hmmm... more troops... who woulda thunk it?

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

so, we send 1,500 more, and we're going to try to delay the draft as much as we can by making those who are already over there stay 4 months longer than we said we were goin to... all for what? oh, and take special note the "sub-headline"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/01/iraq.main/index.html

[Longest]

so, we send 1,500 more, and we're going to try to delay the draft as much as we can by making those who are already over there stay 4 months longer than we said we were goin to... all for what? oh, and take special note the "sub-headline"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/01/iraq.main/index.html

There is still no movement on the draft front. Point to something substantial other than troop deployments, possibly % of our total armed forces versus % committed to Iraq would be a useful statistic.

Dan

[roughrider]

It seems the next logical conclussion. Longer deployments. Refusal to go back by guard troops. Shrinking volunteer numbers. What could we do next when the fighting is excalating (November having the highest casulity number in the entire war)

[V-cut]

fighting isn't escalating... they are just getting more proficient with their bombing tactics...

[TheKOB]

It's to stabalize the elections, since no one else seems to care whether the Iraqis have safe elections. To my knowledge, the only mention of a draft has been on this board.

On a related note, did you hear about the senator asking for Kofi to step down because Iraq defrauded the Oil for Food program so much on his watch?
How worthless is the UN?

[Longest]

It's to stabalize the elections, since no one else seems to care whether the Iraqis have safe elections. To my knowledge, the only mention of a draft has been on this board.

On a related note, did you hear about the senator asking for Kofi to step down because Iraq defrauded the Oil for Food program so much on his watch?
How worthless is the UN?

Although not a single nation-state backed the Senator's call, even our State Dept stopped short of calling for that. I like how Annan says we can trust him that he didn't know anything when it was his son receiving the brunt of the money. But if it involved the US in some way, people would be screaming for independent investigations and resignations out the wazoo.

Dan

[roughrider]

Wrong. There was a were bills going through the house and senate proposing a draft.

... only they got defeated something like 402-2.

The whole issue is this. On the department of defense website there was something about appyling for draft board positions. Bloggers saw this and began the rumor. Big news picked up the story from the blogs. It was proposed by a southern republican and was shot down before the elections. THis was for people to say of Bush-see he doesnt want the draft back. and things of such nature if you ask me.

[zak]

But if it involved the US in some way, people would be screaming for independent investigations and resignations out the wazoo.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/24/congress.diplomats.reut/
Its a huge double standard for the U.S. People are just looking for reasons to hate on us. Then again I wonder why that is...

[Longest]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/24/congress.diplomats.reut/
Its a huge double standard for the U.S. People are just looking for reasons to hate on us. Then again I wonder why that is...

You tell me, why is that? That is the question of the hour that no one can satisfactorily answer. People have suggestsed it's b/c we're predominantly a Christian nation; b/c we have an air of arrogance and imperialism; b/c we don't help others enough; b/c we meddle too much; b/c we're the Great Satan. None of those help us, in any way, approach a solution I fear because it is far more complicated then a simple "We did X so they hate us".

Dan

[Longest]

The whole issue is this. On the department of defense website there was something about appyling for draft board positions. Bloggers saw this and began the rumor. Big news picked up the story from the blogs. It was proposed by a southern republican and was shot down before the elections. THis was for people to say of Bush-see he doesnt want the draft back. and things of such nature if you ask me.

Half right, half wrong. The Congressman that proposed it voted it against it and was on record as saying that he only wanted to create a dialogue concerning the Iraq war and the draft as a future possibilty.

Dan

[zak]

You tell me, why is that? That is the question of the hour that no one can satisfactorily answer. People have suggestsed it's b/c we're predominantly a Christian nation; b/c we have an air of arrogance and imperialism; b/c we don't help others enough; b/c we meddle too much; b/c we're the Great Satan. None of those help us, in any way, approach a solution I fear because it is far more complicated then a simple "We did X so they hate us".

Dan

Exactly, everyone has some little thing that they pick out and hate us for. What happened to the days when people overlooked Americas faults. Have you heard that Kennedey anecdote from the Cuban missle crisis, he went to the French ambassador or someone and asked for help. He was prepared to show all these top-secret pictures and intelligence documents but the French guy just said "No no no the word of the American president is good enough for me." and agreed to help him. Now France and the US are far from that. I think time and a new president are the only things that will help us now.

[Thrillhouse]

X = We aren't paying enough for thier oil.

[Thrillhouse]

The whole issue is this. On the department of defense website there was something about appyling for draft board positions. Bloggers saw this and began the rumor. Big news picked up the story from the blogs. It was proposed by a southern republican and was shot down before the elections. THis was for people to say of Bush-see he doesnt want the draft back. and things of such nature if you ask me.

By "Southern Republican" you mean, Northeast Democrat, right?

" — sponsored by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat — was defeated 402-2, with even Mr. Rangel voting against the proposal that called for reinstituting the practice abandoned in 1973 when the military converted to an all-volunteer force."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-012158-2811r.htm

[Dreagen]

The First thing that I want to mention is that they are not even close to reinstating the Draft. I have worked in or around the Military for over 12 years. Right now they are offering active duty members early retirement. I know at least the Air Force is 120% manned right now. The other thing I want to say is as an American living in Europe for the Past 3 years. The Europe community does not like Bush that is nothing New. As far as Germany is concerned they are a Socialist Government and they don't agree with a lot of things that Americans do. As a Person that was within 10 Feet of President Bush, Tony Blair and the Spain President during the Sumit meeting in Portugal right before the War started I can say, They went to the UN for help. They got the UN to agree to a date that the Weapons Inspections in Iraq had to be complied with, they got the UN to say they would help the War if it was not complied with by that date. After that Dat the UN did not want to do anything about it. The UN and its Members are mad at BUSH and BLAIR because they followed what the UN said but was afraid to act.
So my thing is There will be no Draft.
As far as the war in Iraq - Suddam was a dictator, He murder many people. He needed to be removed.
And as far as hating Bush - That is your right go for it. But remember he the president he was voted in by the majority of the people. therfore he speaks for the Majority.
The other thing I want to say is Support the War effort. Even if you don't agree, support it. there are lots of Men and Women sacrificing a lot for this war the more they hear that Americans don't support it the lower their Moral is and the lower their chances are of coming back.
One more thing I do believe everylife counts and losing one in a war is terrible but these people that keep counting the numbers and acting like they are high needs to look back in history. We have been at war for over a year now. How many people were lost after a year during Vietnam, World War I + II, Korea??? If you want to be a number cruncher look up those stats someday.

[TheKOB]

Wrong. There was a were bills going through the house and senate proposing a draft.

... only they got defeated something like 402-2.


Sorry....no *serious* mention of the draft.

[roughrider]

The other thing I want to say is Support the War effort. Even if you don't agree, support it. there are lots of Men and Women sacrificing a lot for this war the more they hear that Americans don't support it the lower their Moral is and the lower their chances are of coming back.
One more thing I do believe everylife counts and losing one in a war is terrible but these people that keep counting the numbers and acting like they are high needs to look back in history. We have been at war for over a year now. How many people were lost after a year during Vietnam, World War I + II, Korea??? If you want to be a number cruncher look up those stats someday.

I am not going to support a war I don't agree with. I will however support the troops who are fighting in Iraq for unnecessary reasons. The anti-war crowd has gotten alot of crap from the right for not being "Patriotic" because we dont blindly agree with the President. I have been told if I dont like it so much why dont I just leave. This is disturbing to me.

[roughrider]

By "Southern Republican" you mean, Northeast Democrat, right?

" — sponsored by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat — was defeated 402-2, with even Mr. Rangel voting against the proposal that called for reinstituting the practice abandoned in 1973 when the military converted to an all-volunteer force."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-012158-2811r.htm

yeah yeah i forgot and made a wild guess at it

[themonkeyoffunk]

you've gotta respect a president that has the balls to propose a constitutional ammendment to deny people rights not only during not a war (wars must be approved by congress, this is a police action), but at a time of vast political conflict.

[Longest]

you've gotta respect a president that has the balls to propose a constitutional ammendment to deny people rights not only during not a war (wars must be approved by congress, this is a police action), but at a time of vast political conflict.

You're splitting hairs on the concepts of "war", "police action", "skirmish", "combat", and such.

Dan

[themonkeyoffunk]

wars are approved by congress. skirmishes and combats are parts of a war or police action. it's not too difficult a concept to grasp. Police action. Not approved by congress, America acts as "peacekeepers". It's happened throughout the history of the country. Motives are rarely truly noble. Good job taking a miniscule point and attempting to argue it, while it really doesn't matter, though.

[zak]

Good job taking a miniscule point and attempting to argue it, while it really doesn't matter, though.

Didnt you hear, thats the whole point of this forums. Agruing about things.

I am not going to support a war I don't agree with. I will however support the troops who are fighting in Iraq for unnecessary reasons. The anti-war crowd has gotten alot of crap from the right for not being "Patriotic" because we dont blindly agree with the President. I have been told if I dont like it so much why dont I just leave. This is disturbing to me.

Yea, but a lot anti-war people have taken it too far. People are dying in Iraq, U.S., civilian, militant, British, whatever. I think the anti-war protesters should instead focus their time on helping the situation instead of just causing more drama. Not to say you shouldn't voice your opinion or anything, but where has all this protesting got us? Were still in there aren't we, and now more people are going in.

[roughrider]

Yea, but a lot anti-war people have taken it too far. People are dying in Iraq, U.S., civilian, militant, British, whatever. I think the anti-war protesters should instead focus their time on helping the situation instead of just causing more drama. Not to say you shouldn't voice your opinion or anything, but where has all this protesting got us? Were still in there aren't we, and now more people are going in.

If we were to resign, put away our signs and stop our rallies what would we accomplish then? The sane voice of reason would be lost and Bush would then really have his mandate.

[Longest]

wars are approved by congress. skirmishes and combats are parts of a war or police action. it's not too difficult a concept to grasp. Police action. Not approved by congress, America acts as "peacekeepers". It's happened throughout the history of the country. Motives are rarely truly noble. Good job taking a miniscule point and attempting to argue it, while it really doesn't matter, though.

That is YOUR opinion of what a war is and it is a suitable point to argue. Calilng it a "police action" is a thinly veiled attempt to imply that only the President thinks it's a wise idea.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Didnt you hear, thats the whole point of this forums. Agruing about things.



Yea, but a lot anti-war people have taken it too far. People are dying in Iraq, U.S., civilian, militant, British, whatever. I think the anti-war protesters should instead focus their time on helping the situation instead of just causing more drama. Not to say you shouldn't voice your opinion or anything, but where has all this protesting got us? Were still in there aren't we, and now more people are going in.

taken it too far? i dont think we've taken it far enough. my way of supporting the troops, is doing whatever is necessary to bring them home in an unnecessary war. i am truly graeful for what these soldiers sacrifice for me, but they never should have been in this situation and the first place and i'd like to see them home as soon as possible.

[Lacrosstitute]

If we were to resign, put away our signs and stop our rallies what would we accomplish then? The sane voice of reason would be lost and Bush would then really have his mandate.

Well could you explain what you are accomplishing with your signs and rallies? Nothing. You're just blocking up the streets.

[zak]

If we were to resign, put away our signs and stop our rallies what would we accomplish then? The sane voice of reason would be lost and Bush would then really have his mandate.

Did i say that? Did I say resign? No. In fact I specifically said dont resign. I said that the way some protesters have been acting is getting out of hand. We don't need constant 24/7 criticism of everything and everyone in Iraq. It gets nothing acomplished. How about instead of protesting you write your congressman a letter or soemthing. It gets more done than closing down half of DC.

[Frndlefire]

However, closing down half of DC would get a lot more attention. Which is very much what a protest strongly relies on. If you were to have a protest of 20 people in some guys back yard no one would give it a second glance...

[zak]

Ok not half of DC, but you know what I mean. If youve never been to DC then you dont know how insane the traffic can get in there. I've sat in traffic for an hour and a half because of 25 people. It doesnt get anything accomplished.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

it got your attention, didnt it? it also got the attention of those senators trying to go home from work that day...

[zak]

Yea it did get my attention. "Hey these hippies made me get home an hour late. They must be right about this whole war thing. I am going to chagne my opinions because of their signs." If you seriously think a senator will be affected by 25 people protesting, you know less about politics than comes across. If they wanted to get their senators support, they wouldnt be making him late for dinner.

[CTLaxer]

i am truly graeful for what these soldiers sacrifice for me, but they never should have been in this situation and the first place and i'd like to see them home as soon as possible.

Wait just a second here....soldiers shouldn't be in a war situation? Whoa, this is news to me. I mean, I always thought soldiers were the ones that went to fight wars. On top of that, I always assumed that since we have a volunteer army, that every person in our armed forces was there willingly and knew there was a chance that our county might have armed conflicts during their time in the military and accepted that as a part of the job.

Did I miss a memo? I wouldn't become a plumber and expect some people to protest for me if I had to unclog someone's pipes because they clogged up their septic tank. I think we can all agree that I(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be mucking around in a septic tank, they're just nasty. Oh wait, it would be my job to be there.....just like it's a soldier's job to go to war, fight, kill people, and get killed. It's a part of the job and it's hazzards. Now quit your whinning about that and find a valid argument please.

[Frndlefire]

You say "dont protest, write a letter to your senator if you want change" but do you really think senators read all those letters? And even if they do, you are going to need a MASSIVE amount of letters on one topic to make your senator change his position on anything. It is also a lot easier to disregard a piece of paper than someone protesting outside your office.

[zak]

Yea, but a lot anti-war people have taken it too far. People are dying in Iraq, U.S., civilian, militant, British, whatever. I think the anti-war protesters should instead focus their time on helping the situation instead of just causing more drama. Not to say you shouldn't voice your opinion or anything, but where has all this protesting got us? Were still in there aren't we, and now more people are going in.

Read my post. Go ahead. Read it. Now show me where I said "dont protest". I said I think the protestors should find other ways to fight the war.

You say "dont protest, write a letter to your senator if you want change" but do you really think senators read all those letters? And even if they do, you are going to need a MASSIVE amount of letters on one topic to make your senator change his position on anything. It is also a lot easier to disregard a piece of paper than someone protesting outside your office.

Actually, I dont say that. No, I dont think senators read all of those letters, nor did say that I did, nor does that matter. They read some, but they dont read all. However, they have aides and interns, people whose job it is to know what is being said in them. Now if you were a senator and you had 500 people yelling and screaming about how bad the war is and you had 500 people who wrote intelligent, thought out letters, which seems more valid? Yes, you would need a massive amount of letters to change a senators position on an issue, more than could be written. It takes money and votes to chagne that kind of thing. Not protests or letters. Its actually easier to disregard protesters. Having been in senators offices, and in protests, I can tell you niether are anywhere near each other 99.99% of the time. The only protests that get things done are the massive ones that still manage to get a valid arguement across. Think "I have a dream" speech numbers and message.

[Frndlefire]

Actually, I dont say that. No, I dont think senators read all of those letters, nor did say that I did, nor does that matter. They read some, but they dont read all. However, they have aides and interns, people whose job it is to know what is being said in them. Now if you were a senator and you had 500 people yelling and screaming about how bad the war is and you had 500 people who wrote intelligent, thought out letters, which seems more valid? Yes, you would need a massive amount of letters to change a senators position on an issue, more than could be written. It takes money and votes to chagne that kind of thing. Not protests or letters. Its actually easier to disregard protesters. Having been in senators offices, and in protests, I can tell you niether are anywhere near each other 99.99% of the time. The only protests that get things done are the massive ones that still manage to get a valid arguement across. Think "I have a dream" speech numbers and message. so we might as well just do nothing and sluff along even if we dissagree because protesting does nothing unless you have a charasmatic, well spoken leader and writing letters does nothing unless you have a very large number of them and they are well written...? Our nation was founded on protest and dissagreement and i believe to say that protesting something is futile because our government won't listen is rather sad...

[zak]

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying don't protest. I'm not saying sluff around and do nothing. Stop missinterpreting what I say. I'm saying that I think protesting on the streets gets nothing done. I'm saying that I think protesting is ineffective. I used those examples to point out how hard it is to get a protest to change things, not to say dont try. Theres tons of other things to do. Work for a candidate that will change things. Donate time and money to them. Write a letter. VOTE. Hell, run for an office, thats a great way to change things. You can protest too if you want, but yelling and stomping aruond never got anything done. Our nation wasn't found on the kind of protest you are talking about. Don't try to make this patriotic or "about our great country." Because thats just opinion. I could say by not supporting the war and our president you are being unpatriotic. But i'm not, so lets not go there.

[Frndlefire]

Yes, you would need a massive amount of letters to change a senators position on an issue, more than could be written. It takes money and votes to chagne that kind of thing. Not protests or letters.Ok, fine, you aren't saying don't protest. You aren't saying don't write letters. However, you are saying that these are futile approaches to creating change. So it is both worthless and just plain annoying, see "hippies" post, and so your posts really just seem to tell me that people shouldn't be doing these things. I might not be able to quote you on it, but when I read your posts and try to understand what you are saying, which apparently is misinterpritation, I can't help but to get the impression that you think these people should just shut up and let you get home quicker. I don't protest the war or anything else. I don't plan to in the future. However, I think it is an overstatement to say that these are worthless approaches to change.

Also, I didn't mean to incite any sort of "patriotic" debate with my statement about our country being founded on dissagreement and protest. I just ment to point out that it seems like too many people tend to forget that it is ok to dissagree sometimes.

[Frndlefire]

Wait just a second here....soldiers shouldn't be in a war situation? Whoa, this is news to me. I mean, I always thought soldiers were the ones that went to fight wars. On top of that, I always assumed that since we have a volunteer army, that every person in our armed forces was there willingly and knew there was a chance that our county might have armed conflicts during their time in the military and accepted that as a part of the job.

Did I miss a memo? I wouldn't become a plumber and expect some people to protest for me if I had to unclog someone's pipes because they clogged up their septic tank. I think we can all agree that I(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be mucking around in a septic tank, they're just nasty. Oh wait, it would be my job to be there.....just like it's a soldier's job to go to war, fight, kill people, and get killed. It's a part of the job and it's hazzards. Now quit your whinning about that and find a valid argument please. again, their is a differance between supporting the war and supporting the troops. Using your plumber example I think the issue is not that they are protesting the plumber doing his job, their protesting the plumber having to do his job. Some jobs have unpleasantries (is that a word?) that inherant within the profession. Being a soldier is certainly one of these. The extermination of human life, who ever that might be, is not a matter to be taken lightly. Just because it is the soldiers job to fight, doesnt mean they should be fighting. I have friends who are marines and one who's in the naval academy. I respect them for choosing what they have chosen and am proud of them, but that doesn't mean I think they should be fighting.

[zak]

I can't help but to get the impression that you think these people should just shut up and let you get home quicker

YES!!!! That would be nice. I think we need a new thread in this forum.

[Thrillhouse]

You can’t support a group of people without supporting what they do.
I understand that there are a lot of people who did not want to do this, but wouldn’t a free Iraq be a good thing? I’m not trying to get you to agree that the ends justify the means or that the price we paid was worth it; but if the people of Iraq had the right to choose their leaders like we do, would that be a good thing?
Let suppose you’re watching a football game. Your favorite team is down by six with 5 minutes to go. It’s fourth and 1. You think they should go for it, but the coach decides to play it safe and punt, hope the defense holds, and they get another shot. While you disagree with what the coach did, you’re still going to hope the defense hold them to 4 and out and that we get the ball back.
My point is; it’s OK to disagree with the war, and if anyone calls you unpatriotic it’s because of it they really don’t understand what patriotism really is. Even if our leaders decide to do something you don’t agree with, you should still support our troops in what they doing and hope they succeed.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Wait just a second here....soldiers shouldn't be in a war situation? Whoa, this is news to me. I mean, I always thought soldiers were the ones that went to fight wars. On top of that, I always assumed that since we have a volunteer army, that every person in our armed forces was there willingly and knew there was a chance that our county might have armed conflicts during their time in the military and accepted that as a part of the job.

Did I miss a memo? I wouldn't become a plumber and expect some people to protest for me if I had to unclog someone's pipes because they clogged up their septic tank. I think we can all agree that I(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be mucking around in a septic tank, they're just nasty. Oh wait, it would be my job to be there.....just like it's a soldier's job to go to war, fight, kill people, and get killed. It's a part of the job and it's hazzards. Now quit your whinning about that and find a valid argument please.

Here's where communication breaks down between us. I absolutely agree that soldiers are hired to fight a war and should be expexted to do so.... but, not this one... not this war that is totally unecessary. i always have thought of war as a necessary action. it should be our last option, when all else fails. this war in iraq was definitely not our last option of how to deal with saddam.

As for your plumber... you could see it this way. there's a clogged sink in california, yet the plumber in D.C. feels like he needs to go to california and unclog that sink, even though there really isnt a major problem, and even though no one asked him to come help. the water still flows, though just a little slower. but, as for now, it's not a big deal and if the sink completely clogs and effects that guy in D.C., then yeah, he should do somethin about it. but, instead, he decides to disassemble the entire sink and maually clean out the sink, when all it needed was some drano from someone in california. oh, and, one more thing, along with him coming, a bunch of folks from oregon come down and get in his way because they dont like him being there. so, now it takes more people than he has on his staff and the sink unclogging is a harder job than he had originally planned. so, now, the folks in D.C. are mad that a large part of their city is cleaning a clogged sink that didnt need unclogged in the first place...

the only part i couldnt fit into the story is how thousands have now died trying to unclog a sink...

[TheKOB]

could we stop with the plumber analogy? It's getting confusing, and kinda stupid and too funny to be taken seriously. Eventually we're going to be doing research on what plumbers do so that we can come back with a good point that wasn't related to the initial argument anywas.

The troops are there to stabalize the elections. I'm glad to see that the UN isn't being brought up any more as "they should've gotten their approval" since the UN is a very corrupt body, a fact which is now out in the open, and isn't receiving the attention it deserves...curious, huh?

It seems to me that the basis for this argument is that we disagree over what we should fight/go to war for.

I personally think it was a good idea for many reasons. We're stabalizing a region that is very important to the US. Our intellegence at the time pointed towards the link between WMD programs and terrorists getting their hands on 'em. Plus, we're getting something right that we probably should've done the first time, meaning freeing the Iraqi people. In Desert Storm we told the people to rise up against Saddam. They didn't have our support, and were crushed. We're righting a wrong. And if France or the UN doesn't like it, screw 'em. France waffled about getting in on the first persian gulf conflict because they were selling arms to the Iraqis. Their Defense Minister at the time was a part of something called the "French-Iraqi Friendship Coalition" and didn't want to drive 'em out of Kuwaite. Kofi Annan's son was getting millions of dollars, right under his nose, and you can't tell me that he didn't know about it. These are the people we're supposed to answer to? We'd have better luck listening to a magic 8 ball...

Just answer this question...under what circumstances should the US go to war?

[Lacrosstitute]

Yea it did get my attention. "Hey these hippies made me get home an hour late. They must be right about this whole war thing. I am going to chagne my opinions because of their signs." If you seriously think a senator will be affected by 25 people protesting, you know less about politics than comes across. If they wanted to get their senators support, they wouldnt be making him late for dinner.

Haha. I hate hippies. Moving on, if someone has an opinion, it's their opinion. No amount of pretesting is going to change that. Go ahead, protest. But it wont change. Did you notice how much protesting there was against Bush. A lot. Did he get re-elected? Definitely. We are at war, deal with it and support what our soldiers are doing for America. Blocking up the streets and making people late for work just pisses them off.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Haha. I hate hippies. Moving on, if someone has an opinion, it's their opinion. No amount of pretesting is going to change that. Go ahead, protest. But it wont change. Did you notice how much protesting there was against Bush. A lot. Did he get re-elected? Definitely. We are at war, deal with it and support what our soldiers are doing for America. Blocking up the streets and making people late for work just pisses them off.

this is the attitude i hate the most... the "we're at war, so shut up and support it" attitude. it's easy to have that attitude when we're at war and you agree with it. for some reason, i think that if you were on the other side of the table, that your attitude would be much different. it's people with this attitude that call people like me unpatriotic and have no idea what they're talking about. it's people with this "my way or the highway" attitude that get our country in trouble...

[Lacrosstitute]

Did you notice my stating that you can go ahead and protest if you want? But please explain to me where it's getting you. Nowhere. Whether you think me to be ignorant or not, these protestors are doing nothing to change anyone's minds. And you wont get these soldiers home any earlier because it's not like the actual war is being affected in any way.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

i know i am, actually... ppl my age are especially convincable, seeing that it's the first time many of them are tinking on their own for the first time in their lives. and i've converted so many unsures to the left side in just a few short months.

[Longest]

i know i am, actually... ppl my age are especially convincable, seeing that it's the first time many of them are tinking on their own for the first time in their lives. and i've converted so many unsures to the left side in just a few short months.

And other people will convert them right back, JJ. That's the thing about conversions, you can't accept just one.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/neuro/sutphen.html

Dan

[Frndlefire]

And other people will convert them right back, JJ. That's the thing about conversions, you can't accept just one.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/neuro/sutphen.html

Dan Of course they are, but Georgia's point remains that his protesting has done something whereas Lacrosstitute is arging that it can't...

[Longest]

Of course they are, but Georgia's point remains that his protesting has done something whereas Lacrosstitute is arging that it can't...

WHAT has he done? He has converted some easily convertible (at his own admission) to his point of view. Let's say someone as intelligent as JJ (who is a sharp guy) comes along, they have a dialogue and the converts switch right back. People that are that easily convertible are not likely to: a) remain a convert; b) take a zealous stance for that cause; c) protest. And converting people of that ilk in a non-election setting is largely useless. It is personally satisfying to enlighten people and it IS thrilling to get someone to agree with you. But in the larger scheme of things, what is the result? I suggest nothing if they just keep switching sides.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

yeah, but thats why you work your butt off during election time and then try to keep em interested in your side afterwards, hoping they become as passionate as yourself.

[Frndlefire]

WHAT has he done? He has converted some easily convertible (at his own admission) to his point of view. Let's say someone as intelligent as JJ (who is a sharp guy) comes along, they have a dialogue and the converts switch right back. People that are that easily convertible are not likely to: a) remain a convert; b) take a zealous stance for that cause; c) protest. And converting people of that ilk in a non-election setting is largely useless. It is personally satisfying to enlighten people and it IS thrilling to get someone to agree with you. But in the larger scheme of things, what is the result? I suggest nothing if they just keep switching sides.

Dan non election setting is key to this argument, and I agree with you in that it accomplishes nothing in the long term. It seems as though politics has just become a game of charisma, money, and pleasing who needs to be pleased and if you can convert a group of people when it matters, as in an election time, than that does accomplish something for whatever side you support.

[zak]

Most children identify with a political party (their parents) by age 11 and switch that view in college.

i think that if you were on the other side of the table, that your attitude would be much different. it's people with this attitude that call people like me unpatriotic and have no idea what they're talking about. it's people with this "my way or the highway" attitude that get our country in trouble...

If you were on the other side of the table you would have a different attitude too, thats why its called being on the other side of the table. Its hippies with this "no war or the highway" attitude that get this country in trouble too. And I suppose you do know what you are talking about? What do you suppose we do in Iraq? Not "well we never should have been there in the first place" but what you would do as president. Obviously "people like me" are getting this country in trouble and we "dont know what were talking about," so I assume someone on your side of the table would. In fact, I see a lot of "be against the war get our troops out right now" coming from your side of the table, but no solutions, just protesting.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

again, i've never had the attitude that all war is wrong. but when we put our troops in harm's way when it's unnecessary, thats when i get upset. and, what would i do as president? i wouldn't have gone to war, because they werent a threat!! we still havent found the WMD's... if you remember, thats why we were there in the first place. and since we are already in it, i would quit going on the offensive, taking over cities such as fallujah, and i would instead work to stabilize the parts we have control of and then turn it over to the iraqi government. and, i still say you dont know what you're talking about when you call me unpatriotic for speaking my mind and trying to reform government. after all, that is part of what a patriot is... someone who loves his/her country enough to constantly try to make it better. finally, if i were on that side of the table, i would not be telling people to shut up and support the war beecause thats what the president thought was right. i would respect their opinion and the fact that they are willing to speak it. why should i conform to your beliefs just because they agree with the president? and, by the way... im not a hippie... im just a liberal who strongly disagrees with unjustified wars...

[Frndlefire]

We should have given it a couple years. Saddam probably would have gotten bored with smuggling illegal weapons and funds into his country anyways. ...because he's the only one in the world doing this http://www.mscclan.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Longest]

non election setting is key to this argument, and I agree with you in that it accomplishes nothing in the long term. It seems as though politics has just become a game of charisma, money, and pleasing who needs to be pleased and if you can convert a group of people when it matters, as in an election time, than that does accomplish something for whatever side you support.

I totally agree with you, for better or worse. The few weeks before the election is all that appears to be matter in politics nowadays, getting out there to convert as many people as you can and hopefully be the last person to do that if they're THAT susceptible. I wish it was not quite so true that so many in this country are sheep that cannot think for themselves but I fear that we are correct in that assumption.

Dan

[Longest]

yeah, but thats why you work your butt off during election time and then try to keep em interested in your side afterwards, hoping they become as passionate as yourself.

Hope springs eternal but as I pointed out, the odds of that are unlikely for the mass of people we are talking about, the easily swayed. I salute you for your efforts, JJ. We may not agree on WHAT we want this country to do but you do your level best to expose people to other points of view. If nothing else, that is invaluable.

Dan

[powellman21]

i agree completely with what dreagen said. The draft is not goin to be reinstated. its just a rumor and a fear because we are times of war. for me personally it doesnt matter im going into the marine corps anyways. but for all the others that dont want to i dont think you have anything to worry about, these are different times than thirty-fourty years ago. and as my main man calvin coolidge used to say :
"For any nation who forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten."

its different for the people in the military because most of them are there because they want to be. (that and its a setup for a career for the rest of your life after the military)