Desperate Democrats Use Fear Mongering Tactics - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Arroe · 10-16-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Kerry Warns Draft Possible if Bush Wins

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) said Friday there is a "great potential" for a new military draft to replace overextended U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) if President Bush (news - web sites) wins a second term, despite Bush's repeated pledges to maintain the all-volunteer service. Republicans rejected the suggestion as "fear mongering."

Bush and his Democratic challenger also sparred over jobs and other domestic issues as they campaigned through battleground states in the Midwest.

At a rally in Milwaukee, Kerry said Bush was "out of ideas, out of touch and unwilling to change" and accused him of mishandling the economy. Bush, campaigning in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, called his rival an unrepentant liberal seeking to hide his record.

Kerry raised the draft issue in an interview in The Des Moines Register published Friday.

"With George Bush (news - web sites), the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension" of the military, Kerry said.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt dismissed Kerry's comments as "fear mongering" and suggested the Massachusetts senator was spreading "false Internet rumors."

Kerry has suggested that Bush's heavy use of National Guard and Reserve troops has created a "backdoor draft." But his latest comments went further.

Bush did not directly respond, but he said in Cedar Rapids that he was "modernizing and transforming our United States military to keep the all-volunteer army an all-volunteer army."

In the second presidential debate, Bush said, "We're not going to have a draft, period." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made similar statements.

The latest dispute over the draft came as a survey indicated that military families trust Bush over Kerry as commander in chief by 69 percent to 21 percent. Some 43 percent of the military sample said they were Republicans, 19 percent said they were Democrats and 27 percent independents.

The margin for Bush was smaller, 50-41, among all Americans questioned by the National Annenberg Election Survey.

Kerry focused on the economy as he began a bus tour of Wisconsin, telling a Milwaukee audience that Bush was "out of touch with the average American family" and that his policies on jobs and taxes favor the wealthiest Americans and special interests.

After leaving Iowa, Bush too went to Wisconsin, speaking at a rally in Oshkosh.

Iowa and Wisconsin are among a dozen or so states that both sides deem still in play. Others are Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine and Michigan.

Both campaigns are polling in those and other states to detect any shift in the post-debate landscape — any opportunity to add or subtract from the battleground. Intrigued by public surveys showing Arkansas and Arizona close, Kerry's pollsters are calling voters in those two GOP-leaning states to see if they merit attention in the homestretch.

Bush has virtually stopped advertising in Washington state and advisers privately concede that Oregon has moved comfortably to Kerry's side of the ledger. The Republican National Committee (news - web sites) was considering whether to begin advertising in New York City, one of the nation's most expensive media markets, to reach voters in surprisingly close New Jersey, a Democratic bastion.

Bush's advisers say GOP polling since the debate has shown him gaining ground in key states. Kerry's advisers say their surveys have shown no change, though polls suggest that voters believe he won the three debates.

Meanwhile, Kerry defended his reference to the sexual orientation of Mary Cheney during Wednesday's presidential debate. "It was meant as a very constructive comment, in a positive way," he told CNN.

Both Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and his wife Lynne have rebuked Kerry for referring to their openly gay daughter, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the president also "does not believe it was appropriate."

Asked how his comment was constructive, Kerry told CNN, "It's respectful of who she is. And they've embraced her and they love her. I have great respect for them for that. And it seems to me that was the point I was trying to make."

In Milwaukee, Kerry said that Bush "either just doesn't understand...or just doesn't care" about the job losses during his term. Some 821,000 non-farm jobs have disappeared since Bush took office in January 2001, making him the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a net loss of jobs.

"The bottom line is this: This economy has a bad case of the flu and we need a new medicine," Kerry said.

Bush also focused on domestic issues in Iowa, claiming his tax-cuts were fueling a strong recovery and accusing Kerry of favoring "more centralized control and more government...There's a word for that. It's called liberalism."

Polls show Bush and Kerry in close races in both Iowa and Wisconsin, two states that Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) won narrowly four years ago.

Bush and Kerry will launch fresh attacks in coming days. Bush will mock Kerry on his approach to terrorism, particularly his statement that he wants to reduce terrorism to a "nuisance," said Bush campaign communications director Nicolle Devenish. On Thursday, Bush will attack Kerry's health care plans, and throughout his travels, Bush will hammer Kerry's economic agenda, she said.

Kerry will deliver speeches during the next week as his "closing argument" for the campaign. Topics will include Bush's "wrong choices" on the economy, the war on terror and health care, Kerry adviser Mike McCurry said. "You look at President Bush and you see nothing but wrong choices and mistakes that he refuses to acknowledge," McCurry told reporters. "You have to start wondering whether or not there's risk that he will repeat those mistakes over the next four years."

___

Associated Press writers Scott Lindlaw and Nedra Pickler contributed to this report from Iowa and Wisconsin.

___

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=694&ncid=716

I think this just goes to show just how desperate Kerry is getting here. Why claim that Bush will reinstate the draft when he has stated repeatedly he won't? Infact, Kerry has said (in the second debate) that if he (Kerry) was elected, that he would consider the draft as an option. So, basically, Kerry has said he is open to a draft, Bush has said he is definately NOT ok with a draft, but Kerry turns around and points the finger at Bush.

I'm sure Kerry would make a real fine President.

This is from an email from the Republican party.

Quote:

In the second Presidential debate in St. Louis, MO, President Bush put an end to the false and unjustified rumors circulating about the reinstatement of the draft - "We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president."

John Kerry and liberal organizations are using lies and scare tactics to influence the votes of young Americans. Supporters of the Kerry campaign are lying to students in a desperate attempt to convince students that the President will support the draft. But President Bush has said NO WAY to the draft.

President Bush has made it clear that he is committed to keeping participation in the United States Armed Services voluntary. Recruitment and retention rates remain strong, and the military has not experienced any problem maintaining a force that is appropriate. President Bush is confident in the current state of the military and has assured that Nation that the all-volunteer military force is working, as it should.

DJ Happy · 10-16-2004, 03:03 AM

It amuses me that the Republican party ("Orange Alert! An attack is imminent! Everyone to their bomb shelters!") can accuse the Democrats of "scare-mongering for votes."

It also amuses me that Bush ("I don't remember where I was for those 12 months") can accuse Kerry of trying to hide his record.

What does not amuse me is how petty, infantile, and in many cases, how utterly irrelevant and rhetorical US politics has become.

jimbob · 10-16-2004, 03:11 AM

I think the draft would be a great idea for those patriotic companies involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. They could be called upon to do their honorable duty instead of tendering for contracts and would work on a cost-minus basis instead of the taxpayer-fleecing cost-plus.

This opinion was brought to you by General Smedley Butler and his experiences during and after the Great War
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

maypo · 10-16-2004, 04:16 AM

Yes, it does sound crazy that a president fighting a war with insufficient military strength, falling enlistments and re-enlistments who has provided additional funds to the selective service administration (21 million) willing to do anything for re-election(witness the drop of the assault weapons ban, something he flip-flopped on) would re-instate the draft. He's never lied to us before.

tecoyah · 10-16-2004, 04:31 AM

Personally, I have a hard time believing the President in most of what he says, as he has proven on multiple fronts that he is undeserving of my trust. That said, I see little alternative to the Draft becoming reality in the near future, if we continue to become entrenched in warfare. All indications from this administration point towards more military action, which will entail more personnel (if just to replace the losses through death in combat) and it is unlikely, in the current atmosphere of unprovoked invasion that many will enlist without a compelling reason.
We have reached the point where , even the poorest of our population will choose alternatives to military service, and this has been the primary enlistment group for many years. I do not see many alternatives to the draft in the future, but I may simply be Naive, and be blind to some obvious future choice.

filtherton · 10-16-2004, 05:41 AM

Scaremongering is a bipartisan activity. It's just one more example of our quality america political system.

Anyways, the bush administration lied to his own party to pass his prescription drug plan. I have no doubt that he wouldn't think twice lying to the american people.

Tophat665 · 10-16-2004, 06:37 AM

Scare Tactics? You say it like it's a bad thing.

If the prospect of 4 more years of Bush doesn't frighten you, then you haven't been paying attention (or, to be fair, you have figured something out that I just plain don't get, and I think you're wrong.)

Bush has categorically ruled out a Draft. Much as he promised to be a uniter rather than a divider. Like he promised to reduce CO2 emissions. Like he swore to get Bin-Laden. Look, little lies (no, honey, that dress is really slenderizing) are fine, and medium sized lies (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) are bad, but not something I give a damn about if they don't affect job performance, but these are big ones that touch on the core of what it means to be president. That's verging on a pathology, and that is scary. Man who's whole pitch is to support our troops cuts their benefits even as he sends them to fight a war that it is increasingly apparent was totally without reason? Scary. It's very near the point where one can bet that when Bush says one thing, he will do exactly the opposite. So when he says absolutely no draft, I really worry about the kids my wife teaches. The ones who are going to be playing catch with RPGs in Iraq in 2 years, if their not playing tic-tac-nuke with Iran in 3.

Man who can wipe out human life on the planet can't pronounce nuclear? (Hint: new - clear) That's got the rest of the world crapping its pants.

So scare tactics from the Democratic side, they seem pretty appropriate to me.

From the other side? Sounds like Karl Rove talespinning.

roachboy · 10-16-2004, 06:41 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...328923,00.html

an extension of the points made above about inadequate troop levels in iraq--it seems that cowboy george prefers to market his dirty little colonial war as if the fantasies of paul wolfowitz still obtained. and to shape his "policies" in iraq as if these fantaisues were somehow descriptive.
i find few things in politics more frightening than the presistance of this particular delusion, both on the part of bush himself and, worse, on the part of those who support him.
the systematic refusal to address complex issues, the preference for talking in reassuring generalities coded to add motion to the circle-jerk of right political life--THAT is frightening.

as for tactics--please...the tendency of the right to undertake a sleazy activity--in this case the use of Fear as an election tactic--and then to project that same act onto the opposition, without regard for proportion, is simply at evidence in this thread. it might seem like a bizarre compulsion to confess--but how i think it really functions is as a way to blunt critique.
"what are you talking about, using Fear in an attempt to re-elect the non-entity in chief? you do it...."
it would be crazy if it did not work.

as it stands, it is just another marker of the dangerous elements of conservative discourse in general, and a strong argument in itself to push bush out of office and this whole machine back into opposition.

Lebell · 10-16-2004, 06:57 AM

Ahem.

If we can get back to the topic, which seems harder and harder to do these days in "Tilted Politics".

Saying Bush will reinstate the draft is very much scare tactics and Kerry supporters should acknowledge this.

First, it was congressional Democrats that brought up the possibility, not Bush or Republicans.

Second, it would require an act of congress, not just Bush saying, "Make it so, Number One".

I do agree that we need more troops, but my opinion is that we have a bunch of troops sitting in Germany that could be used.

tecoyah · 10-16-2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Ahem.

If we can get back to the topic, which seems harder and harder to do these days in "Tilted Politics".

Saying Bush will reinstate the draft is very much scare tactics and Kerry supporters should acknowledge this.

First, it was congressional Democrats that brought up the possibility, not Bush or Republicans.

Second, it would require an act of congress, not just Bush saying, "Make it so, Number One".

I do agree that we need more troops, but my opinion is that we have a bunch of troops sitting in Germany that could be used.

Again....I refer to the statements I made in an earlier reply in this thread.
"IF" we continue on our current course, and the administration has shown absolutely that it intends to do so, then we will need to increase our troop strength dramatically. There seems to be little , if any chance of "recruiting" sufficient numbers of willing soldiers at this time, thus the need to prolong the tours of those already in action, and the use of reservists as a large part of the current force in Iraq.
Taking these points into account, I see little alternative to a draft if we wish to support these aggressions, and create "freedom" across the globe. If indeed there is something I am missing in my logic, please point it out as I would feel great relief at my error. As it is....logic dictates the inevitable, and I am fearful of the outcome.

Lebell · 10-16-2004, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Again....I refer to the statements I made in an earlier reply in this thread.
"IF" we continue on our current course, and the administration has shown absolutely that it intends to do so, then we will need to increase our troop strength dramatically. There seems to be little , if any chance of "recruiting" sufficient numbers of willing soldiers at this time, thus the need to prolong the tours of those already in action, and the use of reservists as a large part of the current force in Iraq.
Taking these points into account, I see little alternative to a draft if we wish to support these aggressions, and create "freedom" across the globe. If indeed there is something I am missing in my logic, please point it out as I would feel great relief at my error. As it is....logic dictates the inevitable, and I am fearful of the outcome.

Well, it's speculation at best.

But one more thing to consider is that a draft would be political suicide for Democrats and Republicans in Congress and for Republicans in the 2008 election.

And again, I just don't see a congress that will vote for a draft.

tecoyah · 10-16-2004, 07:30 AM

Congress is almost completely controlled by the GOP at this point, and could easily be swayed in whatever direction needed by those in power. But, that is not the main point. I was seriously hoping someone could show the errors in my "speculation" so as to put my mind at ease....at least somewhat.
While it is indeed a speculative argument, it is also the logical conclusion based on what data are currently available. I personally have been able to come to no other conclusion, barring unforseen changes in policy. We are simply stretched too thin militarily, and are leaving ourselves open as a target should we take our forces out of Germany, Korea, the Phillipines,....etc....
If anyone has a more defined, and serious answer....theoretical or not, that points towards something other than forced military service, please let it be known here.

Willravel · 10-16-2004, 07:47 AM

Well I totally agree that this is a scare tactic, and it's pretty blatent. It's too bad that the Democrats don't have the years and years of experience tha tthe Republicans have at this. It is clear that Bush could not be wholely responsible for a draft, just as no president could be wholely responsible for a draft, it is a congressional decision, just as Lebell said.

I personally have no problem with a draft as long as it is for a just and reasonable cause. There in lies the problem, of course. I would have gladly fought in WWI and WWII, because the threat posed by the Axis powers was clear and present. They attacked and made obvious their intentions. In the case of every conflict since WWII - Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Cold War, Central America, South America, Desert Storm (what a clever name!), and Desert Storm part 2 - there has not been a need for America to go to war. War has moved from a last resprt, to a resort of necessity (if that makees sense).

I am lucky enough to be color blind and have a severe heart condition, so I can't be drafted. That is unless things get really bad, of course. I would be more than willing to fight against those who were really responsible for the attacks on 9/11. I feel that is a just cause. Hussian obviously had no real connection to that, and his removal was that of convenience. Now we control the second largest oil source on Earth... just one more of the Earth's natural resources that America controls.

Holy off topic, batman! The problem with Kerry using scare tactics is that he has sunk to the level of our emporor, Bush. Bush is used to scaring the public whether it be directly, or through his media. BTW, if you don't think the media is controled, ask yourself why you didn't know about the Libratarian and Green party's candidates were arrested while trying to serve a legal document at the St. Louis debates.

martinguerre · 10-16-2004, 08:15 AM

i'm glad bush has said it won't happen.

Quote:

Read my lips. No new draft.

I don't think it's likely...he's gone this far with out one. But as part of that he will keep the troop levels too low to really secure the country, and keep it bleeding.

maximusveritas · 10-16-2004, 08:26 AM

When you have the vice president telling us that if we vote for John Kerry we'll be in danger of getting hit again like we did on 9-11, I think this is a more-than-fair argument for Kerry's people to use.

Bodyhammer86 · 10-16-2004, 10:06 AM

I'm really sorry, but this draft issue has been debunked so many times that only the hardline democrats keep bringing it up in a half-hearted attempt to keep people from voting for Bush. All you have to do is look up the subject at www.factcheck.org and you'll have your answer right there. Oh by the way, this site debunks myths put forth by both sides, in case you try to jump on me about this site being biased.

Edited for spelling

pan6467 · 10-16-2004, 10:19 AM

It all depends on what happens over there and here. If fighting intensifies and/or recruitment goes down, a draft will have to be imposed, that's fact. Of course for either side to admit this would be political suicide as far as the election goes. Because in many people's minds you are saying there will be a draft.

To say that absolutely positively under no circumstances will there be a draft, is not just lieing but foolhardy. However, both sides want to win the election, so both sides are going to deny that there will ever be a draft, and both sides will accuse the other of lieing and that the other side will institute a draft. That's politics.

Bodyhammer86 · 10-16-2004, 12:09 PM

here's the actual link to the story: http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html

10-16-2004, 04:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
maypo Tilted	The president has never lied before! Yes, it does sound crazy that a president fighting a war with insufficient military strength, falling enlistments and re-enlistments who has provided additional funds to the selective service administration (21 million) willing to do anything for re-election(witness the drop of the assault weapons ban, something he flip-flopped on) would re-instate the draft. He's never lied to us before.

10-16-2004, 04:31 AM	#5 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Personally, I have a hard time believing the President in most of what he says, as he has proven on multiple fronts that he is undeserving of my trust. That said, I see little alternative to the Draft becoming reality in the near future, if we continue to become entrenched in warfare. All indications from this administration point towards more military action, which will entail more personnel (if just to replace the losses through death in combat) and it is unlikely, in the current atmosphere of unprovoked invasion that many will enlist without a compelling reason. We have reached the point where , even the poorest of our population will choose alternatives to military service, and this has been the primary enlistment group for many years. I do not see many alternatives to the draft in the future, but I may simply be Naive, and be blind to some obvious future choice. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-16-2004, 06:37 AM	#7 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Scare Tactics? You say it like it's a bad thing. If the prospect of 4 more years of Bush doesn't frighten you, then you haven't been paying attention (or, to be fair, you have figured something out that I just plain don't get, and I think you're wrong.) Bush has categorically ruled out a Draft. Much as he promised to be a uniter rather than a divider. Like he promised to reduce CO2 emissions. Like he swore to get Bin-Laden. Look, little lies (no, honey, that dress is really slenderizing) are fine, and medium sized lies (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) are bad, but not something I give a damn about if they don't affect job performance, but these are big ones that touch on the core of what it means to be president. That's verging on a pathology, and that is scary. Man who's whole pitch is to support our troops cuts their benefits even as he sends them to fight a war that it is increasingly apparent was totally without reason? Scary. It's very near the point where one can bet that when Bush says one thing, he will do exactly the opposite. So when he says absolutely no draft, I really worry about the kids my wife teaches. The ones who are going to be playing catch with RPGs in Iraq in 2 years, if their not playing tic-tac-nuke with Iran in 3. Man who can wipe out human life on the planet can't pronounce nuclear? (Hint: new - clear) That's got the rest of the world crapping its pants. So scare tactics from the Democratic side, they seem pretty appropriate to me. From the other side? Sounds like Karl Rove talespinning. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

10-16-2004, 06:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...328923,00.html an extension of the points made above about inadequate troop levels in iraq--it seems that cowboy george prefers to market his dirty little colonial war as if the fantasies of paul wolfowitz still obtained. and to shape his "policies" in iraq as if these fantaisues were somehow descriptive. i find few things in politics more frightening than the presistance of this particular delusion, both on the part of bush himself and, worse, on the part of those who support him. the systematic refusal to address complex issues, the preference for talking in reassuring generalities coded to add motion to the circle-jerk of right political life--THAT is frightening. as for tactics--please...the tendency of the right to undertake a sleazy activity--in this case the use of Fear as an election tactic--and then to project that same act onto the opposition, without regard for proportion, is simply at evidence in this thread. it might seem like a bizarre compulsion to confess--but how i think it really functions is as a way to blunt critique. "what are you talking about, using Fear in an attempt to re-elect the non-entity in chief? you do it...." it would be crazy if it did not work. as it stands, it is just another marker of the dangerous elements of conservative discourse in general, and a strong argument in itself to push bush out of office and this whole machine back into opposition. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-16-2004, 06:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Ahem. If we can get back to the topic, which seems harder and harder to do these days in "Tilted Politics". Saying Bush will reinstate the draft is very much scare tactics and Kerry supporters should acknowledge this. First, it was congressional Democrats that brought up the possibility, not Bush or Republicans. Second, it would require an act of congress, not just Bush saying, "Make it so, Number One". I do agree that we need more troops, but my opinion is that we have a bunch of troops sitting in Germany that could be used. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-16-2004, 03:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	It amuses me that the Republican party ("Orange Alert! An attack is imminent! Everyone to their bomb shelters!") can accuse the Democrats of "scare-mongering for votes." It also amuses me that Bush ("I don't remember where I was for those 12 months") can accuse Kerry of trying to hide his record. What does not amuse me is how petty, infantile, and in many cases, how utterly irrelevant and rhetorical US politics has become.

10-16-2004, 03:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
jimbob Crazy Location: Liverpool UK	I think the draft would be a great idea for those patriotic companies involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. They could be called upon to do their honorable duty instead of tendering for contracts and would work on a cost-minus basis instead of the taxpayer-fleecing cost-plus. This opinion was brought to you by General Smedley Butler and his experiences during and after the Great War http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

10-16-2004, 05:41 AM	#6 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Scaremongering is a bipartisan activity. It's just one more example of our quality america political system. Anyways, the bush administration lied to his own party to pass his prescription drug plan. I have no doubt that he wouldn't think twice lying to the american people.

10-16-2004, 07:30 AM	#12 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Congress is almost completely controlled by the GOP at this point, and could easily be swayed in whatever direction needed by those in power. But, that is not the main point. I was seriously hoping someone could show the errors in my "speculation" so as to put my mind at ease....at least somewhat. While it is indeed a speculative argument, it is also the logical conclusion based on what data are currently available. I personally have been able to come to no other conclusion, barring unforseen changes in policy. We are simply stretched too thin militarily, and are leaving ourselves open as a target should we take our forces out of Germany, Korea, the Phillipines,....etc.... If anyone has a more defined, and serious answer....theoretical or not, that points towards something other than forced military service, please let it be known here. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-16-2004, 07:47 AM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well I totally agree that this is a scare tactic, and it's pretty blatent. It's too bad that the Democrats don't have the years and years of experience tha tthe Republicans have at this. It is clear that Bush could not be wholely responsible for a draft, just as no president could be wholely responsible for a draft, it is a congressional decision, just as Lebell said. I personally have no problem with a draft as long as it is for a just and reasonable cause. There in lies the problem, of course. I would have gladly fought in WWI and WWII, because the threat posed by the Axis powers was clear and present. They attacked and made obvious their intentions. In the case of every conflict since WWII - Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Cold War, Central America, South America, Desert Storm (what a clever name!), and Desert Storm part 2 - there has not been a need for America to go to war. War has moved from a last resprt, to a resort of necessity (if that makees sense). I am lucky enough to be color blind and have a severe heart condition, so I can't be drafted. That is unless things get really bad, of course. I would be more than willing to fight against those who were really responsible for the attacks on 9/11. I feel that is a just cause. Hussian obviously had no real connection to that, and his removal was that of convenience. Now we control the second largest oil source on Earth... just one more of the Earth's natural resources that America controls. Holy off topic, batman! The problem with Kerry using scare tactics is that he has sunk to the level of our emporor, Bush. Bush is used to scaring the public whether it be directly, or through his media. BTW, if you don't think the media is controled, ask yourself why you didn't know about the Libratarian and Green party's candidates were arrested while trying to serve a legal document at the St. Louis debates.

10-16-2004, 08:26 AM	#15 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	When you have the vice president telling us that if we vote for John Kerry we'll be in danger of getting hit again like we did on 9-11, I think this is a more-than-fair argument for Kerry's people to use.

10-16-2004, 10:06 AM	#16 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	I'm really sorry, but this draft issue has been debunked so many times that only the hardline democrats keep bringing it up in a half-hearted attempt to keep people from voting for Bush. All you have to do is look up the subject at www.factcheck.org and you'll have your answer right there. Oh by the way, this site debunks myths put forth by both sides, in case you try to jump on me about this site being biased. Edited for spelling __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

10-16-2004, 10:19 AM	#17 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It all depends on what happens over there and here. If fighting intensifies and/or recruitment goes down, a draft will have to be imposed, that's fact. Of course for either side to admit this would be political suicide as far as the election goes. Because in many people's minds you are saying there will be a draft. To say that absolutely positively under no circumstances will there be a draft, is not just lieing but foolhardy. However, both sides want to win the election, so both sides are going to deny that there will ever be a draft, and both sides will accuse the other of lieing and that the other side will institute a draft. That's politics. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-16-2004, 12:09 PM	#18 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	here's the actual link to the story: http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/