PD, Alex and other people supporting Kerry.

[Mike AI]

Kerry has been campaigning that he will stay in Iraq, and do what needs to be done, staying as long as possible. Kerry claims he will just do things wiser, with allies and UN.

However, Kerry has the rabid support of Michael Moore, Barbra Steisand, Dean, and a bunch of other anti-war, get out of Iraq immediately people.

Do I trust what Kerry is saying on the campaign trail?? Or do I trust his anti-war supporters? Which is the real Kerry?? Who is going to be dissappointed??

[Dravyk]

How much can you trust ANY candidate ever that has run? What is the ratio of promises kept to promises made for past presidents?

Also ... doesn't matter what a president wants ... what will the makeup of the next Congress be? That's much more the deciding factor in what will or will not get pushed through.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 26 2004, 01:35 PM
Kerry has been campaigning that he will stay in Iraq, and do what needs to be done, staying as long as possible. Kerry claims he will just do things wiser, with allies and UN.

However, Kerry has the rabid support of Michael Moore, Barbra Steisand, Dean, and a bunch of other anti-war, get out of Iraq immediately people.

Do I trust what Kerry is saying on the campaign trail?? Or do I trust his anti-war supporters? Which is the real Kerry?? Who is going to be dissappointed??

Well Bush has the support of pinhead Christian crusaders and the religious right
I hear he's also picking up the KKK vote (obviously that won't be made public)
he's only losing the neo-nazi vote because they feel he's too sympathetic to the Jews...

I don't think we can honestly trust ANY politician will back themselves up 100% (remember Bush Sr.'s no new taxes?)

Heeey, remember when Reagen had his little arms scandal and he couldn't recall anything about it?

Remember Clinton's blowjob?

I really wish we had a better choice of legit candidates to choose from but we don't, so I'll vote for my own selfish agenda (environmental issues and Yucca mountain) and pray we get a better choice next election.

In fact, I'm going down to Galleria Mall tomorrow to cast my early ballot and push the button for John Kerry....I'm also pushing the button for a lot of local issues that'll probably effect me more personally over the next couple years anyways...like the legal reform issue and putting more cops on the streets to help with the growing population

[TheEnforcer]

The anti-war supporters will be dissappointed.

[RawAlex]

Mike, I think you have to seperate out the issue into two parts:

1 - would you have gone in there in the first place? For Kerry, the answer would not have been the same as Bush, at least not at the same time. Timing is everything, and the end results show how rushing into a job can be a mistake

2 - now that the troops are in there, do you just pull them out and leave? I think the answer from both sides is "no", Bush without a qualification, and Kerry with a huge "but"... that but being that the UN, other countries, including members of the Arab union need to be brought in to take over the situation and relieve the US troops. It is clear a military force is needed AS A RESULT OF AN ILL ADVISED INVASION, but keeping it as a US lead force will only lead to more confrontations.

This last week, the well known arab apparently leading the bombing campaign has pledged his support for Al Qaida, so much so that the group has changed it's name to Jihad Al Qaida. Bush is succeeded in bringing the war on terror TO Iraq, by creating the needed situation to allow these anarchists to work.

Just having the US troops up and leave on November 3rd would not be a good idea, but the reasons for having to stay and the intentions for that stay are different on both sides. I also think Bush would "be there for as long as there is a reason to stay" and Kerry is more of a "leave as soon as we can without leaving a huge mess behind".

Without the ill advised invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't need to have this discussion now, and there would almost certainly be less terrorists in that country.

Alex

[Sharpie]

Either one is going to have a man power problem......

It appears that we need a lot more troops to get the job done. Solving that problem is going to be a priority. If we could get a few other countries involved - that might solve the problem. Otherwise, I don't know what they are going to do. There is already a problem of reservists showing up. Moral is going to become a serious issue. These guys are getting tired of having their terms extended. This is becoming a more unpopular war every week. Looks like we bit off more than we can chew...... and it happened on Bush's watch & he still is unrelenting. Has he said how he is going to solve this manpower shortage?

[Mike AI]

DRAFT

BUSH IS GOING TO PUT IN THE DRAFT

BUSH IS USING A BACKDOOR DRAFT.




Sharpie - do you have any idea how large our military was during Reagan's 8 years? Clinton cut out military down by 50%. ( Most of this was a good call, no need for a huge military without cold war).

All the military has to do is recreuit more people, increase the pay and benefits, and the slots will be filled.

I think our miltiary should be larger as well. Another 50k special forces, 50k more Marines and another 50k speciality troops who will be trained to stabilize countries after we kick their asses.( MP, civil affairs, etc....)

[Peaches]

Heck, they don't even have to increase the pay and benefits, just loosen up the enlistment requirements and get congress to allot more money for more soldiers. Every single branch, including the guard and reserves, met their recruitment goals FY 04.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 26 2004, 05:29 PM
Heck, they don't even have to increase the pay and benefits, just loosen up the enlistment requirements and get congress to allot more money for more soldiers. Every single branch, including the guard and reserves, met their recruitment goals FY 04.

Exactly my point. I do think our troops should be paid more, and have better benefits - ESPECIALLY when in combat!

[Rolo]

The problems in Iraq will be less next year, when/if election have been held - then Iraq will have a goverment, which might not be the most democratic or efficient, but it will be something which the iraqis and the world can call a goverment - not perfect, but credible. Training of police should be the HIGHEST priority - sending trops from other countries (including arabic countries) will solve nothing, but only cause more problems, and terror.

If Kerry becomes president and goes to the UN and ask for soldiers, then he will not get any, but if a new iraqi goverment ask for solidiers, then they might get a few, however I´m sure they will not ask the UN for trops, instead they will be asking for money. Question will be if the world will step forward or continue with their irrational politics, which only serves for national polls, and not to solve problems in far away countries like Iraq... hopefully the high oil price will have gotten their attention (high oil price is not good for the EU, since it slows down their economy, and Russia + China have major interest in a secure world).

Now sending more US trops to Iraq might be a good idea short term so all of the major cities can be controlled, but again it will be better with local police, however time is a factor so I´m sure both Bush and Kerry will be sending more trops (elections are already planned for 31st january 2005).

[JR]

Bush Cares Enough To Make The Iraqi's Better People! - Does Kerry?

[wig]

Is this not the perfect election to vote for a 3rd party candidate like Badnerik (or Nader)?

I do not agree with everything the LP stands for, but they reflect my views the closest.

I voted for Harry Brown last time around and will vote for Badnerik this time.

Last time I was living in Austin, TX and now Ellijay, GA, neither swing states (not that it matters to me but might for some).

I find more fulfillment in the "fuck you" vote anyway.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Oct 27 2004, 07:19 AM
Is this not the perfect election to vote for a 3rd party candidate like Badnerik (or Nader)?

Isn't that a wasted vote or ...
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index...ST&f=1&t=14268

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 26 2004, 05:20 PM
DRAFT

BUSH IS GOING TO PUT IN THE DRAFT

BUSH IS USING A BACKDOOR DRAFT.




Sharpie - do you have any idea how large our military was during Reagan's 8 years? Clinton cut out military down by 50%. ( Most of this was a good call, no need for a huge military without cold war).

All the military has to do is recreuit more people, increase the pay and benefits, and the slots will be filled.

I think our miltiary should be larger as well. Another 50k special forces, 50k more Marines and another 50k speciality troops who will be trained to stabilize countries after we kick their asses.( MP, civil affairs, etc....)

Mike,

I think you are WAY off on this one.

You will not be able to sizably increase a volunteer military during an active time of war, UNLESS we are directly attacked.

Also the comparison to the Regan Era military makes no sense. - we had 20 years of peace before hand and no one thought we would ever really go to war with the Soviets, the fallout from a USA-USSR war would have devistated the world.

Also where does one find more money for soldiers when we have already placed ourselves in the largest debt in history.

Outspending the soviets with a deficit was a good move because we could outlast them. You can not tackle a bunch of terroist groups the same way you do another nation, especially when our OIL based economy is what is funding the terrorist groups.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by wig@Oct 27 2004, 07:19 AM
Is this not the perfect election to vote for a 3rd party candidate like Badnerik (or Nader)?

I do not agree with everything the LP stands for, but they reflect my views the closest.

I voted for Harry Brown last time around and will vote for Badnerik this time.

Last time I was living in Austin, TX and now Ellijay, GA, neither swing states (not that it matters to me but might for some).

I find more fulfillment in the "fuck you" vote anyway.

I've voted for Harry Browne for the last couple of times, but this year, I feel more strongly about unseating Bush and voting for the Libertarian candidate wouldn't accomplish that.

I'll still generally vote Libertarian on a local level because that's where there can be more changes made that are actually worthwhile. I often would do the "fuck you" vote and based on the theory that a Libertarian will never take the White House, but if they show strong enough numbers, the candidates from the "big two" will use their ideas.

"I'd rather be right than be President"
(I saw the Prohibition Party using that chant on The Daily Show)

[Evil Chris]

Kerry can pretty much do whatever once he gets in there. I hope he goes for an international coalition military presence asap, and then as soon as possible after that put in peacekeepers.

Or just pull 'em all out and say tough shit. Might not be a popular decision among "conservatives" in the short term, but whatever. Probably better to piss off a few at home than to have the rest of the world hating your country even more.

[Rolo]

Chris, I think the world would hate the US more, if trops are pulled out now without getting a new goverment in place.

Also who do you think will send trops, if Kerry becomes President? I do not recall any countries wanting to send trops, if Kerry wins, but I might have missed it...

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Oct 28 2004, 08:19 AM
Kerry can pretty much do whatever once he gets in there. I hope he goes for an international coalition military presence asap, and then as soon as possible after that put in peacekeepers.

Or just pull 'em all out and say tough shit. Might not be a popular decision among "conservatives" in the short term, but whatever. Probably better to piss off a few at home than to have the rest of the world hating your country even more.

Chris what planet are you on?

If Kerry wins, is Canada going to send troops to Iraq?

Do you think the French and Germans are going to?

Wake up man!!

[wig]

Originally posted by SykkBoy@Oct 27 2004, 12:45 PM
I often would do the "fuck you" vote and based on the theory that a Libertarian will never take the White House, but if they show strong enough numbers, the candidates from the "big two" will use their ideas.

Never thought of the two parties using the ideas and that is a good point.

And, they would do that if there was enough support amongst the populace.

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Oct 28 2004, 09:58 AM-->