Can a draft wait?

[Gman]

I'm reading the thread in Editorials posted by Chicago Democrat at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x44475 and I'm thinking the revolution in Iraq is not getting any better for American troops. We no longer control some towns as we have for the past year and things are getting worse very fast.

Its becoming apparent we don't have enough troops in Iraq to control the country. Generals have already come forward saying they're not taking the rap if this whole thing goes under because they've been saying they need more troops.

So there appears to be no doubt that probably at least another 100,000 troops are needed in Iraq to completely control the country. However, we don't have 100K troops just sitting around with nothing to do. And the rest of the free world is laughing their asses off at Bush's foolishness in Iraq right now and saying, "I told you so."

This can only get worse maybe even to the point of losing control of the entire country within a few weeks without more troops. The only realistic way out is a draft which chimpy will absolutely not do for the most important reason to him, his election.

So now, if Bush doesn't institute a draft now, he's toast in November for wasting most likely over a thousand lives (by then) with nothing to show for it and a bitter defeat in Iraq and if he does institute a draft he's toast for obvious reasons.

Bush is like the frog in the pot of water that's approaching boiling.

[against all enemies]

1. If he wins

the draft will be next spring. You know, we need it "to protect America's freedom".

[kalian]

2. If Kerry wins...the draft will STILL be reinstated....

remember that Kerry keeps on talking about 40,000 "fresh, new"
troops.... :eyes:

[Gman]

3. 'scuse me... Please site a link where Kerry has called for 40K troops

I didn't know he was that adamant about keeping troops in Iraq.

[kalian]

5. Enjoy....

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/safe.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/kerry/

What the hell is a "Civilian Stability Corps"...? :eyes:

http://www.democrats.org/news/200403170001.html

Its all right there...and if you do your own search on the issue
you'll find more. Obviously, you DOUBTED my accusation. Too friggin
bad.

[Crachet2004]

4. Bush is screwed in Iraq, and no help from the rest of the world

will be forthcoming.

Democrats, on the other hand, are not helping themselves by calling for more troops to be sent. Yeah, on the one hand, we are winning a minor point by pointing out we don't have enough troops in Iraq (which has been in debate all along), but if we are successful in sending more, we have also made it even more 'our' war. Why let Asshole Bush off the hook so easy? Why bail him out? Why shoulder more responsibility for what is going to become an ever worse nightmare, no matter what we do?

The more troops we send, the higher the body count will be...on both sides-count on it. And if we keep beating the drum on more troops, eventually, there will have to be a draft...and we will get the blame.

If a draft is reinstated, manpower becomes unlimited. A lack of troops is the only thing stopping a widening of the war NOW.

Democrats should continue to play it cool...give the GOP everything they need to pursue THEIR war-except a draft. Otherwise, we will be open to the charge of being unAmerican, and that of not supporting the troops. But I would chill on asking for more troops.

We don't have to advocate sending more troops...the whole world knows we do not have enough over there, and that this is Bush's war.

Why change any of that? We are not going to 'win' in Iraq, even if we send a million troops. The only answer to asymetrical warfare is annihilation-or just leave. This first is not an option.

Eventually we are going to have to leave...and the sooner the order is given, the better off we will all be.

[Postman]

6. I agree.

n/t