Better pack up, Gravis. You're going to be making a trip soon.

Why don't you post the WHOLE statement and question?!?

Your desperation is showing.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't you post the WHOLE statement and
> question?!?
>
> Your desperation is showing.


The whole statement is a set up for the draft question. McCain either agrees or wasn't listening. In any case, he should be called on the carpet for it.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> The whole statement is a set up for the draft
> question. McCain either agrees or wasn't
> listening. In any case, he should be called on the
> carpet for it.


If that is the case, show the whole statement, and let people decide. Taking the statement out of context only allows the average reader/viewer to see the dialogue parsed and cut through your viewpoint. If, as you say, "the whole statement is a set up for the draft question," you should have no problem posting the whole statement. What would be the reason to edit the dialogue if it fully supported your assertion?

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> If that is the case, show the whole statement, and
> let people decide. Taking the statement out of
> context only allows the average reader/viewer to
> see the dialogue parsed and cut through your
> viewpoint. If, as you say, "the whole statement
> is a set up for the draft question," you should
> have no problem posting the whole statement. What
> would be the reason to edit the dialogue if it
> fully supported your assertion?

I didn't edit anything. The woman took 2 minutes to set up the question. I figured people would prefer to get to the gist of the question and McCain's response. If you are that concerned about it, go to YouTube yourself and hear the whole thing.

The fact is McCain either wasn't paying attention or he does, in fact, want a reinstatement of the draft. I think many Americans suspect McCain intends to pursue the latter. If McCain believes evil must be destroyed, you are going to need a big army to go into Moscow and Beijing.

Why should he? That's the exact same tactic the Republicans use when posting their latest barrage of negative campaign ads. It evens the playing field.

Why Should He? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should he? That's the exact same tactic the
> Republicans use when posting their latest barrage
> of negative campaign ads. It evens the playing
> field.


While I don't dispute that, the fact of the matter is there was no tricky editing to make McCain look bad. This was his response to the question.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> I didn't edit anything. The woman took 2 minutes
> to set up the question. I figured people would
> prefer to get to the gist of the question and
> McCain's response. If you are that concerned about
> it, go to YouTube yourself and hear the whole
> thing.

so, you are contending that the entire 2 minutes leading up to the statement "f we don't re-enact the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of Hell," was all about reinstating the draft? It had nothing to do with the veteran's care, right?

> The fact is McCain either wasn't paying attention
> or he does, in fact, want a reinstatement of the
> draft. I think many Americans suspect McCain
> intends to pursue the latter. If McCain believes
> evil must be destroyed, you are going to need a
> big army to go into Moscow and Beijing.

He probably wasn't paying attention to the final statement and was concentrating on the entire jist of the question which was about Veteran's care. He has REPEATEDLY contend that our current military is the best ever and that he thinks a draft would be unfairly conducted (as it always has been) and that it would not serve our military well.

For anyone interested in the non-edited full exchange -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3msRsdt6bWY

Let me put it this way, I once worked for a man that wanted to get a salesperson on the cheap. So, he made the conditions of the job so undesirable, contractor status, part time, no benefits, draw vs commission, every applicant simply walked away when they heard about the package. The president of the company, who moonlighted as a management consultant of all things, couldn’t understand why we couldn’t get someone for the job. Juxtapose this scenario with we are having two wars, soldiers are doing double duty in the dessert, Walter Reed is locking patients out, and we can see why the Army and Marine recruitment is way down; the President made it an undesirable job for new recruits. Did you know to keep those already in, they have to offer a $10,000 re-enlistment bonus, tax free?

Hell, judges used to give 18 or 19 year olds a choice, go to jail or join the Army. Judges won’t even give that choice any more.

Why Should He? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should he? That's the exact same tactic the
> Republicans use when posting their latest barrage
> of negative campaign ads. It evens the playing
> field.


Because, he is supporting the candidate that wants to "change" business as usual. Perhaps your mother never told you that just because little Johnny jumped off the bridge doesn't mean you don't have to. If you disapprove of the negative campaign ads, why support them for your own candidate? It is hypocritical. Besides, this is a message board, not a campaign website.

Well Capt...I listened to the video on your link...and either that video is incomplete...or McSame failed to specifically address her draft issue. If he failed to comment specifically on it there is no reason to believe he doesnt stand by his original comment aggreing with the women in total.

It is a non sequitor - the draft has nothing to do with bringing Bin Ladden to hell. As we know, our fearless leader has flip flopped from insisting bringing UBL to justice was a top priority, to not thinking much about UBL and now we know he is thinking about him and asked (hired ) British Special forces to go and get UBL in a last ditch effort to save his legacy.

THAT is the answer McCain should have gave, but did not.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Capt...I listened to the video on your
> link...and either that video is incomplete...or
> McSame failed to specifically address her draft
> issue. If he failed to comment specifically on it
> there is no reason to believe he doesnt stand by
> his original comment aggreing with the women in
> total.

He failed to address it, yes. It was a blunder to ignore the draft issue, yes. There are plenty of reasons to show his disapproval of the draft, namely his repeated statements not supporting a draft. At one point, he pointed to a WWIII scenario where he indicated it MIGHT be necessary. I actually agree with that situation. But, because Vince(1) and Obama are heavily invested in the United States losing wars, I know they would rather see the country overrun than use military force.

Capt. Obvious
>>> Obama are heavily invested in the United States losing wars


WOW- and you have the gall to tell WashingTone that he's the one being desperate???

LMAO- where do you fuckin people come from???

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious
> >>> Obama are heavily invested in the United
> States losing wars
>
>
> WOW- and you have the gall to tell WashingTone
> that he's the one being desperate???
>
> LMAO- where do you fuckin people come from???

Somewhere where we don't go home to Melwood at night. I'm glad to see my car donation granted you access to the internet. Seriously though, do you even know what you are talking about? Where have you been? The Democrats have been running against this war for years. When things were really bad and definitely looked like it was going to be a loss, they capitalized on it and regained the Congress. When it looks like things are getting better and a chance of real victory and real stability are within grasp and within a reasonable amount of time, they continue to run against this war. Sen. McCain was right when he said Sen. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign. Here is the simple fact - If Iraq today looked like it did pre-surge, Obama would be leading by double digits and I'd be the first to say get the hell out. Iraq looks drastically different after the surge and benchmarks have been met.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> so, you are contending that the entire 2 minutes
> leading up to the statement "f we don't re-enact
> the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to
> chase Bin Laden to the gates of Hell," was all
> about reinstating the draft? It had nothing to do
> with the veteran's care, right?

It's a lead up because the premise of the question is because so many Veterans are wounded there aren't enough people in the military to get Bin Laden.

>
> He probably wasn't paying attention to the final
> statement and was concentrating on the entire jist
> of the question which was about Veteran's care.
> He has REPEATEDLY contend that our current
> military is the best ever and that he thinks a
> draft would be unfairly conducted (as it always
> has been) and that it would not serve our military
> well.
>
I'm just taking McCain at his word. He says he has no problem re-instating the draft. Was it a mistake? Yeah, probably. But so was George Allen saying "Macacca."

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Because, he is supporting the candidate that wants
> to "change" business as usual. Perhaps your mother
> never told you that just because little Johnny
> jumped off the bridge doesn't mean you don't have
> to. If you disapprove of the negative campaign
> ads, why support them for your own candidate? It
> is hypocritical. Besides, this is a message
> board, not a campaign website.


There are a handful of threads about the campaigns. You don't have to come here.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > so, you are contending that the entire 2
> minutes
> > leading up to the statement "f we don't
> re-enact
> > the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to
> > chase Bin Laden to the gates of Hell," was all
> > about reinstating the draft? It had nothing to
> do
> > with the veteran's care, right?
>
> It's a lead up because the premise of the question
> is because so many Veterans are wounded there
> aren't enough people in the military to get Bin
> Laden.
>
> >
> > He probably wasn't paying attention to the
> final
> > statement and was concentrating on the entire
> jist
> > of the question which was about Veteran's care.
>
> > He has REPEATEDLY contend that our current
> > military is the best ever and that he thinks a
> > draft would be unfairly conducted (as it always
> > has been) and that it would not serve our
> military
> > well.
> >
> I'm just taking McCain at his word. He says he has
> no problem re-instating the draft. Was it a
> mistake? Yeah, probably. But so was George Allen
> saying "Macacca."

And let's not forget Obama's grand healthcare plan - breathalyzers for ashmatics. NO MORE BOOZING WHEEZERS!!!!!!

The Democrats have been against this war for years because we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, and we were lied to about the Presidents real reasons for going in. Seriously, what good does the US receive as a result of invading Iraq?

My favorite Onion headline

Sudanese political Prisoner wishes his country had oil."

As for the Benchmarks being met, what? And here's a secret, we are passing out cash so they don't b0mb us. How long can this last?

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the Benchmarks being met, what?

Are you serious? Of the 18 benchmarks mandated by the US Congress, 12 are now accomplished, 5 are nearly accomplished and 1 remains incomplete. Pay attention!

12 minor or vagues ones accomplished, ("Protect rights of minority political parties" and "Constitution review" are vague benchmarks at best, "Establish joint US-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad," took about a week to do). Ones not accomplished include

De-Ba'athification laws
Distribution of oil revenues
Independent electoral commission
Disarming of militias
Increase number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently
Allocation of $10bn in Iraqi reconstruction
Ensure political authorities are not undermining security forces

Lot of accomplishment there, my friend.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 12 minor or vagues ones accomplished, ("Protect
> rights of minority political parties" and
> "Constitution review" are vague benchmarks at
> best, "Establish joint US-Iraqi security stations
> in Baghdad," took about a week to do). Ones not
> accomplished include
>
> De-Ba'athification laws

WRONG. This was passed by the parliament in January, and signed by the Presidency Council in February.

> Distribution of oil revenues

TRUE. And this needs to be accomplished. It should not be used as a negotiating tool in annual budgets as it has been in the recent past.

> Independent electoral commission

WRONG. Law has been passed and will be implemented soon.

> Disarming of militias

MESSY. While laws have been passed and certain ceasefire agreements reached, problems exist in this area, albeit not as bad as before.

> Increase number of Iraqi security forces capable
> of operating independently

WRONG. Forty new Iraqi Security Force battalions are or will come on line this year. The Government of Iraq concentrated 30,000 ISF troops in Basra recently and launched a major offensive operation with virtually no Coalition ground support. Iraqi military units in the Najaf-Hillah-Karbala-Diwaniyah-Kut area repelled Special Groups attacks during this fight with little or no Coalition Forces ground support in many cases.

> Allocation of $10bn in Iraqi reconstruction

TRUE.

> Ensure political authorities are not undermining
> security forces

This is a sticky one, and progress needs to be made. But, who are we to cast aspersions when we have Jack Murtha undermining US Marines who have subsequently been found innocent?

>
> Lot of accomplishment there, my friend.

In fact there is, you should take some time to look into it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896283.stm

And why are we in Iraq?

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why Should He? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why should he? That's the exact same tactic
> the
> > Republicans use when posting their latest
> barrage
> > of negative campaign ads. It evens the playing
> > field.
>
>
> Because, he is supporting the candidate that wants
> to "change" business as usual. Perhaps your mother
> never told you that just because little Johnny
> jumped off the bridge doesn't mean you don't have
> to. If you disapprove of the negative campaign
> ads, why support them for your own candidate? It
> is hypocritical. Besides, this is a message
> board, not a campaign website.


He is supporting the candidate that wants to change business as usual because the status quo IS NOT WORKING.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896283.stm


Thanks, I always appreciate THIRTEEN month old news stories! I find them to be so timely and up to date. What's next, are you going to send me a link to a story telling me the Japanes bombed Pearl Harbor?

You might want to try looking at a more current edition of the news to see that progress on the benchmarks is markedly improved. Or, you can continue to support you argument with 13 month old news because that is the only "substance" that bolsters your argument.

Capt...with or without a sucessful surge the Iraq war is lost. There are no long term benifits worth the cost of the destruction and loss and wounding of our military and innocent civilians. Their "democracy" will turn into a typical Arab democracy with a demagogue president similar to what they have in Egypt..the violence will never stop (but will be manageable)..the oil will line the pockets of the rich..and most seriously they will realign themselves startegically with their Arab neighbors calling for the destruction of Israel. I 100% believe the republikans fully realize this and have plans to keep us in Iraq for 100 years to try and to bolster up their great victory in Iraq!

It is the Administration that has declared 15 of the 18 "Satisfactory." Others see WH "satisfactory" claim on a benchmark either fragile or vague, and the WH clearly keeps "moving the goal post." From July of this year.


WASHINGTON (AP) — No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.
Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.


IRAQ CASUALTIES: A personal, statistical view

In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.

They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.

But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.

Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.

Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.

In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.

Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes.

Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who requested the administration's updated assessment, scoffed at the May report, which he says uses the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is "satisfactory" versus whether the benchmark has been met. He estimates that only a few of the 18 benchmarks have been fully achieved.

Democrats also say more solid progress could have been made had the administration starting pulling troops out sooner.

"We've tried repeatedly to get the administration to shift responsibility to the Iraqi leaders for their own future, since there is broad consensus that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"The administration, however, has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis and appears willing to do so again," Levin said.

But whether the next president will be much more successful in forcing the Iraqi government to reach a lasting political settlement remains to be seen.

Whether the new administration starts pulling troops out of Iraq right away, as Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama has promised, or refuses to set a timetable, per Republican John McCain's suggestion, most agree that a functional democracy in Iraq could still be years away because of the complexities of the issues involved and the deeply rooted distrust among the nation's sectarian groups.

"Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure multiethnic, multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law," Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq said in April when he last testified before Congress. "Whether it realizes that potential is ultimately up to the Iraqi people."

I say lets give the f-ing republikans the victory thet are willing to throw Amerikan lives at....and get out..as was promised!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2008 06:13PM by Vince(1).

Lets re-instate mandatory military service in the US. Norway and a number of other European countries require this and they seem to be quiet, happy places. Might do some folks here some good.

All this baiting about re-instating the draft. What a crock. Most folks that are in the military are GLAD they are in the military and GLAD to do whatever their country asks of them - it is one of the reasons we have the best military in the world. There really is no point in having a draft - it is only people like Charlie Wrangle who are pushing this issue to try and make it sound like the military is racist because only poor black people join. Right.

For the appeasers out there, wait until China becomes the dominant military power in the world, then you all will be crying because a country that is NOT in the business to promote free trade starts to control shipping lanes around the world. China is helping to support Iran in seeding unrest over in the Middle East - do you think what is going on there is just about the US? Get a clue.

Most of the folks are glad to be in the military because they are brainwashed. The only options they "thought" they had at age 18 was to enlist or work at the local Wal-Mart. That's what recruiting centers in the middle of armpit America will get you. The same armpit where GOP voters come from.

Brainwashed. That is a laugh. You can't accept the fact that they actually believe in their country and are proud to belong to something bigger than themselves.

There are politicians that are idiots - well most of them in fact - but the folks that volunteer for the military do it for a variety of reasons. Back when I joined it was because I couldn't stand going to college (which was paid for) - my options were limited to stocking shelves, McDonalds, etc. Or, join the military and get paid training in a vocational field. Bingo.

My father was in the military, 2 of my uncles, my grandfather and my step-grandfather. My mom's brother had been in the Navy 22 years and he retired and was a successful businessman for many years. As a matter of fact, all of my family that had been in the military led, or are still leading quite successful lives.

Was I scared? Absolutely. But I got through it, and it was the best decision I made in my life. While people who have never been in the military are glad to deride it, and the people that wear the uniforms, they don't understand that these people are proud of what they do. Not brainwashed - if that were the case you would never have heard the term "conscientious objector". You obviously don't understand the term brainwashed. Look up Muslim hate-filled schools in the Middle East (many funded by the stupid Saudis to try and keep the people happy in their religion) and you will get a much better idea.

McCain's feeling the nostalgia and misses the old days of the draft, and of the great war... the good ol' days (to him)

Bump for McCain