State of the Union: decleration of War?

[drastik]

Of course, we have not formally declared war, but Bush is using some very strong language and when he does declare war, I imagine we will hear much of the same language.

I don't really want to fight this one out with everyone, I'm feeling that War is inevitable now, and it depreses me to talk about it.

I will say this. Many of the people here on Macrumors are around draft age. I have no doubt that the administration will reinstate the draft if it feels it neccesary. If any of you have to go, I'm sorry. Your president cares nothing for you and your opinions on this war.

This could be solved diplomatically, and if not by precision strike teams, but we have been promised "the full might of the United States armed forces" and that may mean you.

[Thanatoast]

while i do believe war is inevitable (and lamentable) i don't think bush could or would reinstitute the draft. it would be political suicide. and also, if we can't beat saddam with the 250,000 troops we're already sending, then i'm sure the next 250,000 would do it (all volunteer).

[drastik]

I hope your right. I've been hearing some talk about reinstating the draft on the Tv news shows. Mostly old fat white guys advocating it. I don't know how the draft works, as far as instating it, but I don't think that its impossible to reinstate.

[rainman::|:|]

i prepared for this contingency a couple of years ago-- i'm ineligible for the draft for a couple of medical reasons, but i got them on file with the military so i won't have to worry about it if and when the time comes.

call me a draft-dodger all you want, it's the way i'm gonna play it. i hope bush reinstating the draft (which is possibility) will make people wake up, but you never know.

pnw

[mozez]

my roomate is in the army and he's already been called up, i however, am a diabetic and can't be drafted, aww, i'm very hurt.... i think the whole thing is a child's fight, and not worth war. fights should be chosen wisely. it seems like we're picking a fight rather than defending freedom, and acting agressively at the wrong time. most americans feel the united states is the most powerful nation on earth, and it probably is, but doing this "showdown" makes us look very childish and overagressive, very microsoftish in the world. countries like germany, russia, france, canada, china and others ahve all said they want no part in this. war may be enevitble, but is it worth it if the people fighting it don't believe in what they are fighting for, or don't even know why they are fighting? we could attack iraq and take the country in less than a week, we won't, but we could, bush is trying to send a message by sending ove and army, instead of a strike force. i still don't understand his message, but that's just me.

[alex_ant]

I'm totally against the draft (and eligible to be a victim of it), but there are millions of young and able pro-war Republican males in this country who should be all for it. These guys alone would constitute more than enough force to pound the towelheads into the sand, right? I don't see why anyone should be required to fight for what they don't believe in, especially when there are so many out there who are more enthusiastic and better suited to the job.

The problem is that conservatives want liberals to fight their wars for them so that any mass slaughter that may result from their foolish actions will be distributed evenly along party lines. I find it disturbing how those who make the decisions about this stuff are completely detatched from it personally.

[Choppaface]

it's not a draft, it's an opportunity for mutiny :D :D mwhahahahahahahaa :D :D

Originally posted by alex_ant
I find it disturbing how those who make the decisions about this stuff are completely detatched from it personally.

though if we were all so involved in politics, there wouldn't be too much room for 'real life' though, would there? :D

[krossfyter]

if Bush is soo hell bent on war for wars sake why hasn't the war been declared already... and have had our troops sent in there? whats the stalling about?... if indeed he is wants war with Iraq and doesnt care about the american people.

[MacBandit]

I'm under the understanding that there is a bill about reinstating the draft currently being debated on up on the hill.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by drastik

I will say this. Many of the people here on Macrumors are around draft age. I have no doubt that the administration will reinstate the draft if it feels it neccesary. If any of you have to go, I'm sorry. Your president cares nothing for you and your opinions on this war.



Donald Rumsfeld (?) already said there's no way in hell this would happen. It's just ridiculous. Get your fact straight.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm under the understanding that there is a bill about reinstating the draft currently being debated on up on the hill.

This bill was just proposed by someone idiot congressman trying to make a statement. I can't recall his name, but he's black and represents an area of the northeast, and is basically a crackpot. Maybe that will help you recall his name? haha

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by drastik
I will say this. Many of the people here on Macrumors are around draft age. I have no doubt that the administration will reinstate the draft if it feels it neccesary. If any of you have to go, I'm sorry. Your president cares nothing for you and your opinions on this war.

Oh, this is intelligent. Man, that makes me feel so much better that you, can let us know just exactly what it is that our President feels. Did ya listen to the speech. Do you not understand that he values life more than anything! Do you not get that he knows that the biggest decision that a President can make is to send in the troops! Did ya not listen!


This could be solved diplomatically, and if not by precision strike teams, but we have been promised "the full might of the United States armed forces" and that may mean you.

Oh, you mean like it has over the last 12 years! Give this guy another 12 years, and you know what. You won't have to worry about a draft, a girlfriend, social security, or the economy. Because he will give these weapons away, and they will be used for mass, and I mean in the neighborhood of millions dead, mass murder. It is going to happen, it needs to happen, and if you can't see that then you are blind!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by alex_ant

The problem is that conservatives want liberals to fight their wars for them so that any mass slaughter that may result from their foolish actions will be distributed evenly along party lines. I find it disturbing how those who make the decisions about this stuff are completely detatched from it personally.

You know what Alex. You live up north. You are just a hop, skip and jump from Canada, if they reinstituted the draft, just go north man. Hell, this country isn't worth defending. Did ya not hear that there will be evidence released to the world that proves Sadam has ties to and even helped train Al Queada?

Oh, and as far as stating that conservatives want liberals to fight their wars for them so that...... I have heard some stupid **** in my life, but that, without a doubt, is the dumbest statement that anyone over the age of 3 has ever uttered in their life!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
You know what Alex. You live up north. You are just a hop, skip and jump from Canada, if they reinstituted the draft, just go north man. Hell, this country isn't worth defending.
Some would leave. I won't, because that would mean handing the country I love to the stiff upper lips. I'll be bitching and moaning about this and anything else until Ashcroft locks me up without a trial.
Did ya not hear that there will be evidence released to the world that proves Sadam has ties to and even helped train Al Queada?
So what? So if we bomb Iraq then al Qaida is no longer a threat? Or it's even any less of a threat? The war on terrorism is a shadow war and Iraq is a convenient scapegoat.
Oh, and as far as stating that conservatives want liberals to fight their wars for them so that...... I have heard some stupid **** in my life, but that, without a doubt, is the dumbest statement that anyone over the age of 3 has ever uttered in their life!
How is it dumb? Conservatives would be delighted if liberals went out en masse to fight these ridiculous wars. And mass deaths of voting age liberals --> greater conservative chances of political victory. It makes perfect sense, you see.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by alex_ant

How is it dumb? Conservatives would be delighted if liberals went out en masse to fight these ridiculous wars. And mass deaths of voting age liberals --> greater conservative chances of political victory. It makes perfect sense, you see. [/B]

Ok, **** you! You are a dumb ass, beyond what the word dumb ass means. Screw you if you think that republicans want anyone to die. You a stupid ****er Alex, you really are. You can make stupid ass statements, you can even insult my president. But to say with any seriousness that anyone in this country would want young men and women to die for their political preference is stupid as ****!

Besides your arguement is flawed from the beginning because most military people are republican.

Having served under Bill Clinton, my father under three presidents, and grandfather under three, you can kiss our collective ass for that bull **** opinion.

Arn, sorry for the rant. In over two years I have never done that, but that was a direct insult to me. One that cannot go without discussion, and hostitility.

[Backtothemac]

I want to say I am sorry to everyone at Macrumors. I have never went off like that, but that really pissed me off.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Did ya listen to the speech. Do you not understand that he values life more than anything! Do you not get that he knows that the biggest decision that a President can make is to send in the troops! Did ya not listen!


I'm not going to participate in the draft/war discussion, but I do want to say that I have heard Bush talk about how he wants to help all americans and how he wants to create policies and incentives that will help the little guy.

Unfortunately, his tax proposals aren't "for the little guy" and they certainly aren't "fair."

I've also heard him say all sorts of other things, while he hides a whole lot more from us.

So, yes, I did listen; I'm just not sure whether I trust the guy.

[Ovi]

11

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain


I'm not going to participate in the draft/war discussion, but I do want to say that I have heard Bush talk about how he wants to help all americans and how he wants to create policies and incentives that will help the little guy.

Unfortunately, his tax proposals aren't "for the little guy" and they certainly aren't "fair."

I've also heard him say all sorts of other things, while he hides a whole lot more from us.

So, yes, I did listen; I'm just not sure whether I trust the guy.

mcrain, his proposals are for the little guy and are fair. It will give me and my family back over 2,000 of our money this year. He is right about Small business. This cut would put more money back into small business so that they can stimulate the economy.

Sorry to be rude, but lets face it. The people that make below 20,000 a year are not going to be the people that spend us out of this recession. The people who will are the people who have it. My best friends dad made 1.2 million last year and paid over 400,000 in taxes. Under the proposed plan according to his cpa he would have paid right at 360,000. So, does he get the biggest benifit in whole dollars, yes, in overall % points. No. I made over 35,000 last year, and you know what. Because of the things that Bush wants to do, I will not pay any tax, and get back over 2,500 in child credits and lifetime education credits.

Nothing is going to be fair to everyone, but with 92 million people earning dividens on stocks, that is a pretty fair one to cut. Killing the marriage penalty is huge to me and my wife. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Don't be such a tax loving democrat ;)
B2TM ducks into a nuclear bunker for fear of mcrains response!

[Juventuz]

Congressman Charles Rangel proposed to idea of reinstituting the draft, nothing more.

The US doesn't need a draft, especially to fight against Iraq.

With the technology in todays military you need less people then you did 20 years ago.

[Thanatoast]

unequal sharing of blessings....

so i should be happy b/c everyone who makes over $300,000 a year is getting a giant tax cut? how much tax are you saving on *your* dividends. i certainly hold no stock. just b/c capitalism distributes resources unevenly does not mean the best way to help the economy is to line the pockets of the rich. which is exactly what will happen. very little of that money will go towards creating new jobs/pay raises/etc. trickle down economincs at its best, eh?

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
unequal sharing of blessings....

so i should be happy b/c everyone who makes over $300,000 a year is getting a giant tax cut? how much tax are you saving on *your* dividends. i certainly hold no stock. just b/c capitalism distributes resources unevenly does not mean the best way to help the economy is to line the pockets of the rich. which is exactly what will happen. very little of that money will go towards creating new jobs/pay raises/etc. trickle down economincs at its best, eh?

Damn, didn't you hear me. I won't have to pay any tax, and I only made 35,000 last year. The rich pay a higher % of all the taxes now than they ever have. The thing is that no one will ever be happy with all of the tax.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


You know what Alex. You live up north. You are just a hop, skip and jump from Canada, if they reinstituted the draft, just go north man. Hell, this country isn't worth defending. Did ya not hear that there will be evidence released to the world that proves Sadam has ties to and even helped train Al Queada?


It's funny how racist and bigoted you are. You think that just because we dispise war and killing we are liberals or anti-american. You couldn't be further from the truth. Most of us are conservatives or we were until Bush came along. We value life above all and that is why we dispise war. Don't fool yourself into thinking there is no other way and that we didn't somehow cause the actions of 9/11. Killing NEVER prevents killing. It only works to propagate it futher. I do not support the war effort and I do not support the draft but if there is a draft I will not dodge it and go to canada. I will not go to school full time. I will sign up before they draft me so that I may have some choice on what I do in the military.

Oh, and by the way. We also helped train the Al Queada. Should we declare war on ourselves because we supported terrorists? Well we did and we even gave them weapons.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by MacBandit
It's funny how racist and bigoted you are.

What does racism or bigotry have to do with this? It's funny how people are so quick to label that to someone when it doesn't apply.

Oh, and by the way. We also helped train the Al Queada. Should we declare war on ourselves because we supported terrorists? Well we did and we even gave them weapons.

That's one of the biggest myths out there, we never trained or supplied Al Qaeda.

If you say we have, we are your sources. I mean legitimate ones too, not ones from www.wehatetheus.com type of sites.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
mcrain, his proposals are for the little guy and are fair. It will give me and my family back over 2,000 of our money this year. He is right about Small business. This cut would put more money back into small business so that they can stimulate the economy.

Sorry to be rude, but lets face it. The people that make below 20,000 a year are not going to be the people that spend us out of this recession. The people who will are the people who have it. My best friends dad made 1.2 million last year and paid over 400,000 in taxes. Under the proposed plan according to his cpa he would have paid right at 360,000. So, does he get the biggest benifit in whole dollars, yes, in overall % points. No. I made over 35,000 last year, and you know what. Because of the things that Bush wants to do, I will not pay any tax, and get back over 2,500 in child credits and lifetime education credits.

Nothing is going to be fair to everyone, but with 92 million people earning dividens on stocks, that is a pretty fair one to cut. Killing the marriage penalty is huge to me and my wife. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Don't be such a tax loving democrat ;)
B2TM ducks into a nuclear bunker for fear of mcrains response!

No nuclear response. You argue that wealthy americans will spend us out of a recession. In fact, that's opposite of the truth. If you have a million extra sitting in the bank or the stock market, the odds are that if someone gives you an additional 300,000, you aren't going to be going on a spending spree. You'll probably just look for another safe investment.

On the other hand, the businesses that you'd invest in sell products that people use on a day to day basis. Those businesses are far more likely to see a huge increase in sales if a far larger number of people on the low end of the totem pole receive a small amount of additional money. Those people are far more likely to take their extra couple thousand dollars and spend it rather than stick it into a safe investment.

If increasing spending is really your goal, then the tax cuts should be to married couples with children, people who make less than 60,000 or so per year, sales, excise, property, state and local taxes, and all the other taxes that disproportionately target the less wealthy.

If fairness is really your goal, then I'm sure you've evaluated the effects of the proposed federal income tax cuts on the distribution of the overall tax burden. We've had this discussion before, and you know my opinions.

I personally am very much for lowering taxes and for the free exercise of capitalism (please, to those of you who like to insinuate that democrats or liberals are wrong, the whole socialism communism name calling thing is getting really old).

Oh, and the rich don't pay a higher percentage in taxes than they ever have. That's an absolute farce. Before Reagan the federal income tax brackets were far highter. 36% is fairly low historically speaking. You love your military history, you might find tax history rather interesting too. Oh, while you didn't say that "rich pay a higher percentage of all the taxes now," that too is false. They do pay a very high percentage of federal income taxes, probably the highest percentage of all time (I don't know), but that is only, yes ONLY, taking into account federal income taxes. Of the overall tax burden, the distribution is far more even.

Oh, how and why do you think the rich pay so much more percentage in income taxes than they used to? Could it possibly be that the trickle down economics under Reagan and Bush really did nothing more than make the rich richer and the poor poorer? If so, why do you advocate W. Bush's new trickle down economics proposals?

mcrain ducks into a nuclear shelter...

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Juventuz
What does racism or bigotry have to do with this? It's funny how people are so quick to label that to someone when it doesn't apply.

That's one of the biggest myths out there, we never trained or supplied Al Qaeda.

If you say we have, we are your sources. I mean legitimate ones too, not ones from www.wehatetheus.com type of sites.

Al Qaeda is composed of Afgan freedom fighters. During the 80's when the U.S.S.R. was having its little Vietnam over there, we supported the Afgan freedom fighters by providing them missles, weapons, and training. I think that's pretty well documented.

[drastik]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Oh, this is intelligent. Man, that makes me feel so much better that you, can let us know just exactly what it is that our President feels. Did ya listen to the speech. Do you not understand that he values life more than anything! Do you not get that he knows that the biggest decision that a President can make is to send in the troops! Did ya not listen!



Oh, you mean like it has over the last 12 years! Give this guy another 12 years, and you know what. You won't have to worry about a draft, a girlfriend, social security, or the economy. Because he will give these weapons away, and they will be used for mass, and I mean in the neighborhood of millions dead, mass murder. It is going to happen, it needs to happen, and if you can't see that then you are blind! [/B]

I'm not going to be drawn into a fight here, B2TM, you and I are way to opionated to change the other's mind. I think that Bush has a grasp of what it means to send in troops, but he has failed to listen to the reasoning of the rest of the world so far, and his mind is certainly made up regaurding this matter.

I've posted this before, but I'll do it again because people didn't seem to listen before:

Regieme change in Iraq is certianly needed, but a full out war is not the answer. A strike force would be the best option as Saddam won't go of his own will. But this is not worth a lot of American lives. Not to mention that our economy is in the toilet, and we lose massive amounts of money everytime the president says the word Iraq. After the SoTU last night Lou Dobbs got on TV and started talking about how the market is going to love the war talk. What happened? We dropped more than a hundred within a hlaf hour of the bell and we've gained little back.

[wdlove]

It's the uncertainity that is driving the markets down, they prefer stability. Once there is a resolution then investors will return.

[drastik]

Uncertainty is definitely an ingredient, as are a crappy earnings season (thankfully closing soon). Still I find it striking that everytime Bush and Co. com with more war rhetoric, the market immediately drops. Hundreds of points.

The tax issue:

I'm on board for the tax cuts, but I do feel they need to go farther. The current peroposals do not benefit the lower class as much, and I feel they should be beefed up in that area. I think the proposed cuts for the upperclass are righ in line, along with abolition of estate tax and easing on mariage penalty.

Regaurdless of my left leaning war theorys, I am fiscally very conservative. This has grown out of time and my experience working with state and federal government (SSA Disability, state run, federally required).

Every government agency I've had contact with has been run so inefficiently that ts almost funny. What we need, along with the tax cuts, is a good plan for cleaning this mess up. That way, the government can operate on more realistic money.

Interestingly, one person who shares my view on this one is the new Govenor of Tennessee, a DEMOCRAT no less, who ran on a no state income tax ticket and a week into his term is planning to cut about 380 million dollars in state waste in his first year. Talk about your role reversals. Our former, republican govenor, wanted to institute a tiered state income tax that would have heavily leaned upon the rich.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by MacBandit



It's funny how racist and bigoted you are. You think that just because we dispise war and killing we are liberals or anti-american. You couldn't be further from the truth. Most of us are conservatives or we were until Bush came along. We value life above all and that is why we dispise war. Don't fool yourself into thinking there is no other way and that we didn't somehow cause the actions of 9/11. Killing NEVER prevents killing. It only works to propagate it futher. I do not support the war effort and I do not support the draft but if there is a draft I will not dodge it and go to canada. I will not go to school full time. I will sign up before they draft me so that I may have some choice on what I do in the military.

Oh, and by the way. We also helped train the Al Queada. Should we declare war on ourselves because we supported terrorists? Well we did and we even gave them weapons.

You know what, that is the ultimate form of ignorance. Call me a racist and biggot. That is rich. I am a minority fool!
Yea, we caused 9/11, man, I won't even respond to that statement.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by drastik


I'm not going to be drawn into a fight here, B2TM, you and I are way to opionated to change the other's mind. I think that Bush has a grasp of what it means to send in troops, but he has failed to listen to the reasoning of the rest of the world so far, and his mind is certainly made up regaurding this matter.

I've posted this before, but I'll do it again because people didn't seem to listen before:

Regieme change in Iraq is certianly needed, but a full out war is not the answer. A strike force would be the best option as Saddam won't go of his own will. But this is not worth a lot of American lives. Not to mention that our economy is in the toilet, and we lose massive amounts of money everytime the president says the word Iraq. After the SoTU last night Lou Dobbs got on TV and started talking about how the market is going to love the war talk. What happened? We dropped more than a hundred within a hlaf hour of the bell and we've gained little back.

Ok, I am not going to fight with you because you are normally very rational. But I ask you this, how can we let him continue to exist, and then use those weapons one day, or give them to someone who can? How do you propose we remove him from power?

Oh, and what do economies do after war?

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, **** you! You are a dumb ass, beyond what the word dumb ass means. Screw you if you think that republicans want anyone to die. You a stupid ****er Alex, you really are. You can make stupid ass statements, you can even insult my president. But to say with any seriousness that anyone in this country would want young men and women to die for their political preference is stupid as ****!
Compassionate conservatism?

It wasn't an insult to you or to anyone. It was a fact. "Republicans would be delighted if liberals like me would go off and get killed in war because, with no one left to vote against them, it would strengthen them politically." I make a statement and you respond with nothing but bile and contempt. You obviously have a number of problems, anger management and an intense inferiority complex being only the least of them. All I can say is that kind of response is not unexpected. I do like and respect you though, B2tm, even if you do annoy the **** out of me, and I wish you the best.

Back on topic, I was pleasantly surprised at the State of the Union. I was expecting stern & uncompromising language, but I found a surprising degree of levelheadedness, and the aid to Africa came as a delightful shock. Thankfully there were no more "axis of evil" style gaffes. Bush's respectability in my mind just went up a notch... but only a notch :)

[rainman::|:|]

backtothemac, i've always respected you, but you no longer have any cause to ever complain about party bashing again. at least they stopped at the party, you take it to a very personal level.

pnw

[Backtothemac]

Alex,
I wish you the best, and respect you as well, but that statement was full of just plain stupidity. This has nothing to do with parties. To imply that the republican party would want to have young democrats die is crazy.

Paul,
That was just an attack at his statement, not him. Please understand that was not an insult to my party, but to my country.

[Detuned Radio]

delete

[vniow]

Well I do that anywayz, not just to dodge the draft, besides, some of those drafting officers are hot!!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I wish you the best, and respect you as well, but that statement was full of just plain stupidity. This has nothing to do with parties. To imply that the republican party would want to have young democrats die is crazy.
I never said they would. Indeed they wouldn't - unless they were forced to choose between a young Republican and a young Democrat or non-Democrat liberal. And they would sob about it alright... all the way to victory at the polls. You've said this assertion is stupid, but saying it's stupid doesn't make it stupid. If you want to consider it an attack on your country, feel free. I have no qualms attacking my own country's government on other topics such as its legitimization and overwhelming acceptance of rampant corruption. That is one difference between you and me, I think - I criticize, and you say "If you don't like ____, shut up and move to Canada."

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I never said they would. Indeed they wouldn't - unless they were forced to choose between a young Republican and a young Democrat or non-Democrat liberal. And they would sob about it alright... all the way to victory at the polls. You've said this assertion is stupid, but saying it's stupid doesn't make it stupid. If you want to consider it an attack on your country, feel free. I have no qualms attacking my own country's government on other topics such as its legitimization and overwhelming acceptance of rampant corruption. That is one difference between you and me, I think - I criticize, and you say "If you don't like ____, shut up and move to Canada." [/B]

Alex, to question the government is fine. I do it myself. My point was that you put a really negative comment on something that is very delicate as it is. Truthfully, it would hurt the party if there were a lot of deaths in a war because most military people are republican. So the argument doesn't hold water as it is. The idea that they would be happy about it is just insane don't you see that! I mean come on. That is like saying that the Democrats would be happy if a nuclear bomb went off in the south. That way they would have a better chance of winning the white house. Noone in political office would like to see, nor be happy about the deaths of millions of people, or thousands of people to help them gain office. That is just evil.

[Macmaniac]

Originally posted by vniow
Well I do that anywayz, not just to dodge the draft, besides, some of those drafting officers are hot!!
Finally some common sense;) ;) ;) ;)
Wheres the buckle up sign when you need it???:confused:
First of all regieme change is needed, Saddam is no model citizen, he has to go, we let him sit there and make war and gas his own people.
A draft won't solve much, draftess would get less training and instuction and also it would cost alot more money to handle a draft, making the economy even worse.
I'm a Quaker and why not just force Saddam into exile, or a coup??? Something will happen, I just hope if we do go to war we exercise caution and act like prodessionals like we are, low civillian casultys and low Ameirican deaths.
Peace is Patriotic!!!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Alex, to question the government is fine. I do it myself. My point was that you put a really negative comment on something that is very delicate as it is. Truthfully, it would hurt the party if there were a lot of deaths in a war because most military people are republican. So the argument doesn't hold water as it is. The idea that they would be happy about it is just insane don't you see that! I mean come on. That is like saying that the Democrats would be happy if a nuclear bomb went off in the south. That way they would have a better chance of winning the white house. Noone in political office would like to see, nor be happy about the deaths of millions of people, or thousands of people to help them gain office. That is just evil.
They wouldn't be happy about the death, they would be happy about the positive political repurcussions of that death. When Paul Wellstone died, Republicans were right there at his memorial, but they'd be lying if they said they minded gaining his Senate seat, even though if the election had been held the day before he died, he would have won it. What would you rather have happen, if one HAD to happen: 1) 90 Republicans & 10 Democrats killed in a war, or, say, 2) 40 Republicans and 60 pro-choice Democrats? Of course Republicans don't want death, but any Republican who wouldn't honestly answer 2 if given no other choices would be lying.

Anyway, that's not my point - my point is that the draft is an all-inclusive, predominantly conservative idea that affects even those who don't want and/or don't believe in a particular war or in war in general. (Liberals.) And I'm glad that it doesn't look like it's going to happen in this Iraq war, because if it were, I would dodge it and probably be on my way to being ass-raped (thanks to conservative "justice" policies that sweep prison rape under the table) at a federal prison. And I would be no less of a patriot for doing so.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Ok, I am not going to fight with you because you are normally very rational. But I ask you this, how can we let him continue to exist, and then use those weapons one day, or give them to someone who can? How do you propose we remove him from power?

Oh, and what do economies do after war?

Okay I do have to appologize. I don't usually resort to name calling and it didn't come out the way I wanted it to. What I'm trying to say is that you are giving me the impression that you think that anyone who is anti-war is anti-american and also therefore can't possibly be a conservative. If that is true I must say that that is absolutely wrong.

[brogers]

I wish someone could give me a good definition of imminent threat. I mean, were the Jap ships massing in the pacific days before December 7, 1941 an imminent threat or was it that morning when the planes were flying over Hawaii. Or maybe imminent was when the terrroists bombed the Cole, the Embasy in Africa, the 1993 World Trade Center attack, or maybe it was the morning of September 11, 2001 when the planes were flying over New York City.

If there is one chance that one bomb or missle could be sold to terrorist from Iraq or stole from Iraq then hey, that is imminent enough for me.

Remember people, Sadam is playing cat and mouse with the inspectors. They are suppoed to be inspecting not searching and playing a scavanger hunt. A smoking gun is only smoking AFTER it has been fired.

And lastely, if I were not intelligent, I would make statements like.....

"Clinton did not care about the American people. He only wanted to lie and get hummers in the Oval Office."

"Democrate politicians just want to talk about helping the poor save on taxes while they laugh all they way to the bank with all the money they save from Republican tax cuts." (oh wait, that one may be true)

"Liberals just want to tortue all conservatives by putting them in conservative run rape prisons. that is their whole agenda."

Guess I have to go somewhere else for intellectual banter becuse what I see here is a bunch of ludicrous statements trashing the Republican party and conservatives. I mean I think most of the people here would rather vote out Bush at the same time they vote to have Sadam remain in power. Oh wait...another half baked ludicrous statement.

Let's go to war, get the objective done and get it behind us. All will be OK. The ecomomy will strengthen in time, business will begin investing again, stocks will rise and the war mongering GWB won't have killed off whordes of liberals in the name of votes. One thing will remain the same though. The rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and the middle class will still be, well, middle class. I don't care who is in the White House and what their economic plan is.

[wdlove]

Very well said broger. ;)

It is very important who is in the White House, especially with the economy. Our current president wants to see the American taxpayer keep more of his/her income. That the US should decide it's own foreign affairs. We do what is good in the interest of the US. We should not worry what France thinks!

[vixapphire]

at least learn how to spell "Declaration", eh? What's next, "Make Lurv, Not Wer" placards at demonstrations? :rolleyes:

[vixapphire]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
while i do believe war is inevitable (and lamentable) i don't think bush could or would reinstitute the draft. it would be political suicide. and also, if we can't beat saddam with the 250,000 troops we're already sending, then i'm sure the next 250,000 would do it (all volunteer).

i dont' know whether someone else on the thread has already mentioned this, but it should be said, since the issue of reinstating the draft is very much a political issue, that thus far, the only politicians in washington that have been raising it as a possibility with any seriousness (or mock-seriousness, as it may be if they're that cynical) have been a small handful of Senators from the Democratic Party, not Bush nor the Republicans. For what it's worth...

[Thanatoast]

true. they were doing it to shame bush into reconsidering his actions. didn't work, apparently.

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by brogers
I wish someone could give me a good definition of imminent threat.

since this is a subjective assessment, you will not find one.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

You know what, that is the ultimate form of ignorance. Call me a racist and biggot. That is rich. I am a minority fool!


i'm certainly not saying you are a racist. but being a minority does not qualify you as "not" a racist.

shizzle

alex: what you fail to point out is that democrats would feel the same way if a bunch of republicans went and died in a war... ie, not enjoy the death per se, but the political power gain that results.... word. pants pissers party need not have other party members die, as we rule the roost from the getgo. no need to "gain the upperhand"...

[brogers]

Originally posted by wdlove
Very well said broger. ;)

It is very important who is in the White House, especially with the economy. Our current president wants to see the American taxpayer keep more of his/her income. That the US should decide it's own foreign affairs. We do what is good in the interest of the US. We should not worry what France thinks!

Thanks and sorry for the confusion. I do care who is in the White House. I support Bush 100%. I was saying that the poor would still be poor, the rich would still be rich and the middle class middle no matter who is in the White House. Those are facts of life.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by brogers
Thanks and sorry for the confusion. I do care who is in the White House. I support Bush 100%. I was saying that the poor would still be poor, the rich would still be rich and the middle class middle no matter who is in the White House. Those are facts of life.
Under a conservative administration as opposed to a properly enabled liberal administration with sufficient power, the rich tend to be richer and the poor tend to be poorer.
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
alex: what you fail to point out is that democrats would feel the same way if a bunch of republicans went and died in a war... ie, not enjoy the death per se, but the political power gain that results.... word. pants pissers party need not have other party members die, as we rule the roost from the getgo. no need to "gain the upperhand"...
Democrats yes. An actual respectable leftist would never have to face the question because he/she would never get into such a stupid war in the first place. Werd... Hmm.. I like that... werd again

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by MacBandit


Okay I do have to appologize. I don't usually resort to name calling and it didn't come out the way I wanted it to. What I'm trying to say is that you are giving me the impression that you think that anyone who is anti-war is anti-american and also therefore can't possibly be a conservative. If that is true I must say that that is absolutely wrong.


No, you misunderstand. I want people to challenge the government and my ideals as well. I think that is what makes us American. I just don't see how people can not be for this war personally, that is all. Actually, I wish Saddam would just go into excile. That would be the easiest and best solution. He won't. He won't disarm, and he will continue to use terror as a method to reach out to his enemies.

No hard feelings. ;)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, you misunderstand. I want people to challenge the government and my ideals as well. I think that is what makes us American. I just don't see how people can not be for this war personally, that is all. Actually, I wish Saddam would just go into excile. That would be the easiest and best solution. He won't. He won't disarm, and he will continue to use terror as a method to reach out to his enemies.

No hard feelings. ;)

Here's the difficulty. I have not seen any "evidence" that Saddam hasn't disarmed, that he has used terror recently, or that he's developing WMDs.

I've heard people talk about it as if it exists, but there are a lot of questions left unasnswered in the general public, which is bad enough, but the people we should be sharing our most secret information with aren't even convinced that there is a reason to go to war.

While I agree we should do whatever is necessary if it is necessary, I can't agree it is necessary until either I'm presented with evidence, or a third party (preferably more than one) is presented with evidence and they agree that war is necessary.

When that happens, I won't question Jr.'s motives or the necessity of war. Until then, I just don't trust Bush as much as you do.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac



No, you misunderstand. I want people to challenge the government and my ideals as well. I think that is what makes us American. I just don't see how people can not be for this war personally, that is all. Actually, I wish Saddam would just go into excile. That would be the easiest and best solution. He won't. He won't disarm, and he will continue to use terror as a method to reach out to his enemies.

No hard feelings. ;)

You have to understand that I am by nature against any war. Because of this I need proof of the reasons for the war and I just haven't been shown them yet. Personally I think this is a Middle East problem and always has been. We should have gotten out of the Middle east 30 years ago. I believe that if we had 9/11 would have never happened.

Yeah no hard feelings here either. Just in the future avoid grouping people based on assumptions because of there views.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mcrain

When that happens, I won't question Jr.'s motives or the necessity of war. Until then, I just don't trust Bush as much as you do.

It's hard to trust someone who came up with the Homeland Security Act. This Act and the branches off of it that it will allow are and will take away a lot of freedoms. This whole thing has really gotten me pissed off at the man that I voted for.:mad:

[wdlove]

A possible working solution for those without health insurance, mandatory health insurance. Possibly could help everyone and it not a government run program. A government health program would increase cost. Possibly a compromise to bring Democrats & Republicans together. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31HALS.html?tntemail1