Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Edwards: No Military Draft if Dems Win (barf)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS via NY Times ^ | September 15, 2004 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted on 09/15/2004 4:27:18 PM PDT by 68skylark

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161 next last
To: 68skylark
``There will be no draft when John Kerry is president,'' Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation.

If I was a draft age youth, that statement would scare me more than anything else heard in this election year. Dems have a bad record of renigging on promises.

Dems have been the only ones talking about or advocating a draft this year.

61 posted on 09/15/2004 6:02:18 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
He's just trying to scare some young people

I agree. But it's not Edwards who scares me, it's the neocons who say they want us to invade other middle eastern countries. I don't need Edwards yapping in order to fear -- quite reasonably -- that perpetual invasions in the middle east will require a draft.

62 posted on 09/15/2004 6:07:25 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: pieces of time

Congratulations to your son. It's very hard to get in to the U.S. military and I hope he won't be disappointed if it doesn't work out. But if he does get in, it's very admirable. (Too bad you can't steer him to a truly elite force, like the Army Airborne -- but the USMC is certainly good also.)

And I like his "diluting the pool" comment -- that's how I feel.


63 posted on 09/15/2004 6:09:10 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Well, if you feel that large "perpetual invasions" are a risk if Bush is re-elected, does that mean you'd prefer the alternative?

Personally, I've been a supporter of the liberation of Iraq. I think it's something all Americans can be proud of. I don't care whether is was supported by neo-cons or paleo-cons or anyone else -- I'm glad Saddam is gone.

64 posted on 09/15/2004 6:13:28 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
does that mean you'd prefer the alternative?""

No, but I'm hoping that after the election Bush won't listen to his neocon advisers who want a middle-east-wide war.

65 posted on 09/15/2004 6:24:19 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
does that mean you'd prefer the alternative?""

No, but I'm hoping that after the election Bush won't listen to his neocon advisers who want a middle-east-wide war.

66 posted on 09/15/2004 6:24:21 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Get serious. We have more than enough manpower if we were to conduct all out war, and use the firepower we have. Do you really think Syria, Iran, (forget lebanon) really pose a challenge?
In case you haven't noticed, those places are using their "insurgents" and money to try fight us now in Iraq, as they have in Afghanistan, and as they did and are still trying the Bosnia, (which Clinton helped by bombing the wrong side) and also they fund Sudan.

IF we really wanted, we can clean up the whole ME.
there is no need for a draft. We are not short.
All we are doing in Iraq right now is fighting a very limited war with kid gloves.

There is a reason for that. Iraq was a strategic area where a form of democracy is best suited to evolve. Lets not forget that Saddam was somewhat "secular" in a strange twisted way.
What you are seeing is the fundamentalists moving in from these other twisted countries, trying to prevent Iraq from establishing a form of Democracy.
It spells death to the rest of the ME, and they know it.
It is far better to pick off these radicals in Iraq than it is to have them roaming the planet. Iraq is flypaper.

Tell me which remaining ME country is a serious threat to our existing Army. Saddam was the most powerful(laugh)
player in the region.




67 posted on 09/15/2004 6:24:23 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Purely random ping, as is sometimes my custom.


68 posted on 09/15/2004 6:26:22 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Plus, in case you haven't noticed, they have just lost their Russian arms supply, so these little Jihad groups will soon be running low on supplies, except for China, which isn't very convenient or reliable as far as regular supplies go.


69 posted on 09/15/2004 6:26:50 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

Methinks Edwards is still worried about getting deferments.


70 posted on 09/15/2004 6:28:22 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Sorry, don't want my Military to be used for social correction. If you want to start an alternate organization that puts HS grads through Boot Camp and then lets them go on about their business, fine. Boot camp wouldn't hurt anyone. Just don't mix it in with the real Military.


71 posted on 09/15/2004 6:29:33 PM PDT by pieces of time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Do you really think Syria, Iran, (forget lebanon) really pose a challenge? """

You sound like - and may be -- one of the genuises who said pacifying Iraq would be a cakewalk. It's clear from your comment that you're one of the folks who favor US invasions of all these countries. And then you find it incredible that people are worried there's going to be a draft?

72 posted on 09/15/2004 6:30:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
I love it when the left trots out this tired old threat...along with suppressing the black vote, starving the children, throwing the sick into the streets, etc.
73 posted on 09/15/2004 6:32:17 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I'm hoping that after the election Bush won't listen to his neocon advisers who want a middle-east-wide war.

Fair enough. Right now, I think we have our hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan. So I don't think I'd support any more violent regime changes for the time being.

We could probably agree that a pro-democratic regime change from within would be the best possible event -- I'd love to see the people overthrow their own despotic governments in places like Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, etc.

74 posted on 09/15/2004 6:33:31 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: pieces of time

Maybe they should make boy-scouts mandatory,Or army and Sea- Cadets. This way these loony lefties can learn how to be polite and helpful to the community, and learn what the army and Navy is about instead of developing this "me me me" attitude. This may be a good thing for young teens to be forced into, this way it will teach them good instead of jacking cars and vandalizing public property, and becoming "lefties".


75 posted on 09/15/2004 6:37:31 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Yeah, they're hitting all the notes in their usual playbook -- the playbook that hasn't been updated since the Great Depression.

One of these decades they're going to have to step back, take a look at themselves, and maybe re-think their tactics of fear and division. That'll happen about the same time CBS (and the rest of the the MSM) acknowledges their liberal bias and apologizes -- probably not in my lifetime.

76 posted on 09/15/2004 6:37:58 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
I'm investing in some good hearing protection. I have a feeling the Kerry campaign, the media, the Soros crowd and our own home grown disgruntles are going to get very shrill before this is all over.
77 posted on 09/15/2004 6:39:53 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

That may be a bit disingenuous on your part. I know of no person in the government who said that pacifying, or conquering, Iraq would be a piece of cake by any stretch of the imagination.

By your lights, Paul Wolfowitz et al are some kind of mad-monk Rasputin types who oversee a cabal hell-bent on subjugating the entire Middle East to our version of mainstream life, which mainly consists of popping into the old minivan and cruising to Mickey D's for a few Happy Meals and some milkshakes :-)

True, Iraq has been a tough nut. And no one said it would be easy, either on the right or the left. But, even supposing that everything had magically fallen into place, if Saddam had immediately surrended, if the Sunni Triangle and other isolated pockets of insurgency had not developed into what they've become and Iran and Syria had turned over any and all former Iraqi Ba'athists that they're holding, would Messrs Kerry and Edwards be on CNN tonight proclaiming their admiration for the job done by the current administration? I think not, as this is the election season, and for reasons all too clear to most on this forum, no candidate will concede that the other candidate had succeeded at what was attempted. If they did, what reason would the electorate have to vote for them in the first place?


78 posted on 09/15/2004 6:43:22 PM PDT by BigKahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"You sound like - and may be -- one of the genuises who said pacifying Iraq would be a cakewalk"

Err, no, but I am one who knew it was necessary. I never once said it would be a "cakewalk" The people who said that were armchair lefty generals (reporters) what I did say is that it would require commitment. The biggest fear the Iraqi people had was that the Americans would cut and run when things got tuff. In case you haven't looked at the opinion of Iraqi's lately, 75% of them are very hopeful that they will be successful in becoming a free, democratic country. And yes, I do favor squashing these countries that support a crazy fundamentalist view of a world wide caliphate, and using terrorism to achieve it. Their idea is that the whole world must become Islam. I suppose you are a pasifist and will give up your freedom and become a 5 times a day prostrator to a rock god? I don't think you really understand what is going on in the world.

79 posted on 09/15/2004 6:51:32 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I'm not a pacifist, but I don't believe in warring on countries that don't directly threaten the U.S. and its national security. Iraq, without WMDS and with a 4th world army, didn't fall in that category. The fact that it was a dictatorship was sad (for the folks living there), but it's also sad for residents of China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan - and I also don't support US invasions of those countries. Anyway, all that is beside the point. AS long as folks like you want to see the US invade a bunch of countries in the middle east, you shouldn't be surprised that Edwards will get an audience when he warns about a possible draft.


80 posted on 09/15/2004 6:57:10 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson