, sons and daughters are spilling their blood in order to enrich the oily few? If you think that all of this is "good for the country" then I truly pity you friend, for your heart is hard and cold.

[Walt Starr]

2. I WILL NOT SIT DOWN

AND I WILL NOT SHUT UP!!!

The Truth is more important.

[Dems Will Win]

4. The only problem is you assume Kerry will fight the insurgents

He won't. Even Bush has given up on that. If Kerry just fights al-Queda he only needs several thousand Special Ops.

Its OK if you oppose Kerry's policies, but you're just assuming he's as bad as Bush and then bashing him.

Why don't you write Letter to the Editors of all your local newspapers and warn EVERYBODY THAT KERRY IS GOING TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT?????

That would be very helpful for all to know your so-called "truth", wouldn't it?

Why limit yourself to DU when it comes to needlessly scaring people about Kerry who would otherwise vote for him?

[Walt Starr]

6. No, I don't

I expect Kerry to fulfill the obligation of the occupying force to restore order.

[redqueen]

3. I agree with you 1000%

FIRST put out the fire

THEN we'll discuss remodeling

Strategery, folks... thiiiiiink haaaard.

:think:

[I thought so.]

7. Well,nice try.

The soreheads are reduced to complaining about what they think Kerry will do. Some people get real childish when they don't get their way.

[Walt Starr]

10. I don;t think Kerry will have any choice

and I also think Kerry simply does not understand the reality of the situation in Iraq because the current administraion is being so secretive about it. His numbers are based solely upon the information the administration is willing to release.

Once he's elected and begins his daily briefings, the cold harsh reality is going to smack him in the face!

Mark my words, when you see Kerry in December coming out of the White House, he's going to have some serious looks on his face. He's going to end up being extremely pissed off at just how badly Bushco FUCKED UP in Iraq. It will be all Bush's fault, but he will have no choice but to draft in order to comply with what we are obligated to do in Iraq.

[redqueen]

12. Does it really even matter at this point, Walt?

We have a choice. What good does it do to reinforce the 'it makes no difference' meme?

[Walt Starr]

15. Well, that's not the meme here

Look at the reality, a draft is coming regardless.

Now look at the difference.

Under Bushco, it will be an endless draft to support an endless war Thousands upon thousands in 2005, millions by the end of 2006, generation after generation of young men being marched off to war in the ensuing decades.

Under Kerry, you'll see between 250 and 300 thousand over about 2.5 years to comply with the obligation to restore order. It ends with the troops coming home and no more draft.

So you see, even though there will be a draft regardless of who wins, but the differences between the two situations surrounding the draft are stark!

[redqueen]

17. So why go on and on about it?

Why not focus on the draft, instead of the kind of "EVEN KERRY WILL DO IT HE HAS NO CHOICE!" henny penny stuff?

[Walt Starr]

18. BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO FUCKING KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT

SHEESH!

:eyes:

[redqueen]

20. As I've said before

By all means, discuss the draft, but stop with the "KERRY WILL HAVE A DRAFT!" crap.

If you know that bush will too, WHY TIE KERRY'S NAME TO IT?!!!

Sheesh indeed!

[Walt Starr]

22. I will continue to talk about how Kerry will have a draft, too

Because it's the FUCKING TRUTH!

There is absolutely nothing in the DU rules that say I cannot do this, either.

[redqueen]

27. You think?

You don't think after the convention that ranting about a draft under Kerry (as if he and he alone is responsible and accountable for it :eyes:) will get you in trouble? I would hope so. It's not a fair criticism.

I just think it's stupid as hell that when discussing a situation as inflammatory as the draft -- and despite you yourself thinking it will happen regardless of who is in the WH -- to tie it to Kerry.

Also, is the President the sole authority on whether there's a draft or not? Or does most of the responsibility lie with Congress?

[Walt Starr]

86. Dude, you'[re just plain not listening

Read the rules. After the convention, this statement will not be breaking the rules, "There will be a draft regardless of who is elected president." And I defy you to find a legitimate argument whereby it could be considered against the DU rules!

[PepSky]

9. kerry is not god

He can't control the mess bush has made, and no one else could either. This situation is going to get FAR FAR worse before it gets better, and at a point along the way a draft will be needed. There's not a damn thing kerry can do to stop a disaster already in motion.

[Walt Starr]

11. Thank you!

What those who want to believe Kerry is a god are failing to do is be honest with themselves about how much Bushco is holding back here, too!

COME ON, FOLKS, WE KNOW HOW MUCH THESE FUCKERS LIE! Kerry voted in favor of the IWR because he was used to the normal conduct of business in Washington and was not prepared for the evil that is Bushco twisting it into justification! HE is also not prepared for precisely how bad things REALLY are in IRaq because Bushco has been hiding the facts in order to get re-selected and then go back and raise the troop levels.

[redqueen]

13. It doesn't matter

I still think it's counterproductive to rant about how it doesn't matter if we elect Kerry or Bush because *you* still believe there will be a draft.

Even if there IS, we still MUST do EVERYTHING we can to get as MANY votes for Kerry as possible.

[Walt Starr]

16. TheRE WILL be a draft

and I WILL continue to discuss it.

[redqueen]

19. Sure, then. By all means, discuss the draft.

But please oh PLEASE stop tying Kerry to it!

For the love of God, if you can see that it doesn't matter who's in office, then stop associating it with Kerry! Do you really not think this could hurt him with fence-sitters?

[Walt Starr]

23. No, I will not

I refuse to lie because it hurts your sensibilities and a lie of ommission is still a lie!

[redqueen]

28. It's not about hurting my sensibilities

:eyes:

It's about not helping any hawkish centrist fence sitters to decide that maybe bush is better.

[Walt Starr]

85. Sorry, not buying into it

Truth is far more important than guesses about hawkish fence sitters. I will scream it all day long if necessary.

There will be a draft regardless of who is elected president.

[Dems Will Win]

21. Kerry is too smart to get sucked into the black hole of the Mideast

Walt.

He will make peace in the Mideast between Israel and Palestine, and really stop the money flow to the terrorists and he sees al-Queda being a Special Ops task and wants to double Special Ops (now don't tell me you need a draft to double Special Ops).

You have a picture of Kerry that is missing a lot of IQ points, IMHO. Kerry is too smart to start a draft he won't even need.

Anyway I gotta go or my wife is going to kill me!

[Walt Starr]

24. This thread has been marked

I'll be referencing it in less than a year.

[Bjornsdotter]

30. Excellent! n/t

[PepSky]

26. Are you for real?

"Kerry is too smart to get sucked into the black hole of the Mideast"

News flash buddy - we already ARE sucked in to the black hole.

Bush has already condemned kerry to that fate. Like it or not kerry WILL be sucked in to the black hole from day one. Bush saw to it over a year ago.

[redqueen]

29. How about - Kerry is too smart to CONTINUE to get us sucked DEEPER

into the conflict in the ME.

That better?

[PepSky]

32. And how will that be done?

Pack up and leave ASAP?

I hate to tell you this - but an american tank sitting on an Iraqi citizens street looks the same no matter if it is under bush or kerry. Iraqis are NOT going to be happy with continued occupation. The longer we are in the worse things will become. Just like Vietnam.

The ONLY thing that would prevent us from getting sucked in is an immediate pull out. As that is not Kerrys position one can assume we will get sucked in further.

[redqueen]

37. I am not an expert

While I know that there is continued danger of violence and instability as long as we stay as occupiers, I also know that it *won't be any better under bush*.

That being the case, I don't see the wisdom in harranguing on and on about how Kerry has to get out of Iraq RIGHT NOW. Kerry will do what he can, WHEN he can.

I think it's a good time now to remind everyone that tying Kerry's name to a possible draft is counterproductive, and may provide the impetus for people to even continue to support the 'devil they know', so by doing this, you are actually LESSENING the chances that we will even find out what Kerry would do once he is in a position to do something.

How smart is that?

[PepSky]

41. You didn't answer my question

and I am assuming you didn't because it was a BS claim - just like the other post about kerry ending the I/P conflict.

All you can come up with is that Kerry would be better than Bush. And I agree with you. Still, that doesn't justify these snake oil claims of yours and others.

So - kerry has the power to end the I/P conflict and prevent a continued occupation in Iraq from getting worse. What else will he do in 4 years? End world hunger? End all war?

I hope you realize just how badly such claims turn people off to a candidate. (especially with people who know BS when they hear it)

When I am talking to people about Kerry and they say something like "Well kerry doesn't support full equality for LGBT people" (i.e. marriage). I say "You know you're right. Kerry doesn't support full equality for LGBT people. But you know - kerry still supports more LGBT rights than bush. He also won't actively work against them" I don't say "No no that's not true. Kerry will bring full equality."

What you SHOULD have done was left it at "The situation will still be better under kerry opposed to bush EVEN THOUGH the situation will worsen either way. Here is why."

Some people appreciate honesty, and can be won over just by that alone.

[redqueen]

42. Because I can't!

What "BS claim" are you referring to, anyway?

lol... you agree that Kerry is better, but 'still...' Still what? Still you'd like to do all you can to ensure that as many people as possible are unsure about their support for him?

Do you honestly think Kerry would make the situation worse? For real?!

I don't claim to have a crystal ball, so I don't go around saying 'yeah it'll get worse alright' because I *don't know that that's the case!*

I appreciate honesty as much as the next person. I also appreciate the ability to discern reality and pragmatic thinking from guessing games and recklessness.

[PepSky]

73. So now you go in to spin mode

"What "BS claim" are you referring to, anyway?"

"Kerry is too smart to get sucked into the black hole of the Mideast"

and then

"Kerry is too smart to CONTINUE to get us sucked DEEPER"

despite the fact staying in the mideast does just that.

"Still you'd like to do all you can to ensure that as many people as possible are unsure about their support for him?"

So if I don't blatantly lie like Rove I'm doing all I can to get as many people unsure about their support for kerry as I can? You seem to have a problem with people calling it like it is instead of spinning.

"Do you honestly think Kerry would make the situation worse? For real?!"

Been getting tips from FAUX? Where did I say this? Ohhh I get it. It's a misinterpretation perhaps? Yes - the situation WILL get worse when kerry takes office. Not BECAUSE of HIM but because of the situation bush has already gotten us in to. Like I said - it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better EVEN WHEN kerry is in office. Still, kerry (unlike bush) will not result in making it 10 times worse than what it is already going to become.

If we leave a lot of people will die - if we stay a lot of people will die. After that gets done the situation can only begin to get better. It is inevitable, and that's why we didn't want to go in to start with. If it was actually possible to go in to Iraq and make the situation BETTER then perhaps the rest of the world (including many anti-invasion people here) would have wanted to do it. You can't bring freedom at the point of a gun.

"I don't claim to have a crystal ball, so I don't go around saying 'yeah it'll get worse alright' because I *don't know that that's the case!*"

Oh I see. That explains these little visions in to the future

"Kerry is too smart to get sucked into the black hole of the Mideast"
"Kerry is too smart to CONTINUE to get us sucked DEEPER"

[redqueen]

75. lol

I didn't make the first claim, and the second was just an attempt to stop the counterproductive henny-pennying going on in here.

How is admitting that you're not a psychic and don't know what will happen but are merely being alarmist and counterproductive 'blatatnly lying like Rove'?

[Dems Will Win]

35. Thanks Redqueen! I am really happy about this discussion with Walt

I snuck back to the computer!

Thank you especially Walt.

Because we have uncovered the core of the question. If you believe Kerry will fight the insurgents and try for a military rather than a political solution then he would need what Walt has suggested: at least 250,000 to 300,000 troops in Iraq (although Walt is assuming them all to be American).

Now I think that is really a stretch, to think that Kerry would double the number of US troops and start the DRAFT to do it, just to fight the insurgents with a military solution.

Walt is so sure that is what is going to happen, he makes sure to tell all that Kerry will have to start the DRAFT too.

The end solution in Iraq will be America leaving a Yugoslavian-type state with 3 autonomies no matter who is elected. The only question is whether Bush is in there protecting the pipelines and oil fields or whether Kerry has already turned off the light at the end of the tunnel and withdrawn completely outside of covert Special Ops raids.

I think Bush will also withdraw to fortress compounds and fields a la Saudi Arabia and then go after the other 5 nations.

Kerry is personally opposed to the draft and has said so many times.

Walt is saying Kerry will fight the insurgents to the grisly end and incur tens of thousands of US dead and maybe 200,000 Iraqi dead, the REAL WAR. I don't buy it.

If you don't buy that either, understand that Kerry will not start the DRAFT

[redqueen]

39. I doubt Kerry would start a draft

To be honest, I don't know if he even COULD. No one has yet chimed in about who starts it - Congress or the Executive.

I agree that Kerry's not so stupid as to seek a military solution to the insurgency(ies?) in Iraq. Even military officials are speaking out about the http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040615170719.ut32ct2e.html">foolishness of that method of dealing with the situation, so it baffles me that people think Kerry would continue the disastrous bush policies already in place.

[Dems Will Win]

40. Kerry would have to address a Joint Session of Congress to get the DRAFT

Politically, he would need the Joint Session to get something so unpopular. He would have to ask for a Trigger Resolution reauthorizing conscription. NO NEW LAW IS NEEDED--THAT'S WHY YOU CAN IGNORE THOSE DEM BILLS THAT DIED IN COMMITTEE.

Anyway, that's all you need. The whole Draft system is already in place.

The question is whether or not Kerry would go to such lengths and burn all political capital in the beginning of his first term just to fight the insurgents who only want their country back.

He would fight al-Queda with Special Ops and make a political solution in Iraq and basically get out, I believe.

Therefore Mr. Kerry would not start the DRAFT.

[redqueen]

43. Sounds logical to me

I appreciate your input... maybe I'll need it for GOTV discussions. But honestly, there just must not be that many LOOK OUT HERE COMES THE DRAFT kind of people around here, because nobody -- and I mean NOBODY -- has questioned me about that. Interestingly, when this subject does come up, they mostly want assurances that he WON'T pull out immediately. Which I can't deliver. But I just go back to economics, building ties with allies, focusing on the war on terror rather than the war to privatize Iraq, etc. Seems to work fine so far.

[Andy_Stephenson]

54. Read his national Service plan

Defacto Draft IMHO.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

[redqueen]

56. IYHO isn't good enough, sorry

And regardless, the option is bush.

So, no sale.

[Andy_Stephenson]

70. Bush...Kerry

Kerry...Bush

Same same!

[redqueen]

72. LMAO

Ohhhhhkaaaaaay. :)

[Andy_Stephenson]

79. I rely on Kerry's recent record...

to guide me. It is far more telling than the past. His past beguiles you...not me.

[greatauntoftriplets]

34. Peace between Israel and Palestine???

How? Kerry's plan is virtually the same as Bush's. And ME peace eluded Carter and Clinton, although they did try.

If I knew that Iraq would be a FUBAR long before the invasion started, why is it coming as such a surprise to so much of official Washington.

Where is Kerry going to get 40,000 more to enlist in the Army and become cannon fodder? I read somewhere that enlistments are down.

Like MadHound, I remember Vietnam very well....

[Dems Will Win]

38. Kerry will be able to make a ME peace -- they are all exhausted by

Conservative Road Maps going nowhere. The Geneva Accords were reached in 3 weeks and if the Bush campaign had not sabotaged the Clinton mideast Peace negotiations it would have gone through.

The fighting can all be tied back to Bush!

Kerry will fix it right quick because the bombings and retaliations have been so horrible people are finally ready.

Kerry takes 40,000 paper-pushers and gives them guns, no re-enlistment or recruits needed. He also gets some by increasing recruitment by increasing pay and benefits dramatically. 20,000 are to be reconstruction/engineering crews, only 20,000 Combat.

No draft is needed for such a rearrangement.

Plus a War Hero Commander-In-Chief will buck up re-up and recruitment rates as soldiers will know they don't have to fight to make the world safe for Halliburton anymore!

[greatauntoftriplets]

47. Ariel Sharon had nothing to do with starting the new intifada?

The military will train paper pushers to be combat-ready soldiers? Usually there is a reason they are pushing paper vs. training for combat.

Who will replace the paper pushers? There's always tons of paper to push at every base in the world.

[Andy_Stephenson]

51. Where do you propose he get....

the money needed for
"increasing recruitment by increasing pay and benefits dramatically."

His "National Service" smacks of a draft to me. Read it.

[nonkultur]

87. Is that like "Universal National Service?"

That is the name of the current draft bill.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmm 2+2=5?

[Andy_Stephenson]

50. As do I...

I was a kid...but I remember.

[Andy_Stephenson]

48. Hold on a second...

Kerry helped make this mess with his support of it.

"There's not a damn thing kerry can do to stop a disaster already in motion."

He should have thought about that.


"How do you tell a man he is the last one to die for a mistake?"
John Kerry

[redqueen]

53. So what?

What do you propose do do about it? Not vote? Kerry isn't good enough so you'll just take bush again?

Jumping Jehosephat I thought we'd learned our lesson from the experience of the French.

I guess that even though experience keeps a dear school...

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

61. Do you know what I was referring to

wrt to us learning a lesson from France?

[Andy_Stephenson]

64. Yes yes....

We are not france! Kerry is a spineless waffling puppet. Just like Bush*. He is "electable" says who? The Press? Give me a break. You do not believe in Dennis' ideals or you would not shuck them so quiclky.

[redqueen]

69. You don't, I think

Please explain it. The France thing.

Will your world come crumbling down when Dennis supports Kerry? Will he be shucking his ideals as well?

[redqueen]

76. Since I have to leave

I'll just post a link.

They were lucky. They had a 'first round' of elections to learn from. We don't.

Will those who are too stubborn to see the forest for the trees condemn Americans to such a disaster - AGAIN?

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Yes I did know...

in the final analysis if Kerry "stays the course" in Iraq. He will be continuing the same things George started.

[Pepperbelly]

57. the panic over Kerry and a draft is amusing ...

People are so against serving that the prospect fills them with terror.

Look, it is really pretty simple ... with the current committments we have, the troops are stretched thin. Why? Because Rumsfeld and Bush think that the Army is not efficiently using the manpower that they have. The simplest solution, if they do not intend to pull in our horns a little, will be to merely AUTHORIZE the Army to recruit more people.

That has not been done.

Before the specter of a draft become real, they will have to be unable to fill the Army with recruits. That has not happened. Not even close. IF they raise the number of soldiers authorized and are unable to fill the slots, then you should worry. Until then, you are wasting your time, your energy and putting a burden on Kerry that he does not deserve. Hell, even Bush doesn't deserve it yet.

[Andy_Stephenson]

66. Ummmm....

"with the current committments we have"

I have no commitment to Iraq. I was against the war and I am certainly not committed.

"you are wasting your time, your energy and putting a burden on Kerry"

Yes he does derserve the burden just as Bush does. Bush* wanted war...Kerry gave him war. Who is worse?

[Pepperbelly]

74. there will be no draft ... relax ...

and read the rest of what I wrote.

Current troop strength is authorized at about a half million. Subtract 138 K from that in Iraq and you can see why we are stretched so thin. If the Congress authorized the Army to recruit another 100 K or so, the manpower needs, as it exists right now, would be met without a draft.

No one wants to open that can of worms. I lived with a draft during Vietnam and hated it. Extremely unpopular move. No one will do that unless troop levels are authorized to be increased and the Army cannot meet the recruitment needs.

Relax.

[Andy_Stephenson]

80. I am worried about the carnage NOW!

We need to get the fuck outta Iraq.

[Pepperbelly]

82. I agree but please don't conflate the two issues ... nt

[Dems Will Win]

81. You're right Pepperbelly. Buth there will be a draft if Bush is

reselected. Unless you don't think that secret memo Wes Clark revealed is real: 5 more countries to invade.

Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Sudan and Somalia.

[Pepperbelly]

83. I love Wes but I hope that is wrong... nt

[Dems Will Win]

84. It is well-documented in Wes's book

Libya is also on the list but now presumably off as they are giving up WMDs.

This is on what the DRAFT question really turns. If we invade the other nations then we will need a DRAFT, while just maintaining current or lower troop levels in Iraq Kerry could scrape by until 2007.

If you think Kerry is planning to invade Syria and others and fight the insurgents to the death in Falluja, Ramadi, Najaf and elsewhere, then he would need the DRAFT.

If you think Kerry is planning to use Special Ops to catch al-Queda as he said and going to turn over Iraq to NATO and the UN as he says then he would not need the DRAFT, which would cost him dearly in political capital.

It's that simple.

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05

KERRY '04 = PNAC OUT THE DOOR!

[FlemingsGhost]

88. I'm bookmarking this thread.

Just so you know, I am not above saying "I told you so."