Be very scared of the draft, if Kerry wins

10/23/04 | Sadie

[Sadie789]

Subject: Be very scared of the draft, if Kerry wins.

Be very scared of the draft, if Kerry wins and you or anyone you love is of draft age. Kerry winning will very likely end up causing a draft; the reasons are because the military is spread thin, Kerry has alienated our alliances, and Halliburton has said over and over that if they don’t have enough protection for their employees they will pull out. So, lets see what will more likely happen if Kerry is elected.

First of all, Kerry has alienated our alliances. These countries will more likely start pulling their troops out. THIS MEANS WE WILL BE THAT MANY MORE TROOPS SHORT.

Second, Halliburton will pull out because their employees will not have enough protection. This means that military personnel will have to fill these thousands of empty job positions. THIS MEANS WE WILL BE THAT MANY MORE TROOPS SHORT.

Third, the military is already spread thin. THIS MEANS KERRY AS PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO BRING BACK THE DRAFT. This can cause another Vietnam and thousands of lives lost, because Kerry will want to save face. Remember he said, “Just because Bush couldn’t do the job doesn’t mean that he can’t do the job.”

NOTE: Right now, the United States is training Iraq troops so that they can take over and we can bring our soldiers back home. I hope that we can be smart enough on Nov 2nd to give the Bush Administration the opportunity to accomplish this goal. This is a heart felt message from Sadie.

[Sadie789]

He's big enough. LOL

[Paul Ross]

Kerry has alienated our alliances. These countries will more likely start pulling their troops out.
You said: "So has Bush."

False. And you know it. Almost warranting a barf alert. Which ALLY precisely, are you saying he alienated?

Since when have these ALLIES last actually acted like ALLIES? All by his lonesome, no less? You don't suppose that the billions of OilForFRAUD money to Kofi Annan, Chirac and his Frenchie Corruptocrats, the Russians had something to do with it, do you?

And just HOW many CRACK troops were we supposed to expect from Germany and France nowadays who have down-sized to the vanishing point???

So before you come off all pious and righteous, wake up, smell the coffee, and get your history straight. A good refresher course is needed by you as you are endulging in the Euro-Centric BIG LIE, revising history. It was the Euro-Snobs who chilled the relationship. You have read Mark Steyn, haven't you, about the UGLY EUROPEAN?

The ugly European
from The Wall Street Journal, June 13th 2001

This week, George W. Bush is making one of his rare forays into what I believe the official State Department maps label "The Rest of the World." But before he left for Europe he took the precaution of sending his hosts a "Wish I Weren't Here" postcard, announcing unilaterally that the number of annual U.S.-European Union summits is to be cut from two to one. This move so stunned the chancelleries of Europe that they took time out of their hectic schedule of sneering about what a cretin/oil stooge/blundering cowboy the guy is to complain that for some unfathomable reason the cretin/stooge/etc. doesn't want to hang out with them.

In other words, Mr. Bush is the U.S. president Europe's been demanding for decades. You no longer, as half the present European cabinets did in their youth, have to jump up and down outside the U.S. embassy shouting "Yankee, go home!" because this Yankee's got no desire to leave the house in the first place. So the only question now is why, after years of deploring American imperialism, Europe's anti-Yank elites have seamlessly moved on to being just as snide and patronizing about American isolationism. Le Monde, the bible of France's lefty establishment, ran a cartoon the other day showing on one side the world in chaos and on the other Uncle Sam at his desk, fast asleep with his phone unplugged. Yankee, come back!

The Rest of the World's verdict on the new administration was deftly summarized by the Reuters diplomatic editor, Paul Taylor, in his assessment of the first 100 days:

"In just 14 weeks, he has angered China, cold-shouldered Russia, humiliated South Korea, worried Japan, dismayed the Arab world, irritated the European Union, outraged environmentalists and snubbed campaigners for global justice."

Wow! Now that's what Broadway producers call a money review! I cut it out and stuck it on the fridge, and it was only on rereading it that it occurred to me Mr. Taylor might have intended his remarks disapprovingly.

If so, the best way to answer him is to consider the alternative: For eight remorseless years, Bill Clinton kissed up to China, schmoozed North Korea, yukked it up with Yasser Arafat and conducted EU summits like a Friars' Club roast, kibitzing and cutting up with "Gerhard," "Wim," and "Jacques" as if he were Steve Lawrence and they were Henny Youngman, Joey Bishop and Buddy Hackett. Bill Clinton divided foreigners into those he bombed and everyone else, all of whom -- the president of Brazil, the prime minister of Kazakstan, the deputy tourism and fisheries minister of the South Sandwich Islands -- were his best friend and not just a wonderful human being but a great humanitarian. And what does America have to show for it? From the Middle East to the Balkans to last week's election results in Northern Ireland, the limitations of the Clintonian speak-sappily-and-carry-a-big-shtick approach are all too evident. Of course, Jacques Chirac isn't Buddy Hackett, and his fastidious Gallic distaste for America's cheesy glad-hander was painful to behold. But the Europeans put up with it because, generally speaking, they got their way and nothing was asked in return. "A politically united Europe," declared Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, "will be a stronger partner to advance our common goals."

Oh, really? In 1998, when Mr. Clinton was threatening Iraq with Gulf War II, the only task force he could assemble was comprised of a zillion American B-52s, 14 British Harriers, HMCS Toronto, and some backup from Down Under. The Clinton coalition, 1998: the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand. What do these countries have in common? Well, let's see . . . Language: English. Head of state: Her Majesty the Queen. When Mr. Clinton, the great multiculturalist and diversity-celebrator, called in his chits from abroad, you couldn't help noticing a certain uniculturalism and homogeneity. And in five years' time, with Britain tied in to a common EU defense policy, you can forget about those 14 Harriers.

At this point, it should be said that by "Europe" I'm referring to the Continent's governing elite, which leans left. But it's not really about left or right in the sense of political alternatives so much as a permanent European governing class with very tight rules of admission. For half a century, Austria exemplified the Euro-ideal, a two-party one-party state where, whether you vote for the center-left party or the center-right party, you wind up with the same center-left/center-right two-party coalition. When 29% of Austrian voters were impertinent enough to plump for Joerg Haider's Freedom Party, the EU put the squeeze on them with sanctions and boycotts. As the Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson put it, "The program that is developing in Austria is not in line with EU values." No, indeed. In the new Europe, the will of the people is subordinate to the will of the Perssons.

Mr. Persson will be President Bush's host in Goteborg this week and, though he will not put it quite so bluntly, he feels the program that is developing in America is not in line with EU values. The other members of the Western world have reached a consensus on Mr. Bush and it's this: He's the foreigner, the odd one out.

Whether or not Mr. Bush is (as the European press assures us) a simpleton, he's certainly straightforward. And straightforwardness tends to expose the tortured contradictions of others. There are some genuine areas of international disagreement between America and Europe -- on culture, Kyoto and the Balkans, where the Clinto-Blairite school of moral imperialism and caring warmongering has run up against the unfortunate fact that in this part of the world there are no good guys, only ever-shifting permutations of bad guys. (That's how the French like it.) But that in itself doesn't account for the increasing anti-Americanism, not just in the traditional sense -- Americans are vulgar, obese buffoons in stretch pants, etc. -- but in more explicit ways.

The heirs to the old Continental empires believe they've found a structure -- the European Union -- that can challenge the pre-eminence of the U.S., and they're in a hurry to do so. A decade ago, with Yugoslavia disintegrating, the EU told the Americans to butt out. "The hour of Europe has come!" declared Jacques Poos.

Who's Monsieur Poos? Well, he was the foreign minister of Luxembourg, a country the size of Hartford, Conn., and, under the EU's rotating presidency, the man in charge of European foreign policy. A couple of weeks back, I chanced to be sitting next to a former British foreign secretary who was weeping tears of laughter as he recalled the pretensions of the lion of Luxembourg. Granted, Monsieur Poos isn't so funny if you're on the receiving end of the Pax Luxembourgiana. The hour of Europe came and went, and several hundred thousand corpses later the EU was only too grateful for the Americans to butt in.

The latest vehicle for Europe's superpower ambitions is the new "Rapid Reaction Force." Washington frets that this is some kind of European army in embryo. If only. There's already a European army on the Continent: It's called the U.S. Army, and, because it's happy to take the gig, the Europeans are absolved from the considerable expense of defending themselves. In making up the slack for their vestigial armed forces, America is subsidizing the swollen welfare states of Western Europe.

It's clear that the two pillars of the Western Alliance are coming apart, and not because of the Americans. To European leaders of both left and what passes for right, the U.S. is increasingly the misfit of the Western democracies -- wedded to such bizarre propositions as capital punishment, gun rights, nonsocialized health care, nonmetric weights and measures, compulsorily pasteurized cheese, nonconfiscatory taxation, free speech, etc. The first alone would make the U.S. ineligible for EU membership.

So we now have the curious spectacle of the unelected apparatchiks of an ersatz superpower jetting to Washington to lecture the administration on the death penalty. Who's the global bully now? The EU, which can't even prevent genocide on its own frontier, prances round the world sticking its nose into areas where it either knows nothing (Korea) or lacks the will to make any useful contribution (Palestine). Welcome to the age of the Ugly European.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the information and insight!

[bushfamfan]

Kwasniewski of Poland has praised Bush for his honor of Polish contributions. Though Poland has discussed possibly pulling out you can assure the fact Kerry will guarantee that. These world leaders who have praised Bush know the stakes. That's why you have Koizumi of Japan saying he wants Bush to stay in power, Howard of Australia saying he hopes Bush wins-that he is the man to lead the war on terror, even Putin of Russia points out the fact terrorists would celebrate a Kerry win and it would embolden them. Bush has great relationships with the leaders. Kerry has most definately assured that if he would win these countries wouldn't stick around since they aren't making a contribution-according to Kerry himself. And where are the 40,000 additional troops Kerry has called for going to come from?? They aren't going to want to serve under a traitor.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

their duty to protect us and each other will keep them there until all the troops come home.

There is a duty of voters to elect leaders with the requisite character to lead men into battle.

It's true men fought for each other in Viet Nam but many were drafted. Who will voluntarily join the military to be cannon fodder at the hands of John Kerry who accused his own Viet Nam comrades of being war criminals? Who will re-enlist if they are already on active duty?

John Kerry supports a war one day and then refuses to fund it the next. Would you let someone like this lead you into battle?

A volunteer military under Kerry could be killing Iraqi dogs for food and stealing ammo from dead opponents, for all John Kerry cares.

[firewalk]

bttt

[Non-Sequitur]

You forgot the caveat, unless the war expands which I think will happen under Kerry. If the war does expand, how do you square your first sentence with the rest of your post.

I think it more likely that the war will expand under Bush than under Kerry. Iran, Syria, who knows?

[Rubber_Duckie_27]

At this point in life, no. Military service is not for a woman who plans to be a wife and mother in the near future. If a crisis happened, my husband would volunteer rather than send his wife off to fight. What man wouldn't?

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with military service. We're very proud of my brother for serving. If I were 5-6 years younger, I'd gladly go if asked. If asked now, I still would. I just wouldn't be happy about it.

[El Gato]

You forgot to mention that Kerry said he plans to add 40,000 troops. Where's he going to get that many troops without a draft?

This about the only place I agree with Kerry, although he's just saying it to get elected, and probably doesn't mean it, since it would strengthen America, which he has never ever voted to do. I think we need at least that many more. But we don't need a draft to get them. It's a modest increase (as of July '03 we had 1.37 million active duty service members, not counting activated reservists, making the increase less than 3%) and could be achieved merely by raising the recruiting quotas. Currently the quotas are being met by all the services, more than met by the Air Force at least. The limitation is the number of active duty and reserve military allowed by Congress under the law.

[El Gato]

I would not re-enlist either, but I know that they can call you back. Right?

It depends, if you are retired, they can call you back. If you haven't served out your military service obligation, 6 years IIRC, they can call you back, otherwise you are a PFC (Private F'n Civilian) and they can't call you back without it being a draft.

[El Gato]

My husband-to-be will be past draft age (26) next summer but I would have two more years of eligibility.

Under the current rules, but rules can be changed, and usually are.

In any event, every male is a member of the federal militia until age 45 IIRC, and can theoretically be called out. In Texas you are a member of the militia until you are 65 IIRC, whether you are male or female, and can be called out by the governor. (There's a gruesome thought, "W"'s replacement does not fit the same CinC mold as "W".

[CWOJackson]

Why so quiet? This is your agrument.

[Texasforever]

No there will be no draft simply because Kerry has absolutely NO INTENTION of defending this country.

[wardaddy]

That's an exc excellent question.

Are there any south bashers who are not suspect?

[GOPcapitalist]

The Wlat Brigade is like a disease that drags perfectly normal conservatives into the radical left. But why shouldn't it? Those are the logical consequences of lincolnian statism.

An aside: one may also observe an abnormally high level of unconventional social and political behavior among members of the Wlat Brigade as well. They tend to attract a bizarre array of fringe cases including, among other things, marxists, neo-nazis, anti-semites, peaceniks, catholic-haters, perverts and other types of left wing nut jobs and bigots.

Wlat, as we all learned, turned out to be a closet marxist with, shall we say, an equine affliction of sorts.

Then there's #3fan, who turned out to be a neo-nazi who distributes propaganda put out by an aryan nation compound in Louisiana.

There's another schizo Wlat Brigadier who has used over a dozen now-banned identities (held_to_ransom, titus_fikus, mortin_sult and a few others come to mind) and has gotten the boot for posting leftist and anti-semitic screeds.

It's all a little too wierd for comfort and spurs a lingering and perfectly rational suspicion about who or what will be next to emerge from their ranks. Will one of them show up on the evening news as a suicide cult leader? An alien abduction tv special on the sci-fi channel? A John Walker Lindh wannabe who runs off to palestine? A scam artist? A pimp or prostitute? A car thief? A sex offender? The wierd guy in the trailer park who raises poisonous snakes in his double wide? Given what we've seen in the previous examples virtually anything would be possible and not the least bit surprising.

[wardaddy]

He was also LLan-DDeussant and Who is George Salt too....some thought he might have been the Cruiser. (Titus)

#3 was a Neo Nazi...dang....I would not have thought that....I had some rows with him over this stuff.

NS did say Bedford Forrest was the best cavalry commander this nation ever produced once....shocked me....I remember that.

OPH-Palpatine liked bashing the South too and usually called in his posse....most of whom are still here.

Whatever happened to twodees....he was a southern supporter...was he banned?....VA lad as I recall.

Pittsburgh GOP guy and Granite State Conservative and Republican Wizard also like to south bash.....Huck and X, I can take.....what about ditto....another.....man, they come and go don't they?

[GOPcapitalist]

Last I heard from twodees, he was moving over to some other forum.

#3 outed himself as a neonazi inadvertently when he got into a theological argument with somebody and started quoting this "preacher" who supported his "views" (which had an odd anti semitic ring to them). Somebody - i think it was NC - googled the preacher's name and found the article #3 was quoting directly from...on the Louisiana Aryan Nation website! We did a little backtracking from there on the thread and found another post where he was even linking to that site.

I approached him on the evidence that his "preacher" of choice was a neo-nazi leader and he started defending the guy and parroting his neo-nazi line. The ban came shortly after that.

I've encountered Republican Wizard a few times. He is a south basher, but a very poor one at that. His logic is circular and his facts are false.

X simply bloviates to no end in hopes of obscuring whatever was being discussed beyond any point of recognition. I call him to task from time to time when he tells an outright lie, but he tries his hardest to avoid me - says I'm too mean to him or something like that!

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm calling for his banishment and shunning.

Promise? So when are you going to start? The shunning part I mean.