[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As someone pointed out, the war was won just as Rumsfield predicted. It's the "peace" that has been hard to maintain.

There was a guy who predicted it would be a hard, long road - requiring patience, courage and not backing down. That guy was George Bush. I remembered him specifically stating this in a speech prior to the war. He warned that this sort of thing could take years and years. He didn't force people to have unreal perceptions of what would be needed to be done.

War sucks. The alternatives suck more unfortunately.

How was the war won in six months? We still haven't found those WMDs that were the purpose for us going in there! For all we know, the reason we haven't found them is because they've been smuggled out of the country. Who knows who we're going to have to invade and destabilize to find them now!

[marden]

Draft Reinstatement Is a Bad Idea

May 3, 2004

Draft Reinstatement Is a Bad Idea

by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.

Bad ideas flourish in tough times. Calls to reinstate the draft offer a case in point.

Americans today rely on the service and sacrifice of our military. The global war on terrorism has put our soldiers, sailors, marines, Air Force and Coast Guard into harm's way in numbers unprecedented since the Vietnam War. National Guard and reserve troops have been posted overseas at record levels.

All the men and women of today's military volunteered to serve. They swore an oath to put aside their personal aspirations and obligations for the service of all Americans. But some politicians argue that these volunteers are victims, and legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress that would resume military conscription for the first time since the Vietnam era.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., says we need a draft because the burden of fighting the nation's wars falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities. The rich, he argues, opt out of war.

That argument denigrates the service of all men and women in uniform. People do not become soldiers because they can't do anything else. Anyone who has served a day in the military knows there are easier ways to make a buck. They don't see themselves as hapless mercenaries.

Additionally, a draft is more -- not less -- likely to place the burden of military service on the poor. In his book "Unheralded Victory," combat veteran Mark Woodruff points out that 76 percent of those who served in Vietnam had working-class backgrounds.

I still haven't decided but I heard Gen. Tommy Franks recommend this article in opposition to a military draft so I thought I'd bring it to you.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden 

Draft Reinstatement Is a Bad Idea

I still haven't decided but I heard Gen. Tommy Franks recommend this article in opposition to a military draft so I thought I'd bring it to you.

I don't disagree with any particular point except the part about the military being largely composed of poor people.

There are easier ways to make money, but without a college degree not many places are going to flip the bill to give you vocational training and an education. Military service is a great place to make a little money and get needed skills and education.

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't disagree with any particular point except the part about the military being largely composed of poor people.

There are easier ways to make money, but without a college degree not many places are going to flip the bill to give you vocational training and an education. Military service is a great place to make a little money and get needed skills and education.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't disagree with any particular point except the part about the military being largely composed of poor people.

Yeah, wasn't there a recent study that showed that the military is actually disproportionately skewed towards the more affluent members of society? Or was it the more educated?

There are easier ways to make money, but without a college degree not many places are going to flip the bill to give you vocational training and an education. Military service is a great place to make a little money and get needed skills and education.

Sure, if you think it's worth the risk that you'll never get to use that money, skills, or education.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yeah, wasn't there a recent study that showed that the military is actually disproportionately skewed towards the more affluent members of society? Or was it the more educated?

I heard that, but I don't have anything to quote. I think I saw it on CNN. That makes Kerry look like even more of a *********.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I heard that, but I don't have anything to quote. I think I saw it on CNN. That makes Kerry look like even more of a *********.

For the 18 millionth time, dude — it was a jab at Bush, not at the military.

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't remember Bush being mentioned.

So Kerry was saying Bush isn't educated?

I'd like to be half as educated as our president.

[Atomic Rooster]

75% of military is white and middle class. Wrangell or whatever his name is out of touch. He thinks too many poor blacks are dying. He's all alone in this. In fact he voted against himself on the same thing in 2004. No one else want's it. Thread over and out.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

For the 18 millionth time, dude — it was a jab at Bush, not at the military.

I suppose that post doesn't work that well without the context of me not believeing that it was botched. Perhaps I am alone in ths belief.

[Macrobat]

The Democrats need to reinstate the draft, in order to retroactively make their statements about the military true - in a way.

Most of these post-modern hippies' only military experience is with Vietnam, they are stuck somewhere between 1969 and 1970 and think they are still military experts. They need the draft so they can hopefully relive their protester youth. I wonder if Kerry will throw "his" medals again?

And Chuckit, if you actually believe it was somehow a slam at the President (who's name wasn't mentioned once at the ENTIRE rally, then you fell into the kool-aid.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I don't remember Bush being mentioned.

So Kerry was saying Bush isn't educated?

I'd like to be half as educated as our president.

With what he accomplished so far?

No, you don't.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The Democrats need to reinstate the draft, in order to retroactively make their statements about the military true - in a way.
<snip>

One guy who happens to be black who hasn't got his facts straight does not a DEMS make.

They don't want it, pubbies don't want it, the people don't want it.

Just this guy who thinks too many poor blacks are dying.

He's wrong.

One guy...say one...O...N...E.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

With what he accomplished so far?

No, you don't.

Jethro Bodine come to mind.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oh, alright dammit.

I hafta be honest. It's time to come clean.

For the past six years I've never had a bad thing to say about George W Bush.

There's a good reason behind it.

Basically it's because I want to bone his daughter, Jenna.

[Chuckit]

Spliffdaddy, you are an ignorant fool. Barbara is way hotter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I don't remember Bush being mentioned.

So Kerry was saying Bush isn't educated?

I'd like to be half as educated as our president.

It seems like Kerry forgot the exact wording of the joke. His phrasing in the actual speech is kind of awkward, like he was stumbling for the words, so I'm inclined to believe him. His notes for the speech supposedly had the joke as: "Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

[Spliffdaddy]

I did it all for the nookie.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

As history has shown the American people can stomach a war for about three or four years maximum, do you think "specifically stating this in a speech" was all that was required to prepare for this eventuality?

It's not "people" that Bush needed to worry about. It's mostly the left and their mouthpieces.

They started the "it's a quagmire" routine as soon as the boys left on the planes. It was hard for them to gain traction in Afghanistan because it ended so smoothly - most of the bad guys left for places like Pakistan and Iraq. But 2 or 3 years of propaganda, naysaying and negative attitudes is about the limit of the average American we're they'll forget everything and fall into line. Though, even now the percentage of those who oppose the war versus those the huge lopsided equation the left-leaning media would have you to think.

People should have listened. It's not Bush's fault that Americans have a false sense of security.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People should have listened. It's not Bush's fault that Americans have a false sense of security.

Yes, I sure feel stupid now about how complacent I was toward Saddam's nonexistent WMDs.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Spliffdaddy, you are an ignorant fool. Barbara is way hotter.

W's mom?!?

[ironknee]

assuming the bush sisters are virgins like all good christian girls....

how many guys have said in the heat of passion, can i _____your bush?

and they said no!

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not "people" that Bush needed to worry about. It's mostly the left and their mouthpieces.

They started the "it's a quagmire" routine as soon as the boys left on the planes. It was hard for them to gain traction in Afghanistan because it ended so smoothly - most of the bad guys left for places like Pakistan and Iraq. But 2 or 3 years of propaganda, naysaying and negative attitudes is about the limit of the average American we're they'll forget everything and fall into line. Though, even now the percentage of those who oppose the war versus those the huge lopsided equation the left-leaning media would have you to think.

People should have listened. It's not Bush's fault that Americans have a false sense of security.

So the whole enterprise hinged on a bunch of propagandists, naysayers and people with negative attitudes listening to Bush?

Real fancy way of saying "no, he didn't prepare for the eventuality" ya got there.

[Macrobat]

ONE guy who just happens to be the incoming Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee? See the invalidity of that "argument?"

Kerry's "phrasing was off?" LMFAO! Have you even LOOKED at the clip? Apologise for much lately? He delivered it in one, quick, deadpan (imagine that), clearly spoken sentence. Where was this supposed "stumbling?"

He was prepared, and TRIED to prepare "the people" for PRECISELY this eventuality. That is everywhere except Bizarro World. He SPECIFICALLY mentioned that it would be a long, hard road in SEVERAL speeches in the run up to the WoT.

Nice selective recall there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Where was this supposed "stumbling?"

Instead of "you get stuck in Iraq" it was supposed to be "you get us stuck in Iraq".

I was watching Gingrich on H&C the day before the election. After five or so minutes of bluster about how insulting Kerry was, Colmes jumped in and asked him directly if he thought the comment had been intentional.

Gingrich replied "no, but that's what he really thinks".

It was also funny to hear Tony Snow try and put the "us" in every other place in the sentence. He was like "where is this "us" supposed to go? Is it 'you us get stuck in Iraq', 'you get stuck us in Iraq'?"

[Macrobat]

BS - he said exactly what he meant. He's been saying much the same thing about service members since his VVAW days. Forget the apologism, he's a POS who keeps exposing himself as a POS.

As has already been pointed out - Bush graduated higher than Kerry, his test scores were higher than Kerrys and he furthered his education MORE than Kerry - in short. His "joke" makes no sense whatsoever in any context other than what it was - a swipe at the military.

[Spliffdaddy]

Maybe if Kerry had stayed in school and got a better education he could be president of the greatest nation on Earth.

To imply that George W Bush somehow ended up in a worse position than Kerry himself based on Dubya's lack of education is laughable.

Basically you have a loser telling a winner how he ought to do things.

Kerry is telling people that you need something superior to an Ivy League education in order to not be stupid. wtf?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Maybe if Kerry had stayed in school and got a better education he could be president of the greatest nation on Earth.

To imply that George W Bush somehow ended up in a worse position than Kerry himself based on Dubya's lack of education is laughable.

Basically you have a loser telling a winner how he ought to do things.

Kerry is telling people that you need something superior to an Ivy League education in order to not be stupid. wtf?

Going to a good school != getting a good education.

It's like a steakhouse that also serves salads. If you get the salad, even though you ate at a steakhouse you still didn't have a steak dinner.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

BS - he said exactly what he meant. He's been saying much the same thing about service members since his VVAW days. Forget the apologism, he's a POS who keeps exposing himself as a POS.

Okay. Whatever. I don't have your extra-sensory powers to "look into the man's heart".

Seems to me there are plenty of reasons to call Kerry a ********* without relying on that unique gift of yours. Kinda like Newt did.

Edit: didn't know that was going to get censored. For those keeping score at home, the secret word describes a container filled with fluid used for washing one's privates... if your privates are (as Doofy put it) "the internal kind".

[Macrobat]

"Unique gift of mine?" LMFAO! Dude, YOU are the one inserting words into the POS' sentence in order to TRY and make it say something it didn't, not me.

All I'm doing is pointing out EXACTLY what Lurch said.

See, here's a joke:

John Kerry walks into a bar.

The bartender says, "Why the long face?"


See - no "botch," no need to have thousands of people "explain" it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

To imply that George W Bush somehow ended up in a worse position than Kerry himself based on Dubya's lack of education is laughable.

See Macrobat? This is what I mean.

Kerry=*********, no ESP needed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

YOU are the one inserting words into the POS' sentence in order to TRY and make it say something it didn't, not me.

I was repeating what Kerry said, in direct response to your question.

I'm not making any claim as to what he meant to say, because if I did that would mean I was full of ****.

[Macrobat]

No, you added the word "us," just as POS did when he was called on the carpet for it - he didn't stumble, mutter, mumble or sneeze earlier. He was simply attempting to pull his kiester out of the fire. And - surprise, surprise - NO ONE in the WORLD believed him, except those who wanted to for political reasons.

You know, the EXACT same crowd who still thinks Clinton's impeachment was over a blowjob.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, you added the word "us," just as POS did when he was called on the carpet for it

Yeah, I added the word. And to think that schmuck Kerry gets all the credit.

[Macrobat]

Um, read much? I credited "POS" in the very post you quoted.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Um, read much? I credited "POS" in the very post you quoted.

After you credited me.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

YOU are the one inserting words into the POS' sentence...

Originally Posted by Macrobat

No, you added the word "us," just as POS did...

[Macrobat]

The point being, the word did NOT exist in the original quote. It's just like when a parent catches a kid in a lie, they try to backpedal and add extra words to change the meaning of what they actually said.

here's a clue: Even with the addition, it's STILL not a joke.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The point being, the word did NOT exist in the original quote. It's just like when a parent catches a kid in a lie, they try to backpedal and add extra words to change the meaning of what they actually said.

Dude, Bush ****s up every time he opens his mouth, and I don't see people going "ZOMG BUSH WANTS TO PUT FOOD ON MY FAMILY!" Sometimes, people mess up speeches. It happens.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

here's a clue: Even with the addition, it's STILL not a joke.

What is it, then? It sounds like a humorous jab at Bush to me.

[Macrobat]

Then you have no sense of humor. Kerry has 31+ years of history bashing the military of the United States, that is precisely what he was doing in this instance, as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Then you have no sense of humor.

Uh…you're the one who's failing to see the humor, not I. (I don't think it's an incredibly funny joke, really, but it's definitely the kind of jab people do for humorous intent.)

[Macrobat]

As I said, those who choose to believe Kerry's rather blasé explanation will do so, those who heard what he said and took it at the face value 31+ years of precedence bring, will choose not to. Now, can we cease arguing about something no one is obviously going to change their mind about?

And - my joke was funnier.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The point being, the word did NOT exist in the original quote. It's just like when a parent catches a kid in a lie, they try to backpedal and add extra words to change the meaning of what they actually said.

here's a clue: Even with the addition, it's STILL not a joke.

You asked "where was this supposed 'stumbling?'"

The fact that I responded to your question seems to have made you think I believe what he said.

I'll make this really clear. I am not providing an opinion one way or another. You asked a question and I answered the question. The question was where this "supposed" stumbling was. I answered you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

So the whole enterprise hinged on a bunch of propagandists, naysayers and people with negative attitudes listening to Bush?

Real fancy way of saying "no, he didn't prepare for the eventuality" ya got there.

If you simply refused to do the hard things which require tough choices because those who oppose you might win a propaganda war and pull down your popularity ratings....oh...wait: you get Bill Clinton.

I liked a lot of what Clinton did. I though hated all the stuff he didn't do which he should have done. It's good to have someone in the White House who isn't afraid to do what he feels is right just because it might hurt him in the polls

[marden]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not "people" that Bush needed to worry about. It's mostly the left and their mouthpieces.

They started the "it's a quagmire" routine as soon as the boys left on the planes. It was hard for them to gain traction in Afghanistan because it ended so smoothly - most of the bad guys left for places like Pakistan and Iraq. But 2 or 3 years of propaganda, naysaying and negative attitudes is about the limit of the average American we're they'll forget everything and fall into line. Though, even now the percentage of those who oppose the war versus those the huge lopsided equation the left-leaning media would have you to think.

People should have listened. It's not Bush's fault that Americans have a false sense of security.

Great post!

I know no one will read this but you, stupendousman!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/991gvxyi.asp

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Great post!

I know no one will read this but you, stupendousman!

What the Islamists Have Learned

This seems to be further evidence of my point:

Originally Posted by Michael Novak

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public

The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos

What was Bush's grand plan to deal with this issue?

How would you rate Bush on his success in dealing with it?

Hint: if he had a plan, or had been successful, the Democrats wouldn't have won the mid-terms, and the question du jour wouldn't be "just exactly how fast are we going to cut and run?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you simply refused to do the hard things which require tough choices...

Who said he should refuse?

I said he should plan for the eventuality.

What good is making the tough choice if you can't foresee the most obvious potential impediments?

Taking my argument to its conclusion, I would say that if Bush was too stupid to foresee this and come up with a way to have dealt with it, he's too stupid to make the tough choices.

The evidence seems to point somewhere in the middle. He foresaw the impediment but made the gross miscalculation that the whole thing would be over with before it had time to build up a head of steam. This was the key pillar of the Rumsfeld doctrine, accomplish your mission so fast there is not time for international pressure to build. By default, international pressure is going to build before domestic.

[typoon]

I love how that Article says an "Influential" democratic leader. It doesn't mention who. Why are they afraid to mention this "Influential" Person.

The amuzing thing is that During the Vietnam war these Same democrats were OPPOSED to anything war. Espcially a draft. Now they are the ones wanting to institute a draft?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by typoon 

I love how that Article says an "Influential" democratic leader. It doesn't mention who. Why are they afraid to mention this "Influential" Person.

The amuzing thing is that During the Vietnam war these Same democrats were OPPOSED to anything war. Espcially a draft. Now they are the ones wanting to institute a draft?

Dumb post.

Scroll up and read my posts.

Who are THEY?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

This seems to be further evidence of my point:



What was Bush's grand plan to deal with this issue?

How would you rate Bush on his success in dealing with it?

Hint: if he had a plan, or had been successful, the Democrats wouldn't have won the mid-terms, and the question du jour wouldn't be "just exactly how fast are we going to cut and run?"

Most people criticize the decision to invade without:

1-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's...at the time. After the fact doesn't count.
2-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
3-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
4-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
5-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
6-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
7-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
8-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
9-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
10-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
11-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
12-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
13-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
14-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
15-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

There are certain aspects of the war that are done better or worse than other aspects.
These areas of performance might start off a minus then become a plus, or the other way around. Or they might start as a plus and stay a plus. Or the other way around. Or they might be a draw and the enemy keeps evolving and changing their methods until they take advantage of our weaknesses and because we are committed to a set of principles which doesn't help achieve victory we become inflexibly mired in the morass of our own mindsets.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who said he should refuse?

I said he should plan for the eventuality.

What good is making the tough choice if you can't foresee the most obvious potential impediments?

...and as I said, then you have Clinton. If he couldn't find a way to spin something or keep the heat off himself, he simply didn't do it. It was much easier work basking in high poll numbers making very few difficult choices than to take the "road less traveled" and hope for the best. Bush, for better or worse, doesn't seem to suffer from the same cowardice.