Us presidential election 2004

[EiZei 0]

Again, Rome took all that legacy and threw it out the window of self-gratification in the name of "modernization", and that caused the dark ages. Only when people again began to value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and died at the stake defending it - did the stake start to sink into the heart of dark ages which died kicking and screaming.

Ironically enough, enligtenment began when churches grip on peoples lives loosened, artists began portraying and adoring roman and greek civilizations instead of stiff religious themes and scientists dared to stand up against conventional wisdom.

[kerosene 0]

Whats the difference between self-gratification, and the pursuit of happiness (if obtained)?

The Romans presumably made themselves happy descending into decandence,.

When America was colonised, didnt the people who left value the idea of moving up the foodchain? If they were genuinley concerned about the about concepts like liberty Americas history would be different. A democracy for white christians isnt an actual democracy, after the civil war, yes, america started moving towards its stated ideals, but prior to that it was really no better than anywhere else.

[denoir 0]

Again, Rome took all that legacy and threw it out the window of self-gratification in the name of "modernization", and that caused the dark ages. Only when people again began to value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and died at the stake defending it - did the stake start to sink into the heart of dark ages which died kicking and screaming.

I don't agree at all to that. Traditionally the fall of Rome is attributed to:

[*] Reduction of military expansion resulting in a decline of the needed inflow of slaves. The whole Roman economy was built on slavery. As long as they had a fresh inflow, things were peachy - when they reduced it they ran into trouble.

[*]Decentralization - The Roman Empire had become too big to control easily. There were less and less central ruling from Rome and local customs and laws became dominant in many regions.

[*] Christianity - The concept of a religious power-structure was entirely incompatible with the structure of Rome. It divided the empire and led to religious oppression, especially in the provinces. The old-school late Roman religious system was while not tolerant, not very demanding. Christianity on the other hand had the idea that everybody had to be forced to actively participate in its rituals. This was widely unpopular in the provinces which led to further decay. It ultimately led to the power struggle under Constantine that split the empire in two.

[*] Bad Emperor streak - In Rome the Emperors held absolute power. Worked quite well with good emperors, but bad ones could mess up things badly. And in the late period Rome had a series of really incompetent emperors. This had a lot to do with the political corruption. There was no consistent system in Rome of choosing the next emperor. It was the wishes of the old emperor, the senate, the army and towards the end the praetorians (emperor's body guards that grabbed significant political power). In 186 A. D. the army strangled the new emperor and the practice began of selling the throne to the highest bidder. During the next 100 years, Rome had 37 different emperors - 25 of whom were removed from office by assassination. This contributed to the overall weaknesses of the empire.

[*] Technological stagnation. - During the last 400 years very little happened on that front. They wern't expanding so they wern't stealing technology from others any more. The population on the other hand was expanding and the existing infrastructure could not provide adequate support for it.

[*] Social decay - Bad housing, declining social services, less finances for state-sponsored wellfare led to big social problems.

As for Gibbon's version of it, you shouldn't put too much faith in it. While it is a classic and really an impressive work for that time, it is not considered very reliable today. His methodology was, by modern standards.. well.. questionable. For his time however he was quite good relative his contemporaries.

[Donnervogel 0]

Again, Rome took all that legacy and threw it out the window of self-gratification in the name of "modernization", and that caused the dark ages. Only when people again began to value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and died at the stake defending it - did the stake start to sink into the heart of dark ages which died kicking and screaming.

Actually what followed the dark ages was a system of ruling royalities that onwed land and the people on it. The people were part of the land and they were not allowed to move away. The people also belonged to the ruler of their area. There were only two exceptions.

1. Land owned by the church. There were monks or nuns caring about it.

2. Free cities. They began to appear slowly. Those were maybe places as you describe it but their impact on the society at the time were minimal since less than 5% of people lived in cities at that time (and not all cities were free). Also as I said above most people could not go to cities since they were bound to the land they lived on Later however they became more important but their "free" development was stopped rapidly when absolutism and the modern territorial state became the concept of the ruling classes.

All in all there are only few of the ideals you mentioned.

Those Ideals however were the roots of the european period of enlightment which, ironicly, was at the same time as absolutism was on it's high in europe. To remember you. It was the time of monrachy with absolute power (unlike the time before where monarchs had to share most of their power with rivaling monarchs in the region). This is very similar to the roman empire. Also the system of economy at the time (merkantilism) was not what you would call a free market. Infact most of it's elements could later be found in the centrally planned economies of socialist countries. The state, or better the King/Emperor was controling everything at the time when the ideals you mention were developed. And it was not developed by the unpriviledged people. Despite the popular believe, the leaders of the french revolution and the people that had the ideals of liberty, tolerance and so on were upper class people or religious leaders that had a great life in absolutism. Sometimes those ideals were even carried by the monarchs themselfs. Like the absolutistic King of Prussia who was very famous for it. As you see history is not as easy as one would think. And the source of such great ideals are often people who did not follow them themself and only desired political power.

We're only lucky to live in a period of democracy. But that can change very quickly as one can see when studiying history. I hope it won't.

[SPQR 0]

I'll add to what Denoir wrote brilliantly, better than I could have ever written (lack of english mastering) :

The Empire fell, or rather disolved through several invasions that were more often immigration by barbarians, pushed to West by eastern neighbouroughs, and fascinated by the roman and wealthy way of living.

But, if Roman early secularity disappeared with the avent of Christianity, we have to thank the church for having saved a large part of the greek-roman world's philosophy, history,... and the "barbarians" for having feared the religions and let the Church live.

For example, the new Aristocracy in early Dark-Ages was composed of Warlords called comes ou Dux who became the Count and Duke "Noble" Titles.

Greek-Roman Europe (not only in political terms) fell in chaos with the Dark Ages and had reborn with the Renaissance era (read, for example, "The art of war" from Machiavel).

[ralphwiggum 6]

It is quite ridiculous to use John Kerry's OWN WEB SITE to try and provide some unbiased facts to this discussion.

or Bush's website for that matter.

since some of Bush-a-holics can't let go of swift boat they missed, here's another article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=169991

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON Oct. 15, 2004 — John Kerry said Friday there is a "great potential" for a new military draft to replace overextended U.S. troops in Iraq if President Bush wins a second term, despite Bush's repeated pledges to maintain the all-volunteer service. Republicans rejected the suggestion as "fear mongering."

so it is ok for Bush to taut unilateral action including use of military action but for Kerry to point out that it will be mandatory will be fear mongering?

[DanAK47 1]

I believe it was Paul Bremer, the man that the media loved to quote when he said "We didn't have enough troops" (referring to the time of the invasion), has said that we do have enough troops there right now.

There will be no draft.

Why are we bringing the swift boat thing up again? The article only mentions one Vietcong anyway, despite saying that there were 18 there, no detail is given to them. Just "they were there". Did they leave? Did they stay and fight? The fact is that this incident was not "above and beyond" relative to the tens of thousands of incidents that Vietnam veterans did not get awards for.

Edited to add source after sifting through thousands of liberal blogs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....serland

May ask for subscription, but I got in fine on this address.

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior's intention to bring back the draft is there for all to see.

The plane fact is that the current crop of National Guards and reservists will all have served 3 or 4 Iraq tours soon and most are not going to sign up for more than that.

They have families, jobs and businesses they started and many are loosing them as a result of the extended tours they are having to serve because George Bush Junior had no plan to win the peace. This back door draft will only last to february at the latest.

The Real proof though is that TBA scotched a Democrat sponsored law that would have got rid of the draft dodging methods of the ultra rich. The Democrats law had made it imposable for Chicken Hawk children to dodge the draft so that son or daughter of any Ultra Rich Republican Senator would have had to serve same as any middle or working class boy or girl.

They would not have been able to use the excuses to avoid serving their nation that Dodgy Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, William "Bill" Bennett, Ann Coulter, Frank Gaffney, Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich, Sean Hannity, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, William "Bill" O'Reilly, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Joseph "Joe" Scarborough, Spencer Abraham, Eliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, John Bolton, Andrew "Andy" Card, Don Evans, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle.... and on goes the list every single one of them screams for war but not a one has ever served; cowards, goldbrickers and self confessed NeoConMen the lot of them.

And then we have the Chicken Hawk in Chief the man who confessed he would rather blown out his hearing with a shotgun than served in vietnam (that is a point he is a bit deaf is he not?) but who got his dady's friends to get him a spot in champaign squadron that the practice of which National Guard was even embaressed about in their own history and indeed said so.

But that was not enough for Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Junior who is self confessed as saying he only joined the Air National Guard so they would spend millions training him to fly but when it came down to it and he had to fly in his Nations defence where was that Gold Bricker George? Where Was George? He was AWOL in fact he was so AWOL he has not been able to defend himself against the very serious fellony charge that he was a deserter.

Most of George Bush Junior's records have never been released.

You can read the full set of charges that have lead to the accusation that George Bush Junior is deserter on this site.

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

Kind Regards Walker

[DanAK47 1]

The plane he flew was almost used in Vietnam.

Bush dodging the draft? I could just as easily say Kerry went to Vietnam for glory and personal reasons, but that would be out of line, and could easily be wrong. You can't be so black and white with people's motives.

A draft would ruin the military. GWB knows this. Congress knows this.

[walker 0]

Hi all

With the February draft looking more and more likely due to George Bush junior's inept handling of the Iraq War I feel it is only a matter of time before we start to see the same "Quiet Mutiny" among American Troops that finaly put paid to the Vietnam War.

In that war the troops once in theatre quickly realised that the politicians were lieing and spinning them a line.

With modern soldiers being better educated I think they are likely to realise sooner that TBA has no plan or strategy to win the peace in the Iraq war and especialy those in the reserve and guard units are likly to be looking to stay out of the war by any means possible.

The plane fact is that TBA has done nothing to rebuild the country spending a measily few million on rebuilding the electricty and water stations the US blew up in the Shock and Awe" campaign; while at the same time it has prioritised and spent over 5 billion already on fixing the oil piplines so that already 0ver 20 billion dollars worth of oil has been taken out of Iraq, yet the Iraqis have not seen a penny of it instead it has gone to privatised oil companies from outside the country and the likes Halliburton in overpriced maintenance deals.

The US soldiers are there and they know what is happening they know there is no plan no strategy. I remind us all that when an army finds it has been left in the lurch it does not look kindly on those that left them there.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Oh dear, there goes the weekend:

George W Bush Speechwriter

[shinRaiden 0]

A few list of points. First off Bush was given the opportunity to explain in the debates why the entire notion of a draft was nonsense, instead of doing that he only emphatically said it was not going to happen.

Take for example logistics support groups such as air tankers and cargo haulers. To exercise combat operations the military needs all those resources. But when combat operations are not on-going, those assets are not needed online in the same volume. In fact, keeping them running will add to the wear and tear and operating expense, unecessary costs when the capacity is not needed.

But the equipment alone is not sufficent. You have to have pilots, who maintain their skills in the specific equipment and proceedures. There are two options to do this, either expand the active-duty military and fill the ranks of people sitting on their thumbs (John Kerry's solution) when not needed, or use some form of partial-duty reserves.

I have a friend who is a logistics officer in the USMC. His deployment was from the initial staging at Pendelton to the drawdown following the fall of Baghdad. Once that phase of combat was completed, his duty specifications were completed and he was sent home to his wife and new kids, and is back on the streets as a cop. Now that the logistics role and the support requirements have changed, he was no longer needed on active duty.

In the 90's the politicians talked about the 'dividends' of peace, ie the drawdowns in the post cold war defense budgets. It has taken 15 years, and perhaps will take another 15 years, for the new nature of global military conflict to permeate through the military echelons of beauracracy. Pres. Bush hinted at it though in referring to plans to withdraw deprecated heavy divisions from Europe and the Koreas, and replace them with increased regional SF mobility centers.

In any case, the notion that there is going to be a draft is ridiculous partisan rumor-mongering. It is completely incompatible with the inherently volunteer character required for effective SF operations, and there will continue to be drawdowns of active and reserve legacy heavy divisions over the next decades. Furthermore, the idea of a 'backdoor draft' by calling up the reserves is also false advertising. You do not volunteer for a draft, you do volunteer for the reserves, which are only a deactivated standing part of the military.

--------------------------------------

Secondly, the issue of stem cell research. At a candidate's forum, a audience member demanded to know where a candidate stood on the issue of stem cell research. The questioner said that she had a daughter with diabetes, and implied that she expected that the candidate if elected, would pursue every path from the federal level so that her daughter would be cured of diabetes, and would not be personally responsible for the cure.

In listening to the question, I noticed a familiar perspective that I aluded to previously. My uncle has had diabetes for years, and I have other friends that have the same disease, but the big difference is that they don't live life as though the world revolved around them. There are two perspectives to stem cell research: one is where interested parties seek to find the most amicable solutions for the whole society, and the other a scorched earth attitude of disregard for the opinions and sensitivities and demand immediate solutions and absolution from future unforseen potential consequences.

In answering the question, the candidate systematicaly laid out the different arenas of stem cell research, referenced recent developments, and cited interviews with medical professionals and personal aquaintances with terminal diseases that had made a personal mission to investigate stem cell potential. In addressing the funding issue, he noted that federal funding, in addition to private funding, is offered in every case except embryonic research.

And in the case of embryonic research, there is no restriction on private research and funding, on a restriction on federal funds and research at federal institutions. He did not mention it, but I think there may be grounds for state-level funding and research if the states individually choose to issue the funding.

In closing his response, he also cited the recent announcements relating to the exploratory investments into private space flight. The candidate concluded by saying if private enterprise has the money to spend on tourism in space, they have the money to spend on R&D, as it is the private companies that will be benefiting economically anyway.

Personally, I feel that those who have been agitating the hardest for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research have been doing so for the political reasons that it would create a defacto Federal policy regarding the timeline position of the beginning of life, to complicate future attempts to appeal Roe v. Wade, including the case proceeding by Norma McCorvey - Jane Roe et al - claiming that the original case was argued under false pretenses and that contrary evidence was supressed and has further developed.

This is consistant with the charges the right has continually been making in accusing the left of hijacking the relevant social and legal issues in hedonistic self-interest. For another take on it, David Brooks of the NY Times, Oct. 12th

Quote[/b] ]

On Sunday I went for a walk in the country, past some extremely skittish cows, and gazed at a wide-open valley without a single building in sight. Then I drove home to my little patch of Blue America, with the traffic getting progressively worse, and the population densities getting higher. I was struck again by how powerfully the physical landscape influences our view of politics and the world.

We're used to this in the realm of domestic politics. Politicians from the more sparsely populated South and West are more likely, at least in the political and economic realms, to champion the Goldwateresque virtues: freedom, self-sufficiency, individualism. Politicians from the cities are likely to champion the Ted Kennedyesque virtues: social justice, tolerance, interdependence.

Politicians from sparsely populated areas are more likely to say they want government off people's backs so they can run their own lives. Politicians from denser areas are more likely to want government to play at least a refereeing role, to keep people from bumping into one another too abusively.

Neither group lives up to its ideals with perfect consistency, but this is what both groups say.

I wonder whether this tension also explains the argument we're now having about foreign affairs.

In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Adam Wolfson argues that the foreign policy debate between George Bush and John Kerry is really a conflict between two values: freedom and internationalism.

That's a clarifying insight. When Bush talks about the world he hopes to create, he talks first about spreading freedom. What he's really talking about is a decentralized world. Individuals would be free to live as they chose, in their own nations, carving out their own destinies.

The optimism built into this vision is that free people would be able to live in basic harmony. There would not need to be any central authority governing their interactions. Indeed, Bushian conservatives talk about central global authorities like the U.N. the way they talk about Washington - as places where venal elites gather to serve their own interests.

When Kerry talks about the world he hopes to create, he talks first about alliances and multilateral cooperation. He's really talking about a crowded world. People from different nations would gather to work out differences and manage problems.

The optimism built into this vision is that nations will sometimes be able to set aside their rivalries and narrow self-interests and work cooperatively to thwart the sorts of global threats posed by Saddam Hussein, or genocides like the one in Sudan. Kerryesque liberals are concerned by the possibility that some nations will go off and behave individualistically or, as they say, unilaterally.

Put this way, the argument we are having about international relations is the same argument we are having about domestic affairs, just on a larger scale. It's a conflict between two value systems. One is based on a presumption of a world in which individuals and nations should be self-reliant and free to develop their own capacities - forming voluntary associations when they want - without being overly coerced by national or global elites. The other is based on the presumption of a crowded world, which emphasizes that no individual or nation can go off and do as it pleases, but should work instead within governing institutions that establish norms and provide security.

This formulation explains why Bush's foreign policy is not an aberration of conservatism, as Pat Buchanan and the other paleocons argue, but is actually its fruition. This formulation also explains why, in The Times Magazine on Sunday, Kerry compared terrorism to domestic organized crime, gambling and prostitution. In his mind there should exist an effective body of international law. It is a law enforcement problem when some group violates that law.

Seen in these terms, this election is not just a conflict of two men, but is a comprehensive conflict of visions. Both these visions have been bloodied of late. Still, they do address the central issue confronting us: How do we conceive of an international order in the post-9/11 world? Bush, the conservative, conceives of a flexible, organic, spontaneous order. Kerry, the liberal, conceives of a more rationalist, planned and managed order.

This debate could go on for a while since both sides represent legitimate points of view, and since both sides have concrete reasons to take the positions they do.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Why are we bringing the swift boat thing up again? The article only mentions one Vietcong anyway, despite saying that there were 18 there, no detail is given to them. Just "they were there". Did they leave? Did they stay and fight? The fact is that this incident was not "above and beyond" relative to the tens of thousands of incidents that Vietnam veterans did not get awards for.

why bring that up? cause they still want to put out their ads. i don't know what you call above and beyond, but getting ambushed in a close distance, but charging a head and turning the tide is one of them, instead of becoming a sitting duck.

[denoir 0]

And in the case of embryonic research, there is no restriction on private research and funding, on a restriction on federal funds and research at federal institutions. He did not mention it, but I think there may be grounds for state-level funding and research if the states individually choose to issue the funding.

So, how does that work from a conservative, right-wing Christian point of view? The ethical real question with this and abortion is ultimately at what point something can be considered a human being.

If you say that it is at conception (and I'm going to ignore for now the absurd ramifications of considering one or few human cells to be a human being), then how is it in any way more 'moral' to allow the private sector to murder babies?

[walker 0]

Hi all

With the February Draft so certain due to George Bush Junior's failure to bring in enough allies to win the peace in Iraq. The US is deperately cutting back on Afghanistan Operations and leaving more and more of the job to countries he insulted during the run up to the fantasy enemy of Iraq war.

The US reserves are more an more overstretched equipment that was suposed to be maintained by the NeoConMen's contracters is breaking down and not even getting fixed and lot of it has never even arrived.

The situation is so bad that the "Quiet Mutiny" seems to have arrived even before the February draft.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq Unit Refuses Risky Mission

(CBS) It's supposed to be unthinkable for soldiers in wartime, troops refusing to follow orders in a combat zone. But with U.S. casualties in Iraq mounting, American commanders are being forced to think about it.

In one case that is still under investigation, members of a U.S. Army logistical unit may have rejected an order they considered too dangerous.

With many of Iraq's major roads turned into shooting galleries, 19 members of an Army reserve unit are under investigation for refusing an order to deliver a convoy of fuel trucks, reports CBS National Security Correspondent David Martin.

One of the members of the unit, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, told his wife they refused to go because the trucks they were driving weren't adequately protected.

"They don't have bulletproof protection on the vehicles, they just don't go fast at all. It's just not safe to be in a hostile territory,'' said Patricia McCook, relaying her husband's words.

Other soldiers told their families the fuel they were supposed to deliver was contaminated and there was no point in undertaking the dangerous drive.

Amber McClenny left this message on her mother's answering machine.

"Hi Mom, this is Amber. This is a real, real big emergency. I need you to contact someone. I mean raise pure hell. We yesterday, we refused to go on a convoy to Taji. That is above Baghdad. We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners."

This is the first known incident of a unit refusing to carry out a mission in Iraq. The soldiers have now been released and told that depending on their attitude, they could either get off with a reprimand or be court-martialed for mutiny.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/eveningnews/main649727.shtml

This is exactly what caused the US to loose the Vietnam war only then it was from troops who were drafted in to a stupid and senseless in this case it is active reserve and guard units.

The fact that such normally loyal troops are acting in this way shows just how bad things are over in Iraq.

The plane fact is that US soldiers are not blame for this the same as they are not to blame for Abu Ghraib it is the bunch of Chicken Hawks who point their finger at US soldiers for the mistakes while failing to admit to their own mistakes that lead to this war on a fantasy enemy.

It is the fault of the NeoConMen who have not brain cell between them who could not plan for war and certainly not for peace and who even wanted to run the Iraq war on 30,000 troops.

Bush is Pathologically unable to admit error

When George Bush was asked by a citizen to admit three mistakes he had made during his presidency he could not. Listen to this and hear the soul of the man who would be President. http://media.brainthink.com/video_temp/bushfool-low.mpeg Right Click and Save As

It is of Bush attempting to quote an old saying that goes "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

he said

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

He is pathologically unable to admit error like Hal the computer in 2001 and he is just as dangerous.

A President who will not admit mistakes inevitably cannot correct them that is why it is pathological.

America Needs John F. Kerry

America needs a president who understands war from close up. America needs someone who can act in an emergency. America Needs John F. Kerry as president.

Kind Regards walker

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]The plane he flew was almost used in Vietnam.

Bush dodging the draft? I could just as easily say Kerry went to Vietnam for glory and personal reasons, but that would be out of line, and could easily be wrong. You can't be so black and white with people's motives.

It doesn't make any difference was that plane type going to be used in Vietnam or not, it was the Air National Guard's main duty to provide air defence over USA during the cold war. No way ANG would have been sent to Vietnam and thus strip the air defences in homeland. Even Bush realized this basic fact. Besides, the war was drawing to an end at that point, Nixon elected and troop numbers reduced. In Kerry words, Bush didn't want to be the last man to die in Vietnam. He would have gotten there if he'd wanted.

As for glory and personal reasons, you'd apply those going to Iraq now?    Maybe there's some kind of test wheter you're going in the thick of fight for your 'glory-hunger' or 'true patriotism' lol.

[DanAK47 1]

I would apply those to Iraq now? What are you talking about?

"Ambushed at close quarters and charged head first into the enemy."

If anyone who did this was given a silver star we would run out of them.

You took my words out of context, AGAIN. I was saying it was easy to accuse someone of something like draft dodging, cowardice, or war mongering 30 years ago and impossible to prove it either way.

PS - Walker, I will bet you 50 ego points that there will be no draft.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]If anyone who did this was given a silver star we would run out of them.

Well, you probably know the engagement that took place down to the finest detail then. You know, medals are awarded for individual acts of heroism, just look at some after-action reports on how for example Congressional Medal of Honors have been awarded and then make a claim that they didn't deserve their medals. How ignorant. Or maybe: 'out of context'.

Quote[/b] ]You took my words out of context, AGAIN. I was saying it was easy to accuse someone of something like draft dodging, cowardice, or war mongering 30 years ago and impossible to prove it either way.

Out of context? Then tell me it's not true that he could have gone to Vietnam if he wanted to. You were implying on going to war for on 'personal glory' yourself. And I was just explaining your odd remark that 'his aircraft type could be used in Vietnam' like it would prove some point. Debate, but don't go on declaring people out of context which you set up yourself.

Quote[/b] ]I could just as easily say Kerry went to Vietnam for glory and personal reasons.

Somebody risking his life for his country could be doing it for 'personal reasons and glory'. If that claim could be on Kerry in Vietnam, could it not be made on some soldiers serving in Iraq too?

[DanAK47 1]

You are still missing the point. I was giving examples! Not accusing anyone of anything.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

for those of you who think a draft under ANY adminstration is completely of the question...answer me this.. suppose tommorow North Korea decided to invade South Korea...where would the troops come from to help rescue the current strength of U.S. troops there known that are no more than a "speed bump" to a full out invasion of the south?

[DanAK47 1]

"Under any circumstance"

Suppose aliens invaded the planet, where would the troops come from?

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

"Under any circumstance"

Suppose aliens invaded the planet, where would the troops come from?

wow...it's nice to know this topic invites MATURE conversation... North Korea is a REAL threat to national security inmature one, so is Iran and not even mentioning the China and Taiwan deal..if you want to have a mature discussion feel free to join if not please move onto a topic tlkin about gaming or what not...cause right now that response shows ur acting ur shoe size and not ur age unless u really are 10.

[walker 0]

Hi all

US Troop deployment in Bahgdad are so over stretched that the US is begging the UK to extend deployments of UK forces and for it to send additional troops to the Bahgdad area. As the US continues to scramble to find enough troops to fill the gaps. UK troops already do longer deployments than their US equivalent, UK Deployment are already 18 months (Link UK period of deployment), and the Black watch are being asked to stay on for a double term in Iraq.

The posibility of continuous deployment for US troops in Iraq untill the February draft under George Bush Junior seems inevitable.

Quote[/b] ]Tory warning over Iraq troop move

Plans to redeploy UK troops to the south of Baghdad to assist US operations have sparked warnings from opposition MPs.

UK troops have been asked to fill in behind US soldiers, it is understood.

On Saturday, Shadow Defence Secretary Nicholas Soames joined opposition calls for a Commons statement on the government's intentions.

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed discussions are taking place but said no decision on movements had been made

Mr Soames told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the UK must have an "equal say" in US plans to defeat insurgents.

He added: "The question of chain of command is an extremely important one. I've no objection to British troops serving under American command but it needs to be extremely clearly worked out.

"The rules of engagement must be very clear because they may well be different to those which the regiment would have used in Basra."

BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams said it was thought an American unit had been earmarked for "combat operations" in insurgency stronghold Falluja and that the UK Government was now considering the US request for British cover.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3748708.stm

US deployments are normaly Six month overseas tours but under Iraq they have now doubled to 12 months. With the 18 and even 24 month deployments now being envisaged (Link to US deployment periods and proposed extensions). This overstretch is what has lead to the US Millitary to have to consider the draft.

US forces are so badly over stretched that they are having severe logistical problems especialy after contracters have started to pull out of Iraq due to the terrible seccurity situation with over 170 contracters now dead or missing.

Gas is turning up tainted with water and sugar. Munitions convoys are attacked and daily blown up. Tractor trailers are being sabotaged while parked up leading to massive waste as the contactors blow up the vehicles rather than let them fall into Iraqi hands.

Many in the US millitary are starting to rue the day that TBA started the process of out sourcing the vital logistics train of the army.

George Bush Junior's pathalogical inability to admit he got it wrong on WMD and that the Iraqi's had nothing to do with September 11th leads many to fear America will continue to stumble into this Vietnam like Morass dragged along by a blind leader into the inevitable draft.

George Bush Junior seems to have no idea how to win the peace all he does is constantly talk about how great it is that Sadam is no longer in charge. He is pathalogically unable to see the war was a mistake.

America Needs John F. Kerry

America needs a leader who can see the mistakes of the Iraq war. America needs a leader who can win the peace. America needs a leader to take America out of Iraq.

America needs John F. Kerry as President.

Kind Regards Walker

[DanAK47 1]

The draft is not the solution for any of the problems you have presented.

DBR, thanks for the kind words.

There is an exception to everything. There will be no draft the way things are now.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry 228   Bush 284

source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Crap, Bush is leading  

Don't worry.  I seriously doubt Kerry will lose NJ, NH, FL, NM, IA and MO.  Just those would give Kerry 297 vs the 270 needed to win.  AR, WS, OH and VA are also shifting to Kerry and would give him another 49.

TODAY:  Kerry 243   Bush 257

New Jersey => Kerry

Florida => tie

The site also quotes a top Republican pollster as saying:

Quote[/b] ]"Step by step, debate-by-debate, John Kerry has addressed and removed many remaining doubts among uncommitted voters. My own polling research after each debate suggests a rather bleak outlook for the Bush candidacy: many who still claim to be 'undecided' are in fact leaning to Mr. Kerry and are about ready to commit."

Also from the same page regarding Florida's solution to the 2000 election ballot crisis:

Quote[/b] ]Theresa "Butterfly Ballot" LePore, the outgoing Palm Beach County, FL Supervisor of Elections, is in the news again. Her test of the new electronic voting machines to be used on Nov. 2 had to be postponed because the server crashed. She blamed it on the the hurricanes that have lashed Florida this season. Still, it is troubling to know that just over two weeks from election day, some of the Florida voting equipment has not even been tested yet. Far more worrisome is that these machines have no way to do recounts in close elections, as required by Florida law. What happens when the law requires something that is impossible?