My bad. I know its a tech site. Could not help it. [Archive]

Dexter

13 Oct 2004, 8:54pm

Interesting read on the issue:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/thisday/opinion.20041013-sbt-MICH-B6-Draft_rumors_have_yo.sto

Rangel's bill was always largely symbolic, a noble effort to jolt Americans into thinking a little more deeply before sending our troops to war in Iraq or other foreign adventures.

House Republican leaders fished Rangel's bill out of the legislative purgatory where it had been left to die along with countless other Democratic ideas. Then, without troubling themselves with such usual niceties as hearings or debate, they rushed it to the floor. There, by a resounding vote of 402-2, the House killed a bill that never had a chance of passage anyway. Even Rangel, a decorated Korean War veteran, voted against it, complaining that the Republicans' haste was only a plot to put Democrats on the spot. If so, it was only because the Democratic bill was putting Republicans on the spot.

Rangel's bill was designed to address the racial and financial imbalance in the "grunt" forces. His ideal was that if the Commander in Chief was going to be sending the young people of America off to die, why not send a fair balance of them, instead of sending off a lot of black and hispanics, or poor people from across racial groups. Why not have the sons and duaghters of the rich and privileged required to serve the country that gives them their freedom.

Anyone read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. He envisioned a time when the only citizens allowed to vote were those who earned their franchise through compuldory service. Bills like this remind me of that novel.

Dexter...

Nomad

13 Oct 2004, 10:32pm

Dexter

13 Oct 2004, 11:17pm

What really matters is that where will be absolutely no draft, and that this democrat initiated legislature (No matter what it is about) is being used as a rumor tool against the presidents administration, and now, even after the bill is dead, it's still being talked about. It's so pathetic that MTV tries to even act unbiased, when they go out basically scare ignorant teens into voting for Kerry out of lies.

Hmmm, just looked through the Rock The Vote site, no mention of Kerry or Bush. They do link to several sites which:

- give the history of the draft, which indicates that the draft ended under a Republican (Nixon), that the registration requirment ended under a Republican (Ford) and was re-instated under a Democrat (Carter.)

- show that the 2 draft initiatives in Congress were started by Democrats

So I think you can safely say that Rock the Vote is pretty non-partisan in it's approach.

Oh, they also link to some Pentagon documents which show US military leaders talking about personnel strength requirements and whether it may indeed be necessary to re-instate the draft. So even though both Presidential candidates have epxressed that they are against the draft, clearly the possibility exists if troop strength requirements do not decrease.

Dexter...

Camman

14 Oct 2004, 3:21am

Hmmm, just looked through the Rock The Vote site, no mention of Kerry or Bush. They do link to several sites which:

- give the history of the draft, which indicates that the draft ended under a Republican (Nixon), that the registration requirment ended under a Republican (Ford) and was re-instated under a Democrat (Carter.)

- show that the 2 draft initiatives in Congress were started by Democrats

So I think you can safely say that Rock the Vote is pretty non-partisan in it's approach.

Oh, they also link to some Pentagon documents which show US military leaders talking about personnel strength requirements and whether it may indeed be necessary to re-instate the draft. So even though both Presidential candidates have epxressed that they are against the draft, clearly the possibility exists if troop strength requirements do not decrease.

Dexter...

Obviously it doesn't specifically mention Bush or Kerry, but, if you look at the 'Rock the Vote' site that I posted and watch the ad, it's simply untrue, the implication is that the "draft is being decided this election" they say those exact words, so obviously a decision being between two things one candidate may inact the draft and one may not is basically they message they are conveying, its a pretty obvious implication.

RWB

14 Oct 2004, 3:39am

Obviously it doesn't specifically mention Bush or Kerry, but, if you look at the 'Rock the Vote' site that I posted and watch the ad, it's simply untrue, the implication is that the "draft is being decided this election" they say those exact words, so obviously a decision being between two things one candidate may inact the draft and one may not is basically they message they are conveying, its a pretty obvious implication.

That's the idea I got from it too.

Nomad

14 Oct 2004, 4:20am

Dexter, I don't think you've watched many of the '20 million loud' shows then on MTV, basically they go and speak to Kerry campaign advisors, supporters, and then pop stars who support Kerry.

"clearly the possibility exists if troop strength requirements do not decrease."

The fact that someone said the words, "Initiate a draft," during a meeting could be taken out of context completely, American military commanders understand the importance of having an all volunteer military.

Leonardo

14 Oct 2004, 7:40am

Rangel's bill was designed to address the racial and financial imbalance in the "grunt" forces. His ideal was that if the Commander in Chief was going to be sending the young people of America off to die, why not send a fair balance of them, instead of sending off a lot of black and hispanics, or poor people from across racial groups. Why not have the sons and duaghters of the rich and privileged required to serve the country that gives them their freedom.

Rangel is such an idiot! It's an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE. Actually, the most over-represented branch by minorities (at least in the Army) is admin - the least likely to face combat. Sheesh!

And even if the space alien from New York were factually correct...HEY IT's an all volunteer force. If there were laws enacted for quotas of more majority representation in the combat arms with resultant fewer minorities, Rangel and his ilk would be screaming about racial discrimination, the prevention of minorities from opportunity to join the most prestigious, challenging components of the military. What planet do these guys come from!

Seriously now - credit where credit is due. Rangel served honorably in the Korean War. I salute him for that.

Dexter

14 Oct 2004, 8:43am

Granted that I do not watch a lot of MTV, since I do not get the station here, so cannot comment on it's regular programming. I simply commented on the website linked. Yes, the video implied (stated) that the draft could be decided in this election. That may indeed leave many with the lingering impression that whom they vote for may affect that outcome. But my point is that they balance that by giving several sources which show the history of the draft in your nation. Any reader who takes the time to read those links and get informed will see what I saw and learned in a few short minutes - 2 Republican presidents helped end the draft (granted, after major pressure from youth activists) and one Democratic president re-enacted the complusory registration requirement.

Now, if I could find that info from those links on that site in a matter of minutes, can't any MTV watching fan who surfs the site? Are you saying that this MTV-generation audience is so gullible and naive that with one 30 second clip they may decide their vote, and not take the time to research the facts so clearly and obviously linked on that site?

Dexter...

Thrax

14 Oct 2004, 8:53am

Now, if I could find that info from those links on that site in a matter of minutes, can't any MTV watching fan who surfs the site? Are you saying that this MTV-generation audience is so gullible and naive that with one 30 second clip they may decide their vote, and not take the time to research the facts so clearly and obviously linked on that site?

Yes. Teenage apathy and gullibility amidst elections is subjectively at an all time high. I've seen many of my own peers go ballistic over what they read in a random livejournal.

primesuspect

14 Oct 2004, 1:17pm

Thrax is right about that. My wife works with a nineteen year old girl who was an ardent Kerry supporter. She had all the appropriate propoganda bumper stickers on her car, had the appropriate livejournal posts that talked about how much she hated bush, had all the appropriate passionate arguments with her parents (bush supporters), and so on and so forth.

Then, out of the blue last week she did a complete 360. Now she is just as vehemently supporting Bush. Who knows why.... maybe something she read in a livejournal ;D

Dexter

14 Oct 2004, 6:07pm

profdlp

14 Oct 2004, 6:41pm

...Anyone read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. He envisioned a time when the only citizens allowed to vote were those who earned their franchise through compuldory service. Bills like this remind me of that novel.

Dexter...
Dexter, you should be careful citing Heinlein to a guy who goes by the monicker "profdlp", as in Professor Bernardo de la Paz. :D

(See "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress")

In the "Starship Troopers" world there was no draft. One could volunteer, serve your time, and be granted full citizenship. Or do nothing at all and enjoy full rights and freedoms, except the right to vote.

The protagonist, Juan Rico, comes from an affluent family. His parents are not in favor of him volunteering (they didn't do so themselves) and have a very snobbish attitude toward those who do.

A nice article about the book. (http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm)

Side Note: Does anyone else smell a rat due to the fact that Rangel didn't even vote for his own bill?

Camman

14 Oct 2004, 7:13pm

OK, so many younger people are gullible and easily persuaded. But I believe that many are also intelligent, curious and willing to find out the facts. Many of the 25 and under crowd here seem to be intelligent and have an interest in facts, not rumours.

Oh, and despite Bush's statement about rumours on the "internets", the talk is in more places that just on the internet. How about a well known and respective news magazine like Time?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041018-713201-1,00.html

Dexter...

Okay that may very well be that some experts are suggesting that troop levels for this war and 'maybe the next' as they say aren't what's neccessary, that's not even the point. The point is it shouldn't be an issue for election, because, either president would need more troops to finish off this war or if there were another, right? So if the country in general would need the troops, why is it an election issue?

Dexter

14 Oct 2004, 7:50pm

Dexter, you should be careful citing Heinlein to a guy who goes by the monicker "profdlp", as in Professor Bernardo de la Paz. :D

(See "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress")

In the "Starship Troopers" world there was no draft. One could volunteer, serve your time, and be granted full citizenship. Or do nothing at all and enjoy full rights and freedoms, except the right to vote.

The protagonist, Juan Rico, comes from an affluent family. His parents are not in favor of him volunteering (they didn't do so themselves) and have a very snobbish attitude toward those who do.

Prof, I had not made the association of your username before.
:D

I know "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" well, it is my vast collection of Heinlein novels.

I did not suggest that there was a draft in "Starship Troopers." I did state that Heinlein wrote of a time/place where the only ones who got to vote were those who had volunteered for military service, and earned their franchise, as you just stated. My point is that a compulsory service bill makes me think of that novel. The future world he describes is very conservative in it's politics, almost a form of democratic-facism (a theme very much noticed and played up by director Paul Verhoeven in the movie adaptation.) Freedom for all...except for freedom to vote unless you have served. That is obviously not compulsory service...instead it is disenfranchisment of those who choose not to serve in the military. It's basically saying that those who do not serve in the military are second class citizens.

There are about 20 countries in the world today that require some form of compulsry service, although many of those allow for exemptions. Some even allow for other alternatives - Switzerland allows you to avoid service by paying an exemption tax. Most countries will penalize you for avoiding service unless you receive an official exemption, some of them go so far as to have jail terms for evading compulsory service. But I don't think any of those countries which have democratic elections disenfranchise their people who refuse to serve....yet. It is not hard to imagine a slight shift to the right, where Heinlein's world of Starship Troopers deals with that issue rather pragmatically - you don't want to serve your nation? Fine...but you don't get to choose the course of your nation either then. That's not too far-fetched to be unbelievable.

Dexter

14 Oct 2004, 8:01pm

Okay that may very well be that some experts are suggesting that troop levels for this war and 'maybe the next' as they say aren't what's neccessary, that's not even the point. The point is it shouldn't be an issue for election, because, either president would need more troops to finish off this war or if there were another, right? So if the country in general would need the troops, why is it an election issue?

Because, in case you hadn't noticed, there is a large number of people who think you should not have gotten into this war in the first place, and that the man who lead you there does not deserve another 4 years in office and the chance to make that same mistake again.

One candidate espouses a "go it alone" policy - he talks about a big coaltion when in reality only 3 countries joined you on the ground in the invasion, and you supplied 90% of the troops. His coalition countries are pulling out of Iraq - Spain, Poland, etc. He has not shown any wilingness to go back to your traditional allies or to the UN and say, Ok, we goofed up a little and need some help. Without outside help, your country will soon be supplying 95% to 100% of the foreign troops there (not counting the Iraqi forces - minimal at this point, and not nearly trained or equipped well enough to make a significant difference yet.) Under this candidates's policies, the US military is going to continue to be overstretched for a long time to come.

The other candidate says a "let's go back to the countries who have been our allies, and back to the UN, and see if we can convince some other countries to come share the load, and add some of their troops so that we are not overstretched and under-manned."

Which candidate's policies are less likely to lead to a draft?

I'm not picking a side here, because yes, it is likely that either one may be forced into a draft after all. But at least one candidate is saying "let's get some more help from outside our country." And if that approach works, the chances are much less that a draft will be necessary.

That's why it is an election issue.

Dexter...

Camman

14 Oct 2004, 8:25pm

Seems to me like you are picking sides...and your information is incorrect, there were 30 original countries in the Coalition and several have indeed pulled out, but there are still 24 members. I support the UN and help from other nations, but when it comes to national security I couldn't support a President who needs permission from the UN to do the right thing. And as for those "young people who are gullible" it seems to me like you're the gullible one since you're just buying into the draft hype surrounding this election, but I guess you don't have to choose which candidate you'll be voting for.

Dexter

14 Oct 2004, 9:32pm

Seems to me like you are picking sides...and your information is incorrect, there were 30 original countries in the Coalition and several have indeed pulled out, but there are still 24 members.

Camman,

before calling my information incorrect, please read very carefully the statement I made above:

"he talks about a big coaltion when in reality only 3 countries joined you on the ground in the invasion, and you supplied 90% of the troops."

30 Countries expressed support for the invasion, some offereing the use of their airspace (ie, Albania and Singapore) or land (Kuwait.) However, only 3 countries joined you ON THE GROUND in the invasion: the UK, Australia and Poland (don't forget Poland!)

A few more countries came into Iraq AFTER major ground operations to assist in peacekeeping and rebuilding.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/index.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030326-7.html

Now, read this article which speaks to the size of those countries troop commitents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50417-2004Jul14?language=printer

Selected quotes:

"The size and abilities of the coalition forces have been a source of controversy and embarrassment for the administration since the war to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

"Several participating countries sent fewer than 100 troops. In other cases, forces diminished significantly over time. Moldova's contingent is the smallest -- down to 12 from 42. Singapore has quietly reduced its presence from 191 to 33."

"Norway quietly pulled out its 155 military engineers this month, leaving behind only about 15 personnel to assist a new NATO-coordinated effort to help train and equip Iraqi security forces. New Zealand intends to pull out its 60 engineers by September, while Thailand plans to withdraw its more than 450 troops that same month, barring a last-minute political reversal that Thai officials consider unlikely, say envoys from both countries. "It's 90 percent definite that we're going," a Thai diplomat said."

"The Netherlands is likely to pull out next spring after the first of three Iraqi elections, while Polish military officials told the Pentagon that Poland's large contingent will probably leave in mid-2005, other diplomats say."

"Australia's pledge to increase its commitment will bring its troop strength to 880 -- fewer than half the 2,000 troops it had during the war. And only about 250 are in Iraq, with the rest in air and naval support positions nearby, Australian envoys say. For Australia and some other countries, increases are mainly meant to enhance security for their own troops, embassies and personnel."

Among the countries who are staying, there have been some modest gains, and South Korea has made a large commitment of new troops:

" El Salvador renewed its commitment of 380 troops after President Bush hosted Salvadoran President Antonio Saca at the White House this week, the latest of several White House visits by leaders of coalition countries. Lithuania renewed its 105-troop commitment last week.

Several other countries have promised to significantly add to their contingents. South Korea is increasing its force from 600 to 3,700, while Azerbaijan offered an additional 250 soldiers to join the 150 already in Iraq. Georgia said it is ready to more than double its 159 troops -- to more than 400. "

South Korea's commitment can be easily translated: send troops to Iraq or we'll start pulling US troops out of South Korea and leave you at the mercy of North Korea.

So, my statement was factually correct, the original invading force consisted of 3 countries besides the US. That pales in comparison to the 34 who saw combat operations in Desert Shield/Storm. And the number of countries soon leaving or who have already left the coalition is higher than the number of countries rushing to join you. And, 90% of the Foreign troops on the ground in Iraq are US. These are facts.

Dexter...

profdlp

14 Oct 2004, 9:45pm

...Which candidate's policies are less likely to lead to a draft?...
Probably not the one who says we need 40,000 new troops right away. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1219939.htm) :cool:

Nomad

14 Oct 2004, 10:39pm

"Because, in case you hadn't noticed, there is a large number of people who think you should not have gotten into this war in the first place, and that the man who lead you there does not deserve another 4 years in office and the chance to make that same mistake again."

Large number of people worldwide maybe, but the last time that our military intervention was internationally supported by the people was WWII. Here in the United States, still over 50% of people agree with the war, some places say the agreement is as high as 65-70%.

Geeky1

14 Oct 2004, 11:10pm

Dexter

14 Oct 2004, 11:40pm

Here in the United States, still over 50% of people agree with the war, some places say the agreement is as high as 65-70%.

I am looking at this site:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

The numbers from the end of September don't seem to entirely agree with you:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 23-26, 2004: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

Worth Fighting 46%

Not Worth Fighting 51%

No Opinion 3%

"Do you think the United States has gotten bogged down in Iraq, or do you think the United States is making good progress in Iraq?"

Bogged Down 60%

Good Progress 36%

No Opinion 4%

The Harris Poll. Sept. 9-13, 2004. N=1,018 adults nationwide.

"Do you believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was generally accurate or misleading?"

Accurate 36%

Misleading 55%

Unsure 8%

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?"

Wait for Stable Gov't 38%

Bring Home Next Year 54%

Unsure 7%

"Do you think the invasion of Iraq has helped to protect the United States from another terrorist attack or not?"

Has 42%

Has Not 51%

Unsure 7%

Pew Research Center survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 8-13, 2004

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

Right 53%

Wrong 39%

Unsure 8%

"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"

Has a Clear Plan 36%

Doesn't Have a Clear Plan 55%

Unsure 9%

I could go on, but review it for yourself. There is hardly a clear overwhelming majority of support. Some polls on some dates show support is slightly higher...others show support lower. (Note too that the polls showing high support are older polls, the more recent ones show support weaker.) Some show people would like troops home right away, some show that they would stay as long as it takes. Some say your government lied to you, some say they did not. Some show disapproval for Bush's handling of the war, or say he has no clear plan, others approve of his handling. In most cases where the poll shows approval for Bush, the percentages in Bush's favour are slim, and not beyond the margin of error. Also, when the not sure vote is added in, it shows that he does not have the confidence of the majority of the people.

So, let's see your sources.

Also, the last time your military intervention was greatly internationally supported was Desert Shield/Storm, not WWII as you stated.

Dexter...

CyrixInstead

17 Oct 2004, 12:15pm

...when it comes to national security I couldn't support a President who needs permission from the UN to do the right thing.

That's the whole point of the UN, right? So that countries don't just invade other countries because they feel that it's the 'right thing'. A viewpoint like that would plunge us all into WWIII.

~Cyrix

Camman

17 Oct 2004, 6:48pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6267559/

Leonardo

17 Oct 2004, 10:18pm

I would suggest that the best way to avoid a draft is to quit cutting the military to the bone after every major campaign and war.

The following is based on my observations of the US Armed Forces, the US Administrations, and US Congress from 1972 to 2004. (From 1983 through September of this year I was active duty Army, serving in units of field artillery, armored cavalry, light infantry, and military intelligence in five States and six countries. This is the background of my perspective.)

Summary:

- Mid-70's. Nixon formulates plans for turning over US Vietnam operations to the South Vietnam Army. (Ford continues Nixon's work). US halts combat activities. Troops come home. Downsizing begins.
- Mid to late 70's. Carter deeply cuts all facets of military - from troop strength, to weapons, to training. To his credit, Carter supports some strategic weapons R&D progams, such as Pershing II, cruise missiles, and M1 Abrams main battle tanks. Carter initiates all-volunteer force. Due to post-Vietnam low morale, catastrophically low training funding, and turmoil of transition to new force concepts, US Armed Forces at nearly all-time low for flexible preparedness.
- 80's. Reagan believes that the Cold War can be won; stalemate not acceptable. Military receives huge upgrades in all areas - manpower, training, strategy, weapons, even anti-ballistic missile research.
- 88-92. GHW Bush presides over the bankruptcy and implosion of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. 1990. US Military starts trimming down (justifiably) as the monolithic threat of former communist nations disappears.
- 90,91. During military downsizing, but fortunately before 75% of cuts executed, US-lead coalition invades Kuwait and Iraq, pushing Iraq out of Kuwait.
- 92-2000. Military cuts (NOT lowering of rate of increase, but REAL, severe cuts) continue, continue, and continue. Note: during these 8 years CIA and FBI both also are hit with real cuts. The stragedy of the time is for the US military to be able to address two major regional conflicts (MRC) simultaneously; this is subsequently degraged to 2 MRC "nearly simultaneously". MRC and 'nearly simultaneously' is never really defined. How convenient! Without definition, real capabilities never have to be addressed with precision.
- 01-04. Downsizing, for the most part, comes to a halt. Massive, painful, complicated process of Armed Forces restructuring and modernizing commences to meet new "asymmetrical" threat. Some weapons programs cancelled, some approved. (Good and bad decisions here.)

My take on the current "100,000" troops issue:

- Enough troops during Iraqi Freedom to win the invasion and destruction of the Iraqi Army.

- Not enough troops or planning to "win the peace".

- Calls for more troop strenght.

OK, the crux of the matter: just where are these troops to come from? You can't just magically add another 100,000 soldiers without tapping even MORE Guard and Reserve units, or redeploy active component soldiers who have just returned from overseas. Yes, the military is stretched thin. And it would be stretched thin now for ANY major campaign, not just Iraq. As a nation, we always do this - diminish our standing forces between conflicts, realizing only after conflict has begun that we are too thin. ALWAYS. The ONLY war we've been prepared for was the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq the first time - and only because we hadn't had enough time to significantly strip down the military from its Cold War strength.

Well, OK, so let's go ahead, bite the bullet, and find 100,000 more troops to ease the situation in Iraq. Sure, we could find the people; but that is very superficial thinking. Along with those 100K troops must come pay, benefits, equipment, logistics-travel, and a host of other expenses. You can't cut to the bone and expect to flesh back out overnight. The Administration had to ask congress for $87B just to continue operations in post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan, with our current troop strength. Now please, do you really expect congress to fund an additional 100K troops?

Over-simplistic viewpoint? I don't think so. I've seen it with my own eyes. No draft is coming any time soon - it's politically unapalatable and wouldn't find funding from Congress. Now the way I see it, if you don't want the specter of conscription hanging over our nation's young people, keep the military robust enough that it has the necessary flexibility and redundancy to be prepared for any threat. That way, even the temptation to think about the necessity of a draft won't happen.

Nomad

18 Oct 2004, 9:19pm

Dexter, I was going by the joint Gallup/CNN poll I just saw on CNN Friday morning.

"That's the whole point of the UN, right? So that countries don't just invade other countries because they feel that it's the 'right thing'. A viewpoint like that would plunge us all into WWIII."

The point of the UN isn't for a country to relinquish its national sovereignty to ask to defend itself.

Thrax

18 Oct 2004, 9:40pm

The UN supposedly existed to make people like Saddam go away. Is that the acrid smell of failure I smell?

entropy

18 Oct 2004, 11:18pm

Originally Posted by Dexter
OK, so many younger people are gullible and easily persuaded. But I believe that many are also intelligent, curious and willing to find out the facts. Many of the 25 and under crowd here seem to be intelligent and have an interest in facts, not rumours.

I think not. You are far too optimistic. The stupidity of most of my generation is truly astonishing.

I have to agree with Thrax (this is becoming an all-too-common occurance :( :p). I've talked to a lot of people about the elections. Ask any prep what they think, and 90% of them will be the same. Coincidence? Or just really dumb sheep following an even dumber herdsman? ;)

The majority of teenagers (and adults, too) choose what people they "respect" choose. Whether it's actual respect, or just envy that "omgz they have tah shweetest clothes!1," people follow other people. There are a good amount of kids in my school (note: these tend to be the ones who live for themselves) who's opnions vary greatly, and they HAVE proof or reasons for their stance. Most idiots just go, "Welp, that one really cool guy would vote for <person>. I will, too!"

It's pretty pathetic, actually. But, our school is doing a mock election next week, um, Tuesday or Wednesday, I believe. I'll post the results just for kicks, but I have a feeling it'll be pretty close (as will it be nation-wide).

Nomad

18 Oct 2004, 11:20pm

The 2000 mock election my middle school had it was like 195 to 6 in favor of Gore. Most kids are pretty liberal, and I don't really blame them.

Thrax

19 Oct 2004, 1:19am

I have to agree with Thrax (this is becoming an all-too-common occurance)

;)

Geeky1

19 Oct 2004, 1:35am

I don't really blame them.

Dunno why not.

CyrixInstead

19 Oct 2004, 10:34am

The point of the UN isn't for a country to relinquish its national sovereignty to ask to defend itself.

Defend itself from what? Saddam posed no threat, and a large 'reason' why the US & UK 'went it alone' was that Saddam supposedly had WMD, which we now know was utter crap.

A war against Al-Qaeda yes, but Iraq no. It has now been suggested that the link between Saddam & bin Laden was minimal at most.

Like I said, a country that doesn't care what other countries think and just wages war because it wants to 'defend itself' (against what?) is a far bigger danger to the world than anything else.

~Cyrix

Justin

19 Oct 2004, 3:05pm

*Note to Thread* 37% of all statistics are made up. :D

Nomad

20 Oct 2004, 1:29am

"Defend itself from what? Saddam posed no threat, and a large 'reason' why the US & UK 'went it alone' was that Saddam supposedly had WMD, which we now know was utter crap.

A war against Al-Qaeda yes, but Iraq no. It has now been suggested that the link between Saddam & bin Laden was minimal at most.

Like I said, a country that doesn't care what other countries think and just wages war because it wants to 'defend itself' (against what?) is a far bigger danger to the world than anything else."

This is a large divergence in opinion that is honestly not worth debating. I, and people alike in my thinking, felt that Saddam posed a threat to the United States of America, and certainly everyone could agree that he was a threat to his people. Yes, the US, UK, and assorted other countries went to war on the premise of there being WMDs, which has turned out apparently to be untrue. This is not to say that there was false pre-tense for war. The international community agreed for years that Saddam was stockpiling weapons and must be dealt with. Things have been found in Iraq, such as what Prof posted. Last July, the U.S. military found 30-40 MiG-25s more than 10 feet below the sand. It was basically an entire airbase covered by the sand. All missles that Saddam Hussein used in the war were illegal by UN sanctions, the missles he used went over the 65 (Perhaps I'm off, maybe it was 90) kilometer limit imposed by the 'peace' of 1991. Saddam had six months to dump chemicals in the water (Water sources have shown traces of sarin and mustard gas, I'll see if I can get a link), move things, bury them, destroy them, etc. But it was widely recognized by the international community that he had them, or supposedly did. As Donald Rumsfeld said, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

To say we don't care what other countries think is a vast overstatement, our economic and political situation depends on the international community. The restraint America has shown in the wake of September 11th is piddle compared to the armegeddon we could have unleashed on where ever we chose because the international community after 9/11 basically said, "Do whatever you want to do." The international community needs to do more than just 'recommend' you disarm for 12 years, there must be a line where action is to be taken.

Leonardo

20 Oct 2004, 4:32am

Did the US and UK make a mistake invading Iraq? That's certainly a question worthy of debate; and I will respect any logical, well-thought argument.

The US being dangerous? Come now! Who apart from odious dictatorships and extremist groups really fear the US. Germany, France, Russia? Perhaps. We really messed up their plans for business relationships with Saddam. The UN - because they now appear even more impotent than before?

Invading for the stated reasons - WMD and possible terror links. Yes, it may turn out that we never find the 'smoking guns'. But believe it, the intelligence indicators WERE there. For the sake of discussion though, let's pretend WMD were not then, nor is now, a factor. Why wouldn't the UN and US "Allies" not be thankful that we finally took down a regime that a) regularly conducted Stalinist style mass murders, b) had proven they would use chemical warfare, c) shown they wouldn't hesitate to gobble up neighbors if given a chance, and d) defied the world community for 12 years by violating UN sanction after UN sanction.

In my opinion, based on my experiences in my previous career, there is no doubt that Saddam WOULD have eventually produced (brought back into production) WMD, which would have found their way into the hands of Islamist terror groups and would have been used. The wailing and hand wringing that would follow such events would be deafening. I can hear it now: 'Why did we (US/UN/allies) wait for such a calamity before doing anything'?

Also, at least in the US, do the loudest cries of official protest and criticism come from Congress members who saw exactly the same pre-invasion intelligence reports as the President vote for the invasion? If President Bush was wrong, so was a huge slice of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, especially Bush's competitor for the White House.

I have many issues with GW's leadership, especially the ENORMOUS social spending increases; but I think his leadership in taking the war to the enemy has been very good. I am so thankful that he is not waiting for every terrible event to completely unfold before making a decision.

Now, let me figure out how to justify this post to show it's on topic with rumors of the draft coming back? :scratch: ;D

Dexter

20 Oct 2004, 11:39am

Apparently the Republican party is scared to have youth talk about this issue:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/1437244

Last week GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie sent an extraordinary letter to the group Rock the Vote requesting that it "cease and desist" from promoting its campaign warning young voters that the government may reinstate the draft. Gillespie threatened to take legal action and said the group's non-profit status could be in jeopardy. The head of the Republican National Committee has threatened to take legal action against the pro-voting group Rock the Vote and to challenge its non-profit status if the group continues to discuss the possibility that the government may reinstate the draft.

In an extraordinary letter sent last week that has received almost no media attention, Republican chief Ed Gillespie wrote to the group and accused it of "promoting a false and misleading campaign designed to scare America's youth into believing that they may be drafted to serve in the military."

Last month the group sent a mock draft notice by email to over 600,000 email addresses. Gillespie described the possibility of the reinstatement of the draft as an urban myth and as proof cited a statement by President Bush that there would be no draft.

Gillespie went on to write "As a non-partisan organization that enjoys the benefits of being formed under 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, you have an obligation to immediately cease and desist from promoting or conducting your 'Draft' campaign.

In response, the head of Rock the Vote, Jehmu Greene described the threat as a "textbook case of attempted censorship." Greene wrote to Gillespie "By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country."

From an interview on the topic, Rock The Vote President Jehmu Greene said:

the chair of the Republican National Committee decided that this was not an issue that was relevant for young people. This was not an issue that he thought should be discussed, and has asked Rock the Vote to cease and desist. But talking to an organization that was founded on freedom of expression, and telling them to shut up, basically, is not something that's going to work, especially with this generation, especially with an issue that's so top of mind and so important to the young people

Rock on, MTV. :Rocker:

Dexter..

GHoosdum

20 Oct 2004, 1:53pm

I think it's a scare tactic by MTV to try to force unthinking youths to vote Democrat, if they're dumb enough to be tricked by the fake draft notice. They're perfectly within their rights to speak, but there are some types of speech that are not protected, such as yelling out "fire" in a crowded theater. I think that MTV sending out these fake draft notices to dumb kids is tantamount to them yelling "fire" - there's no fire, but people are going to panic anyway, so I don't think it's legitimately protected speeech for MTV to put out such a notice.

Geeky1

20 Oct 2004, 3:45pm

Dexter, you're forgetting one little detail.

There is no issue. There will be no draft. MTV is using FUD to scare people into voting for Kerry. That's not right.

CyrixInstead

20 Oct 2004, 3:57pm

Agreed Geeky.

In response to Leonardo, I am thankful you took down such a regime (well I will be when it eventually settles down), but what about countless other regimes, notably North Korea?

The US, as pointed out elsewhere, seems to pick only places it has a special interest in. The North Korea situation is being 'dealt with' by South Korea & Japan, but they pose a far bigger threat to the world than Iraq ever did as they are a nuclear power.

Nomad I know there's no point in debating, we have conflicting views, it's just that the US 'going it alone' undermines the whole point of the 'United' Nations (united?? where united??) and that in its own right is a threat to peace. If the US can do as it pleases, who else can? That was all I wanted to point out.

~Cyrix

Leonardo

20 Oct 2004, 4:56pm

The US, as pointed out elsewhere, seems to pick only places it has a special interest in. Well, I would hope so. After all, I don't think the US citizenry and Congress would want to fund a 15-million man Army, large enough to take on every despot and dictator in the world. You have to pick your fights.

Personal metaphor: I give to my church and other charities. Do I leave out some worthy causes? Of course. I do what I can; and I'm sure I make mistakes in the process.

Dexter

20 Oct 2004, 6:55pm

Dexter, you're forgetting one little detail.

There is no issue. There will be no draft. MTV is using FUD to scare people into voting for Kerry. That's not right.

I'm not forgetting anything. Go to Google News, type in draft + election, and see how many results you get. Still think it is not an issue? Well, it does not matter whether you think it is or not. Enough other people in your country think that it is an issue, and many of them happen to think that the Bush/Cheney foreign policy doctrine and the "go-it-alone" approach and the "your-with-us-or-your-against-us" approach will result in the draft becoming necessary.

I'm not making this up. MTV is not making it up. These are actual opinions of actual people from actual polling. If it is not an issue, why did it make it into the debates as a question? If it is not an issue, why was the head of the Republican National Committee so concerned about Rock The Vote discussing it? The fact is that in the minds of many voters, it *is* an issue, and even though both candidates say they will not impose a draft, more people feel that Bush's policies will make it more likely that he will be forced to impose one anyways.

Besides, didn't Bush say he wouldn't cause defecit spending...? ;) And now he has the highest defecit in your history...

Regarding "FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt", I think the Republicans have a pretty good corner on that market, most of their campaign has centered around trying to portray Kerry as weak on homeland security, and have outright asserted that electing Kerry will encourage more terrorist attacks (thanks, Dick Cheney.) Tell me that's not a blatant FUD tactic...?

I think it's a scare tactic by MTV to try to force unthinking youths to vote Democrat, if they're dumb enough to be tricked by the fake draft notice. They're perfectly within their rights to speak, but there are some types of speech that are not protected, such as yelling out "fire" in a crowded theater. I think that MTV sending out these fake draft notices to dumb kids is tantamount to them yelling "fire" - there's no fire, but people are going to panic anyway, so I don't think it's legitimately protected speeech for MTV to put out such a notice.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an offence, one can be charged with public mischeif. Yelling "draft" in an election debate is an offence of....what exactly? What law says you cannot talk about the belief that one candidate's policies may lead to a draft whether he says so or not? What can you charge a person with for speculating that there may be a draft if your county's foreign policy planners decide that another country may be thinking about considering to discuss the possibility of someday testing to see if they could conceivably develop a nuclear weapons capability, and therefore should be invaded just in case?

Why not let the courts decide if it is free speech or not. Let's see if the Republican party has the jam to take this to a trial....I'm betting they don't, because they know it's perfectly legal in a free country to have political discourse, whether they like where the discussion leads or not.

I don't see any panicking here, just people talking about the issue, finding out the facts, looking at the possibilities for the future, and making a decision they feel comfortable with. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

Dexter...

profdlp

20 Oct 2004, 7:06pm

I'm not forgetting anything. Go to Google News, type in draft + election, and see how many results you get...
Type in ufo + bush, and see how many results you get.

Still a bunch of crap.

Dexter

20 Oct 2004, 7:21pm

Type in ufo + bush, and see how many results you get.

Still a bunch of crap.

OK, vaild point...but that still does not erase the fact that enough voters are talking about this that it makes headlines in the newspapersand on the net, segments on TV, and reports on radio. If Rock the Vote said that this election may decide whether or not young people may be sold to grey space aliens and flown away in UFO's, would the head of the RNC have his knickers in a knot? I don't think so. He is upset because he *knows* it is being discussed as a concern among young voters (and was so even before RTV published it on their site,) and he does not like the impression that it paints for his candidate.

Just because you guys do not agree that it is an issue does not make it a bunch of crap. Lots of people think that it is an issue. Why can't Rock The Vote have a discussion on the issue without the RNC threatening to sue them? If it is such a non-issue, ignore it, and it will go away... :)

Dexter...

Geeky1

20 Oct 2004, 7:53pm

I'm not making this up. MTV is not making it up. These are actual opinions of actual people from actual polling.
What's your point? Most peoples' opinions are actually worthless.

If it is not an issue, why did it make it into the debates as a question?
Because people are stupid enough to think it is an issue.

If it is not an issue, why was the head of the Republican National Committee so concerned about Rock The Vote discussing it?
Because he doesn't like their message, and he's trying to censor them. I never said he was in the right. Let the idiots make fools of themselves.

The fact is that in the minds of many voters, it *is* an issue, and even though both candidates say they will not impose a draft, more people feel that Bush's policies will make it more likely that he will be forced to impose one anyways.
And these voters are a perfect example of what Elbert Hubbard meant when he said "genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."

Just because you guys do not agree that it is an issue does not make it a bunch of crap. Lots of people think that it is an issue.
No, but the fact that we're right and they're wrong does make it a bunch of crap. And as for lots of people thinking it's an issue... if everyone else was jumping off a bridge...

Thrax

20 Oct 2004, 7:53pm

Agreed Geeky.

In response to Leonardo, I am thankful you took down such a regime (well I will be when it eventually settles down), but what about countless other regimes, notably North Korea?

They're currently being dealt with in precisely the same manner as Iraq was. The United Nations and the United States (Together) was hammering Iraq for approximately 10 years to forfeit programs, reveal the location of weapons and criminal activities. An entire DECADE was spent in diplomatic negotiations.

And what are we, China, Japan, and South Korea doing? Hammering on North Korea to reveal the location of arms, and criminal activities, as well as to forfeit their nuclear weapons programs.

So, indeed, what about North Korea? It's not ok to end diplomacy after 10 years in Iraq and use force, but it's ok to jump the gun on North korea?

The US, as pointed out elsewhere, seems to pick only places it has a special interest in. The North Korea situation is being 'dealt with' by South Korea & Japan, but they pose a far bigger threat to the world than Iraq ever did as they are a nuclear power.

Every country picks their own interests. The United Kingdom imports what interests it, exports what makes the most money, drew up the middle east as interests serves (This is just a contemporary example). To claim that a country picks its own interests is precisely right, because every country does this. Don't point out a universal trait as a flaw to make your point.

It's just that the US 'going it alone' undermines the whole point of the 'United' Nations (united?? where united??) and that in its own right is a threat to peace. If the US can do as it pleases, who else can? That was all I wanted to point out.

~Cyrix

The United Nations isn't forced. It's an elective process. Personally I don't believe in membership in any organisation that defies its own charter amidst operation. The UN is united by a charter that outlines very explicit principles for conduct. Why should any nation feel compelled to remain a member of a body that doesn't even adhere to its OWN design?

Lets take snippets from the UN Charter, and see how they applied to Iraq.

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small

Let's see. Saddam was killing Turks and Muslims, handing down barbaric punishment for the basic existance of womankind. Did you know a common judicial practice for supposed adultery by a woman is the licking of a spoon heated to near-molten temperatures by an open flame? If a blister forms on her tongue, she's guilty and sentenced to death. If no blister forms, she was protected by Allah, and she's free. So, in the 10 years that the UN had been expressly dealing with Iraq, what had everyone's beloved diplomacy done to stop such barbaric acts?

I KNOW! PICK ME!

Saddam threw the world out of Iraq. Diplomacy wins!!111

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace

Ok.. So intelligence universally stated that Saddam had weapons. No one can dispute this. Everyone was convinced that he had the materials, the means, and possibly the products thereof. In addition to this, Saddam had a hideous human rights record nearing the level of genocide.

So, did the UN take a collective measure to quell this threat against peace? No. They sat around with their thumb up their ass, passing resolution after resolution in order to regain reentry. 1998-2002 if I recall rightly, the UN never stepped foot on Iraqi soil. :thumbsup: Prevention and suppression of threats to peace!

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Teehee. All nations should give assistance with sitting around and pushing paper when a nation tossed your ass out to do whatever the hell it wanted.

I could easily go on through all 29 articles, but I won't. Suffice it to say, the United States is not obligated to maintain relations with the United Nations. The United Nations, however, is obligated to operate by the terms of its charter to quell infractions against peace, and those dare to perpetrate such actions. Seeing as the United Nations didn't do so, I think it was high time that someone stepped forward to operate as the UN was designed to work..

Imagine that. A nation following the charter of the United Nations to firmly suppress a nation threatening peace, the pursuit thereof, and impeding the judicial body of the UN.

Now I ask you, and I'd like a clear answer:

Seeing as the UN didn't follow its charter, and the US did, is the US still misguided?

I also ask you, and I'd like another clear answer:

Seeing as diplomacy was attempted for 10 years in Iraq, to no avail, when is it it time to abort diplomacy in North Korea?

If N. Korea is so pressing, why aren't other nations stepping up to offer diplomatic pressure? Talks still involve the US, Japan, China and South Korea. No other country (To my knowledge) has been present. What does that say of our willingness to settle a dispute? And what does that say about the sheer god damn laziness of other nations, who sit around like fat, bloated, bureaucratic slugs looking towards the US, waiting for us to do something, all the while being ridiculous hypocrties by urging stronger action against a nation currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations?

It's arrogant hypocrisy. "Tsk US for helping the UN for 10 years to solve Iraq, then going to war. But eegad, hurry up and knock Kim Jong Il down! He's a real threat!"

Geeky1

20 Oct 2004, 8:16pm

oh, and one other thing:
Regarding "FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt", I think the Republicans have a pretty good corner on that market, most of their campaign has centered around trying to portray Kerry as weak on homeland security, and have outright asserted that electing Kerry will encourage more terrorist attacks (thanks, Dick Cheney.) Tell me that's not a blatant FUD tactic...?

I always thought that to be FUD, something had to be untrue. Kerry's "more sensitive" war on terror is just idiotic. How does one wage a "sensitive" war? What do you do, kill the guy and then say "I'm sorry"?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Kerry's moronic foreign policy will guarantee more attacks on the U.S., but it will make them more likely.

Dexter

20 Oct 2004, 8:35pm

What's your point? Most peoples' opinions are actually worthless.

Because people are stupid enough to think it is an issue.

But those works both ways. Lots of people are stupid enough to believe that Kerry will be soft on security.....Depends on who is looking at it and making that determination. The point is, if enough people are talking about it, whether you are I think it is stupid, it is still an issue, simply because enough people are talking about it.

No, but the fact that we're right and they're wrong does make it a bunch of crap. And as for lots of people thinking it's an issue... if everyone else was jumping off a bridge...

Or if enough other people were voting for Bush/Cheney because they believed Cheney when he said:

It's absolutely essential that...on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

That to me is a far more blatant and obvious scare tactic directly from the mouth of one of the candidates, and is far more deserving of contempt than a website which encourages youths to talk about *all* the issues, including those you or I may not see as issues.

Is this horse dead yet? :)

Dexter...

///EDIT: posted at about the same time as your above comment, but I am glad we agree on at least this example of FUD tactics :)

Nomad

20 Oct 2004, 9:04pm

United Nations is already circumvented by EU and NATO treaties, unfortunately. Such that NATO alliances are supposed to supercede the United Nations alliances.

"I am thankful you took down such a regime (well I will be when it eventually settles down), but what about countless other regimes, notably North Korea?"

Clearly, not all dictatorships can be dealt with at once, that would be suicide. If America decided to attack all dictatorships at once we'd find ourselves extremely strained and hundreds of other complications. Some countries can be dealt with through peaceful means, the United States helped Libya (Considered a terrorist state by the UN) to disarm itself peacefully. The United States is very involved in Iran disarmament talks, and North Korean peace talks. We've had troops stationed at the DMZ for the last 50 years.

"type in draft + election, and see how many results you get. Still think it is not an issue? Well, it does not matter whether you think it is or not. Enough other people in your country think that it is an issue,"

The fact is, that all their worries would be completely squashed if they actually did research on the topic. Most people consider the draft to be a non-topic. Being friends with many seniors in high school not a single one of them is worried about it, and no one else I know who is 17-25 are concerned about it. The democrats (Usually I'd just say people on the left because the democrats haven't officially said anything on it, but John Kerry did say recently that Bush would reinstate the draft) are using something as a keystone to gain independent votes that is an outright lie. THERE WILL NOT BE A DRAFT IN THE SECOND BUSH PRESIDENCY, THERE ARE NO PLANS TO DO SO, ANY TALK OR SPECULATION ABOUT IT IS PURELY HEARSAY.

"why was the head of the Republican National Committee so concerned about Rock The Vote discussing it?"

You're looking way too much into this. If the Republicans gained votes off of running the commercial, "John Kerry is going to eat your first born child," then the Democratic National Committee would pressure the Republicans to stop running it because it's a lie. This is the same thing. The draft was a complete non-issue midsummer, because no one was even talking about it. There weren't even any polls on it because it was a non-issue. Only recently has it become an issue because it's being pushed by the left to gain last minute voters.

"Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an offence, one can be charged with public mischeif. Yelling "draft" in an election debate is an offence of....what exactly? What law says you cannot talk about the belief that one candidate's policies may lead to a draft whether he says so or not?"

This analogy is misleading by your following statement. Yelling "FIRE!" and, "THERE MIGHT BE A FIRE," is completely different. Right now the Democrats are saying there will be a draft is Bush is elected. Rock the Vote is also saying this, since there is no actual national draft proposal this year, they are stating that one candidate is for, and one candidate is against the draft.

"Why not let the courts decide if it is free speech or not. Let's see if the Republican party has the jam to take this to a trial....I'm betting they don't, because they know it's perfectly legal in a free country to have political discourse, whether they like where the discussion leads or not."

That's because it isn't free speech, it's just lying to the public. It won't be taken to court because if it was it would be the most God awful court case ever, the Democrats would say that it infringes on free speech because they are just voicing criticism of the current administration, while the Republicans would say that lying for votes isn't a concern. This would be a monumental court case but it would take years to decide, and would promptly be overturned by the next set of judges who swing another way in terms of partisan politics.

Geeky1

20 Oct 2004, 10:11pm

But those works both ways. Lots of people are stupid enough to believe that Kerry will be soft on security.....Depends on who is looking at it and making that determination. The point is, if enough people are talking about it, whether you are I think it is stupid, it is still an issue, simply because enough people are talking about it.

But there is a fundamental difference here. Kerry's record and his statements indicate that he will be "soft" (softer anyhow) than Bush on security. Bush has done nothing to indicate that there will ever be a draft. It doesn't work both ways because your opinions and beliefs are only valid if you can support them with facts. And, for the most part, the people that want Bush out cannot do this. Ergo, their opinions are worthless.

Leonardo

20 Oct 2004, 10:43pm

OK, vaild point...but that still does not erase the fact that enough voters are talking about this that it makes headlines in the newspapersand on the net

It's a voting issue, because as stated well in several posts above, people have been misled to believe the Republicans want a draft. Stupid people believe it! Stupid people that don't bother to research and learn that the only legislative activity towards restarting a draft was sponsored by two Democrats - Rep. Rangel, NY, Sen. Earnest Hollings, SC. MTV's program didn't manage to reveal in their scare campaign any facts - that would only serve to point towards the REAL source of the "issue".

Besides, didn't Bush say he wouldn't cause defecit spending...? And now he has the highest defecit in your history... Guilty as charged. It's impossible to launch aggressive military campaigns, rebuild the US Intelligence Community, and fund gargantuan social programs (most of them priority Democrat party dreams) without sky-high spending. (Socially, Bush fits squarely in the middle of Democrat social platform.) I don't fault him for the security and intelligence spending - the "National Defense" is a specific Federal responsibility as outlined in the Constitution. Although the merits of social spending can be debated for centuries, it has NOTHING to do with Constitutional responsibilities - it is complete discretionary. Nearly the same thing happened with Reagan. He was focused on crushing the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Problem was, he could not get Congressional funding approval for the military buildup without social spending increase deals with the Congressional leaders on the left. They made him pay dearly.

Lots of people are stupid enough to believe that Kerry will be soft on security.....Depends on who is looking at it and making that determination. Dexter. You are making it too easy! The answer is a 20-year Senate voting record of which nearly 100% (if not ALL) is votes against modernization and spending for the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community. In that respect, he has even out-done Ted Kennedy! Of course, maybe John Kerry is a completely different person today, with a completely different world view, and completely different philosophy. If I were voting for John Kerry, I'd want to know which John Kerry to vote for - the demonstrated, documented John Kerry, or the the one who basically pledges to do nearly all the Bush does, except better. Such a choice would be confusion beyond recovery.

Actually, the 'draft' rumors are an excellent smokescreen - it keeps all of us distracted.