BushAdmin reveals its new manipulative Wolves Ad.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001101.html

Ads that only manipulate the emotions, ignoring issues, are a good deal of the poison harming our democracy.

dlw

[Xavier]

Sounds like they are mad they can't counter the precieved effectiveness of the ad...

Anywho... Mind post a bit instead of arguing via weblink?

[Jaltus]

That is quite the biased site you have there. I really don't think anyone can claim the economy is in a downward trend, yet this site does.

Sorry, but the site is just biased.

As for the ad, I think it is overly evocative. Of course, I have not seen the ad and there is no way to know unless one sees it.

How about good old Kerry in camo hunting geese?

[Xavier]

You can see the ad at the Bush Website.

OR Click here:
Straight to Streaming Video (mms://media4.streamtoyou.com/gwb/wolves_256k.wmv)

[Captain Ochre]

You can see the ad at the Bush Website.

OR Click here:
Straight to Streaming Video (mms://media4.streamtoyou.com/gwb/wolves_256k.wmv)

Thanks. That's a pretty good ad, and (IMHO) mentioning the cuts in intelligence spending isn't exactly avoiding an issue.
Seems that LW avoided that particular issue when he suggested that issues are being avoided.
:hrm:

Thanks for the URL, Xavier.

[Soundsurfr]

And Bush has the nerve to preface his stump speeches with a call to "Move away from the politics of fear".

[Jaltus]

And Kerry has the integrity to say Bush will institute a draft.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

1. My argument was a simple one. Ads that only provoke the emotions are not good for democracy.
2. It is not Christian to let one's partisan ends justify the means.
3. My intent was to inform people about the ad, not tout the website.
(Also, the health of the economy depends on what you use as measures of performance and whether you frame it in terms of how the economy is doing recently vs the past four years.)
4. Bush can say he's against the draft, but that doesn't change the fact that our troops are being strained in a manner that makes it more likely we will need the draft if changes are not made.
5. Mentioning cuts in intelligence spending at the end doesn't count because it provides no real context for people to understand what that means. They might as well have shown an A-bomb exploding after a girl is picking flowers and then mentioned the cuts in intelligence spending.

dlw

[CatholicSage]

If we went after every manipulative political ad, we'd all have our hands full. Ignoring the ads is much better than giving them undue publicity.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

If we went after every manipulative political ad, we'd all have our hands full. Ignoring the ads is much better than giving them undue publicity.

There are manipulative ads and there are manipulative ads.

Both sides need to be held accountable to some extent, because unfortunately they do work with lots of people.

dlw

[Ben Franklin]

:offtopic:

I say let's choose president by lottery. There's really few conditions to being a United States president, right...? Let's see... ummm... minimum age, U.S. citizen... what else...? It's not like you must have an MBA or a master's in public administration, or anything, right...? No matter what, the powers of the president are currently so broad, he/she can't be expected to master every aspect of the job, and nobody cares that we elect clueless morons over and over again, so why not a lottery...? As citizens, it's everyone duty to serve in war if drafted, so in a like vein, it's every citizen's duty to serve as president. Whomever gets the lot holds one four-year term, period.

[Kevin Wayne]

Oh, and the Democrats don't use emotional warfare when they say that if Bush get's re-elected, he'll take away women's rights? Or the way they use that as leverage to get people to not vote for Nader? suuurrrrrreeee! :teeth:

[apple]

Thanks. That's a pretty good ad, and (IMHO) mentioning the cuts in intelligence spending isn't exactly avoiding an issue.
Seems that LW avoided that particular issue when he suggested that issues are being avoided.
:hrm:

Thanks for the URL, Xavier.

Hindsight shows a bigger cut and less "intelligence" would have been a good thing as far as Iraq is concerned.

[$cirisme]

4. Bush can say he's against the draft, but that doesn't change the fact that our troops are being strained in a manner that makes it more likely we will need the draft if changes are not made.

Err, changes are being made; but that's beside the point. Kerry saying that Bush will likely implement a draft is much different than saying that there may come a time where dire circumstances make it necessary for a draft.

And it is Kerry that says that he will add 40k troops to the armed forcessource: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html without an explanation for how he plans to do so.

The chances of a draft are greater under Kerry than Bush.

[Arnold]

There are manipulative ads and there are manipulative ads.

Both sides need to be held accountable to some extent, because unfortunately they do work with lots of people.

dlw

So vote for Ralph Nader...

[Arnold]

Hindsight shows a bigger cut and less "intelligence" would have been a good thing as far as Iraq is concerned.

Do you apply that to 9/11 as well?

[$cirisme]

There are manipulative ads and there are manipulative ads.

Redundant. :smile:

All ads are manipulative, imho. That is the whole point of advertising. They want to manipulate you to drink this soda, buy this product, vote for this candidate, etc. Some are better than others.

(I understand your point, I just thought it funny you say "manipulative ads" when that is really a redundancy :wink:)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Redundant. :smile:

All ads are manipulative, imho. That is the whole point of advertising. They want to manipulate you to drink this soda, buy this product, vote for this candidate, etc. Some are better than others.

(I understand your point, I just thought it funny you say "manipulative ads" when that is really a redundancy :wink:)

I know I tried to type harder to emphasize the later redundant ads, but it didn't work.

I do think that an ad can be over-manipulative. I think LBJ's ad against Goldwater is a classic example of this. It directly manipulates our deepest fears and then associates them with the other candidate. I would say the same is true with the wolves ad.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Check out http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/ for the real story behind the wolves commercial.

dlw

[Kevin Wayne]

Check out http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/ for the real story behind the wolves commercial.

dlw


I did, and found the link to this rebuttal to the ad:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108598/

What a load of hooey! I expect my elected officials deal in truth, and then they traffic in this kind of hogwash! Especially the GOP, which has wrapped it'self in a "Christian" mantle for about 25 years now. Where's their standards of integrity?

I usually meet these tactics with laughter, derision & outright rebellion... meaning when it comes to "scare" stories about how somebody is going to weaken our defenses and put us in harms way. I'm almost 45 and I've not once seen any serious threat to our security (when you consider that there are people in countries that wake up to 9/11 every day of thier lives, you realize our 9/11 is just a paltry distrubance to an over-fed, sheltered nation). HOWEVER, I do remember Viet Nam & Watergate, security "threats" propgated on us by our OWN leaders! :ahem:


Worse, is this strategy could backfire because it helps Kerry to wrap himself in the "peacenick" mantle that he doesn't deserve, when he VOTED for the war and is calling for MORE TROOPS! In fact, you can't prove a passive stance on the part of any of the last 6 Democratic presidents.



Thanks again, LW for making me realize Nader is the right choice... Oops, I guess that wasn't youi intention? :lol:

[$cirisme]

Check out http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/ for the real story behind the wolves commercial.

dlw
:hehe:

[Jedidiah]

Ads that only manipulate the emotions, ignoring issues, are a good deal of the poison harming our democracy.dlwI have yet to see an ad that appeals to reason. They are all an appeal to emotions, Republican and Democrat. Forgive me for pointing it out, but you are making the proverbial mountain from the proverbial molehill. What a crock!

beeman

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Thanks again, LW for making me realize Nader is the right choice... Oops, I guess that wasn't youi intention? :lol:

Thanks again Kevin for reminding me what a nut you are for proxy voting for Bush.

I hope you are a better musician than you are as a political activist/strategist.

dlw

[Kevin Wayne]

Thanks again Kevin for reminding me what a nut you are for proxy voting for Bush.

I hope you are a better musician than you are as a political activist/strategist.

dlw


Or how about a quote form THIS politically conscious musician, the illustrious Mr. Pete Townsend (appropriate, should Kerry get in):


"Meet the new boss... same as the old boss!"


:lol:

[CatholicSage]

Thanks again Kevin for reminding me what a nut you are for proxy voting for Bush.

I hope you are a better musician than you are as a political activist/strategist.

dlw

Gee dlw, don't you think that the practice of voting against one's conscience just because the candidate who matches one's conscience probably won't win is poisoning our democracy? :ahem:

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have yet to see an ad that appeals to reason. They are all an appeal to emotions, Republican and Democrat. Forgive me for pointing it out, but you are making the proverbial mountain from the proverbial molehill. What a crock!

beemanNot really. Most ads actually have atleast a little appeal to actual stances or positions. This commericials only purpose is to scare people. Of course, the Democrats responded with an eagle and an ostrich. Can you guess who the ostrich? :wink:

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did, and found the link to this rebuttal to the ad:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108598/

What a load of hooey! I expect my elected officials deal in truth, and then they traffic in this kind of hogwash! Especially the GOP, which has wrapped it'self in a "Christian" mantle for about 25 years now. Where's their standards of integrity?Well, you are helping the GOP by voting for Nader. Put it this way. A vote for Ross Perot can be interpretted as a vote that helped balance the budget. Get one thing clear, if it wasn't for Perot, we probably wouldn't have balanced the budget. What can Nader claim as a third party candidate? Third parties are supposed to initiate some sort of change. But what does Nader have to offer? Dean did what Nader couldn't. Dean got the lefty liberals energized and back into the Democratic party. Nader has done squat to initiate change in either party.


I'm almost 45 and I've not once seen any serious threat to our security (when you consider that there are people in countries that wake up to 9/11 every day of thier lives, you realize our 9/11 is just a paltry distrubance to an over-fed, sheltered nation).While other nations have been subjected to much greater daily threats, 9/11 was the worst terror attack in the history of the world. Only acts of war have been able to match its disturbing results. Lets not downplay 9/11, shall we?


Worse, is this strategy could backfire because it helps Kerry to wrap himself in the "peacenick" mantle that he doesn't deserve, when he VOTED for the war and is calling for MORE TROOPS! In fact, you can't prove a passive stance on the part of any of the last 6 Democratic presidents.Well, when troops were used under Clinton, there were certainly fewer deaths and injuries to them.


Thanks again, LW for making me realize Nader is the right choice... Oops, I guess that wasn't youi intention? :lol:Nader is about as good a choice for President as say... well Bush. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. There is no change that Nader can bring. Nader is no Ross Perot or Eugene Victor Debs. Nader is right about both parties being corrupt. Sadly, human lives are on the line this time. We've got troops in Iraq. Do what you think is in their best interest, not some guy's egos best interest.

[apple]

Do you apply that to 9/11 as well?

Absolutely! There was intelligence about the terrorists learning to fly airplanes. Nothing was done about it.

The point is there was plenty of intelligence gathered. If and how it was used is the question. It was known terrorists/undesirables were in the country. Instead of waiting for them to do something they could have deported them. If the goal is to shadow each and every one, learn every detail of their plan and wait until the very last minute, sure, a lot of money is going to be needed to trail them. The ones with expired visas is a good example.

[apple]

Err, changes are being made; but that's beside the point. Kerry saying that Bush will likely implement a draft is much different than saying that there may come a time where dire circumstances make it necessary for a draft.

And it is Kerry that says that he will add 40k troops to the armed forcessource: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html without an explanation for how he plans to do so.

The chances of a draft are greater under Kerry than Bush.

How many troops in Iraq? Perhaps 120,000? Talk about "visiting" Iran and North Korea. How many more troops will be needed? Remember, Bush is a do-it-alone guy. Kerry is looking to recruit help from other nations. 40,000 troops are a lot less than what will be needed under Bush.

[technomage]

Or how about a quote form THIS politically conscious musician, the illustrious Mr. Pete Townsend (appropriate, should Kerry get in):


"Meet the new boss... same as the old boss!"


:lol:
Thank you! :bow:

At this point, voting for K'thulu would be voting for the lesser evil.

Justin

[Arnold]

Absolutely! There was intelligence about the terrorists learning to fly airplanes. Nothing was done about it.

The point is there was plenty of intelligence gathered. If and how it was used is the question. It was known terrorists/undesirables were in the country. Instead of waiting for them to do something they could have deported them. If the goal is to shadow each and every one, learn every detail of their plan and wait until the very last minute, sure, a lot of money is going to be needed to trail them. The ones with expired visas is a good example.

Ever heard of "the wall"? It was erected by the Clinton administration (specifically, Jamie Gorlick of the 9/11 comission fame) so that they could hide the foreign money donations to the DNC. It prevented the various intel services from sharing information with each other and forced all terrorist activies to be dealt with through the court system. So if the FBI say, wanted to pursue some terrorist activity they would have to convene a grand jury with all of its privacy protections.


I even remember in the 90's reading about CIA operatives having to participate in making "diversity quilts" to sensitize them to the diversity of various cultures. I kid you not...it was that bad!

[Kevin Wayne]

Well, you are helping the GOP by voting for Nader.

Nader is polling at about 1% nationwide, It's estimated about half of those are disaffected Kerry voters, a fourth are Bush defects, and the remaining wouldn't vote at all. So that means .05% of the electorate is going from Kerry to Nader. And he can't overcome that? Your candidate is in SERIOUS trouble!

Whatever happened to the good 'ol days of great candidates like Harry Truman or Abe Lincoln, who could win ina 4-way split? Guess you Democrats haven't feilded anyone of that caliber, eh? You did put up a guy who lost in his own home state last time, though. :haha:


Put it this way. A vote for Ross Perot can be interpretted as a vote that helped balance the budget. Get one thing clear, if it wasn't for Perot, we probably wouldn't have balanced the budget.


:huh:



What can Nader claim as a third party candidate? Third parties are supposed to initiate some sort of change. But what does Nader have to offer? Dean did what Nader couldn't. Dean got the lefty liberals energized and back into the Democratic party. Nader has done squat to initiate change in either party.


This is partially true... due to the fact that instead of listening to the voices of the people who might be dissafected enough to vote for him, the Democrats have engaged in a massive campaign of skullduggery, stopping at nothing to keep Nader off the ballot! I know, because I'm an Oregon resident, and I'm an eyewitness to the things they pulled.

How come Dean isnt on the ticket if he's so important?

And you seem to think Nader owes it to you to get "the lefty liberals energized and back inot the Democratic party". He does not.

He has been a voice for those who actually agree with him on the issues more than they do the Dem's, and I'm one of them.



While other nations have been subjected to much greater daily threats, 9/11 was the worst terror attack in the history of the world. Only acts of war have been able to match its disturbing results. Lets not downplay 9/11, shall we?

I stand by what I said....


Well, when troops were used under Clinton, there were certainly fewer deaths and injuries to them.

Irrelevant, even if true. And Kerry will probably have to institute a draft to get in all that he wants to send over there...


Nader is about as good a choice for President as say... well Bush.

You can'r seriously believe that. Here, look at the differences of the 3 men:

http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/the_candidates_respond.html



A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.


A vote for Kerry is a vote for another Viet Nam.



There is no change that Nader can bring. Nader is no Ross Perot or Eugene Victor Debs.

Irrelevant. Kerry is no Lincoln or Truman.



Nader is right about both parties being corrupt.


So you are going to bury you head in the sand and keep feeding the monster. Well gues what, the moster will keep eating!


Sadly, human lives are on the line this time. We've got troops in Iraq. Do what you think is in their best interest, not some guy's egos best interest.


I did. I voted for the only one who actually opposes the war. (Oregonians vote by mail, starting 10/17.)


Your man is in SERIOUS trouble, he can't overcome a tiddly defect to another candidate by convincing most people he's the right choice, he has to hound all other opposition out of the race. I bet Bush could overcome the Constitution party!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nader is polling at about 1% nationwide, It's estimated about half of those are disaffected Kerry voters, a fourth are Bush defects, and the remaining wouldn't vote at all. So that means .05% of the electorate is going from Kerry to Nader. And he can't overcome that? Your candidate is in SERIOUS trouble!Gore "lost" in Florida by a few hundred votes. 0.5% of just 1 million is well above a few hundred votes.


Whatever happened to the good 'ol days of great candidates like Harry Truman or Abe Lincoln, who could win ina 4-way split? Guess you Democrats haven't feilded anyone of that caliber, eh? You did put up a guy who lost in his own home state last time, though. :haha: Funny how he did win the plurality vote, and your support for Nader is becoming extremely suspect to me. And besides, since when was Lincoln a "great candidate"? The guy had lost every election up to the Presidential one. Granted, he turned out to be a great president, but candidate?


:huh: People who voted for Perot didn't waste their vote. Their voice was heard and acted upon. No one gives a care what a Nader voter thinks.


This is partially true... due to the fact that instead of listening to the voices of the people who might be dissafected enough to vote for him, the Democrats have engaged in a massive campaign of skullduggery, stopping at nothing to keep Nader off the ballot! I know, because I'm an Oregon resident, and I'm an eyewitness to the things they pulled.Hey, I'm completely against having Nader off the ballot. The guy got enough votes last time that should allow him provisional status on the ballot. It disturbs me that the Democratic Party has done such a thing. I'd rather lose with Nader on the ballot than win suspiciously with him taken off of it. I can't defend the party's actions against Nader.


How come Dean isnt on the ticket if he's so important?He screamed once. That angered me greatly, that a guy could show such animation for the race, and then be punished for it. But Dean did energize a part of the party that had fallen weary the past few years.


He has been a voice for those who actually agree with him on the issues more than they do the Dem's, and I'm one of them.Sure you are.


Irrelevant, even if true. And Kerry will probably have to institute a draft to get in all that he wants to send over there...Kerry wants to create a larger army. And in addition, it doesn't seem that more troops is the answer in Iraq, seeing that Iraqi's have little faith in American or foreign troops. So your idea of a draft isn't well based.


A vote for Kerry is a vote for another Viet Nam.How in the world do you figure that?


Irrelevant. Kerry is no Lincoln or Truman.Kerry has yet to be President to make that call. And Nader and Bush are certainly no Lincolns or Trumans.


So you are going to bury you head in the sand and keep feeding the monster. Well gues what, the moster will keep eating!I'd rather have the monster having sexual discretions in the oval office, not sending our troops out to get killed because of poor planning.


I did. I voted for the only one who actually opposes the war. (Oregonians vote by mail, starting 10/17.)Congrats for you. Too bad the war has already happened.


Your man is in SERIOUS trouble, he can't overcome a tiddly defect to another candidate by convincing most people he's the right choice, he has to hound all other opposition out of the race. I bet Bush could overcome the Constitution party!Yeah. i'm so sure you are a Nader supporter!

[Kevin Wayne]

JH, do me a favor and read the exchange between Bush, Kerry & Nader, (in the link I gave you) before you go making insinuations about my politics.And come back & tell me with a straight face that Nader doesn't very often have answers of mosre substance than either of the major-party candidates. And he articulates what I believe. For example, on capital punishement, he's the only one who actually opposes it.


That's the price one pays for having a mind of your own I guess. I just spent several weeks getting hacked over by Xavier, Trout, & CO. Bet they don't think I'm a closet Republican... :ahem:


Gore "lost" in Florida by a few hundred votes. 0.5% of just 1 million is well above a few hundred votes.

If he was very well liked, he would have overcame that.


Funny how he did win the plurality vote, and your support for Nader is becoming extremely suspect to me.

Either way, whoever got in was going to be seen as a "minority president".


And besides, since when was Lincoln a "great candidate"? The guy had lost every election up to the Presidential one. Granted, he turned out to be a great president, but candidate?


Whatever. Either Kerry's got the stuff to put the numbers togther or he doesn't, in which case you can only blame him and/or his party.



People who voted for Perot didn't waste their vote. Their voice was heard and acted upon. No one gives a care what a Nader voter thinks.

Well you sure are wasting your breath on me then...


Hey, I'm completely against having Nader off the ballot. The guy got enough votes last time that should allow him provisional status on the ballot. It disturbs me that the Democratic Party has done such a thing. I'd rather lose with Nader on the ballot than win suspiciously with him taken off of it. I can't defend the party's actions against Nader.

Wellllll gosharootie, there sure seems to be a dichotomy here, don'cha think? 1st you say "nobody cares what a Nader voter thinks", and then you just ADMIT the Dem's viscious actions against him. Seems like somebody cares enough to stop a Nader voter from voting!



Kerry wants to create a larger army. And in addition, it doesn't seem that more troops is the answer in Iraq, seeing that Iraqi's have little faith in American or foreign troops. So your idea of a draft isn't well based.


He's gotta get the troops from somewhere... Remember a guy named Lyndon Johnson?


How in the world do you figure that?

See above.


Kerry has yet to be President to make that call. And Nader and Bush are certainly no Lincolns or Trumans.


Guess we don't have ANY great individuals running these days, eh? No matter, we can still vote for someone who actually means what he says.



I'd rather have the monster having sexual discretions in the oval office, not sending our troops out to get killed because of poor planning.



*Pssst*...Jimmy...the "monster" I was referring to is the 2 party system! What are you talking about? :lol:



Congrats for you. Too bad the war has already happened.

Just remember, a Democrat got us into the quagmire in SE Asia... don't put it past 'em!

[$cirisme]

How many more troops will be needed? Remember, Bush is a do-it-alone guy.

Like Afghanistan...?


40,000 troops are a lot less than what will be needed under Bush.

You haven't explained(perhaps because Kerry hasn't) where these 40k troops will come from. So, basically, under your scenario, there is a draft no matter which President serves, making both of them liars.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Like Afghanistan...?Well, Iraq certainly broke that trend.


You haven't explained(perhaps because Kerry hasn't) where these 40k troops will come from. So, basically, under your scenario, there is a draft no matter which President serves, making both of them liars.Where is this 40k number coming from. I hadn't heard of that until now.

[$cirisme]

Where is this 40k number coming from. I hadn't heard of that until now.

He mentioned it in one(the second one, IIRC) of the debates and it's on his site:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Oh, and the Democrats don't use emotional warfare when they say that if Bush get's re-elected, he'll take away women's rights? :teeth:
Oh? Are the Democrats saying that? Funny, as of this moment, the only person I've ever heard say that is ... you.

[Jimmy Higgins]

He mentioned it in one(the second one, IIRC) of the debates and it's on his site:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.htmlThat thing? Isn't that part of his increasing the size of the permanent military plan? As in, how in the world could he accomplish that with a draft? He wants a larger military. The military contracted under Clinton. Now that it appears we need a larger one, Kerry wants to expand it. How is this anywhere even near an issue of a draft?

[Arnold]

I asked this in another thread but I didn't get an answer:


W says he will bring troops home from Europe and S Korea and will reduce and specialize the armed forces, and will not institute a draft. John Kerry criticizes W for wanting to bring troops home from Europe and S Korea, suggests he wants to increase troop levels in Iraq and increase overall troop levels by 40k.


Who will most likely need to institute a draft to fulfill his promises?

[$cirisme]

I'm not accusing either candidate of wanting to reinstitute a draft. According to Kerry, Bush wants a draft. Using this logic, Kerry will need one, too. Kerry is inconsistent on this issue.(like all the others) He accuses Bush of wanting to implement a draft even though the DoD is working to redeploy our European-stationed troops to better fight the war on Terror. Kerry criticizes this and wants to add 40k troops without a single explanation(that I've been able to find) of how he intends to do this. It's just like his economic plan, he plans on spending tons of new money and to cut the deficit... but only one of those can actually happen.

According to Kerry:

Bush with redeployed troops = draft
Kerry without redeployed troops and 40k additional troops = no draft

There are many words to describe this logic... consistent isn't one of them.

Edit: Arnold, you beat me to it. :whack:

[Arnold]

Edit: Arnold, you beat me to it. :whack:

Just call me "Quickdraw": :daveg:

[Ben Franklin]

... I asked this in another thread but I didn't get an answer:

... Who will most likely need to institute a draft to fulfill his promises?



I did answer: regardless of the rhetoric, the candidate (soon to be president) who is willing to fight anytime or anywhere is going to exhaust his troops and will have no choice but to institute a draft or stop fighting. If Bush stays the "course" (as he's promised many times), he will draft people.

[Arnold]

I did answer: regardless of the rhetoric, the candidate (soon to be president) who is willing to fight anytime or anywhere is going to exhaust his troops and will have no choice but to institute a draft or stop fighting. If Bush stays the
"course" (as he's promised many times), he will need to draft people.
I don't know how you can come to that conclusion, but it does not answer my question. Bush has said he will reduce inventory, specialize, bring troops home, and he will not institute a draft. As far as "staying the course" I believe he was referring to persuing the terrorists as a strategy.

[Ben Franklin]

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion, but it does not answer my question. Bush has said he will reduce inventory, specialize, bring troops home, and he will not institute a draft. As far as "staying the course" I believe he was referring to persuing the terrorists as a strategy.

We'll see.

[Kevin Wayne]

Oh? Are the Democrats saying that? Funny, as of this moment, the only person I've ever heard say that is ... you.

LOL Well shucky-darn! Sure seems like a lot of rank-and-file Democrats I run into here locally in this Hell-bent-for-Kerry town have used that objection. Comes up a lot whenever you mention that you are a Nader supporter (it did in the last election as well). If the Demo's leadership doesn't meant to convey that, don'cha think they oughta correct it? "Cuz a lot of thier followers sure think that way.

[Arnold]

We'll see.
Yes I believe you are correct. W will win. :b_stomp:


So will you answer my question?

[Ben Franklin]

So will you answer my question?



??? What...? You mean, again...? :huh: I get the feeling you're wantin' me to write only what you wanna see...? You better feed me my lines, Arnie... You didn't gimme a script...! :lol:

[Arnold]

??? What...? You mean, again...? :huh: I get the feeling you're wantin' me to write only what you wanna see...? You better feed me my lines, Arnie... You didn't gimme a script...! :lol:
Don't worry - I'm sure that the DNC will fax you one soon... :yipee:

[Ben Franklin]

Don't worry - I'm sure that the DNC will fax you one soon...



??? Why would they do that...? :huh: I'm not a Dem... Man, Arnie... you are chockful of assumptions, aren't you...? Let me guess...? You think I'm voting for Kerry, too, right...? :lol: Hey, Arnie... I'm registered "no affiliation"...! :lol:

[apple]

Like Afghanistan...?



You haven't explained(perhaps because Kerry hasn't) where these 40k troops will come from. So, basically, under your scenario, there is a draft no matter which President serves, making both of them liars.

The troops can be pulled from other areas, Europe for example. It will be a temporary arrangement. Take six months to train the Iraqi troops, supply some weapons and get out of there. I doubt Bush has plans for ever leaving as they are building permanent bases. If the Iraqis won't or can't take control of their country after the training and weapons supply then they just are not interested in doing so.

[apple]

I'm not accusing either candidate of wanting to reinstitute a draft. According to Kerry, Bush wants a draft. Using this logic, Kerry will need one, too. Kerry is inconsistent on this issue.(like all the others) He accuses Bush of wanting to implement a draft even though the DoD is working to redeploy our European-stationed troops to better fight the war on Terror. Kerry criticizes this and wants to add 40k troops without a single explanation(that I've been able to find) of how he intends to do this. It's just like his economic plan, he plans on spending tons of new money and to cut the deficit... but only one of those can actually happen.

According to Kerry:

Bush with redeployed troops = draft
Kerry without redeployed troops and 40k additional troops = no draft

There are many words to describe this logic... consistent isn't one of them.

Edit: Arnold, you beat me to it. :whack:

A good start would be to stop cutting soldier's pay. While they are in Iraq Bush and his cohorts are trying to cut their benefits. Maybe give a bonus to those who serve in Iraq?

Again, it can be a temporary thing. Six months and pack up and go home. Sure, it will cost money but perhaps taxpayers will realize the cost of an unnecessary war the next time voting day rolls around.

[Roy]

Kerry has yet to be President to make that call. And Nader and Bush are certainly no Lincolns or Trumans.


Nader has yet to be president to make that call.

Roy

[Arnold]

??? Why would they do that...? :huh: I'm not a Dem... Man, Arnie... you are chockful of assumptions, aren't you...? Let me guess...? You think I'm voting for Kerry, too, right...? :lol: Hey, Arnie... I'm registered "no affiliation"...! :lol:

So fill me in - who will you vote for? You sure sound like a liberal: :yipee:

[$cirisme]

The troops can be pulled from other areas, Europe for example. It will be a temporary arrangement. Take six months to train the Iraqi troops, supply some weapons and get out of there. I doubt Bush has plans for ever leaving as they are building permanent bases. If the Iraqis won't or can't take control of their country after the training and weapons supply then they just are not interested in doing so. We've been in Germany since WWII and will continue to be there for another 6 years or so.(IIRC, that's when Bush's plan will finish up and we will mostly be out there) We have permanent forward bases across the globe, I've lived on a few of them.

We aren't there because we are there to take care of day-to-day security operations, but because we need(ed) forward bases in case of a war with Russia. Of the top of my head, we have forward bases in Japan, Italy, Iceland, Germany, Cuba, Portugal, South Korea, (formerly) Saudi Arabia, and I think we share a couple bases with Australia and Britain. Yet when was the last time you heard of the US doing day-to-day security operations in any of those areas? As the Iraqi millatary steps up more, we will step down more and play less and less of a role in their security.

Likewise, we will have bases in the MidEast for a good long time, not for general security operations, but for the forward deployed strategic advantage.

[Ben Franklin]

So fill me in - who will you vote for?



I already voted (absentee ballot)...! Betcha didn't know (or care) I'm in Japan, part of the U.S. Navy's proud forward deployed forces...! :thumb:

Anyhow, I voted for the Peace and Freedom candidate...! So there...! I don't care about the candidates: at the national level, the party is all-important...! Dunno why I voted, though: I'm a liberal, right...? :lol: Up the "Man"...! :rofl:

[Arnold]

I already voted (absentee ballot)...! Betcha didn't know (or care) I'm in Japan, part of the U.S. Navy's proud forward deployed forces...! :thumb:

Anyhow, I voted for the Peace and Freedom candidate...! So there...! I don't care about the candidates: at the national level, the party is all-important...! Dunno why I voted, though: I'm a liberal, right...? :lol: Up the "Man"...! :rofl:

Well that really cleared things up?!?

[CatholicSage]

Well that really cleared things up?!?

:rofl: :lmbo: HA! Yeah Ben, that was a pretty confusing clarification :hehe:

[Ben Franklin]

Well that really cleared things up?!?



??? You're thoroughly confused...? Well, then, my job is done...! :thumb:

[Arnold]

??? You're thoroughly confused...? Well, then, my job is done...! :thumb:

You certainly are the expert Ben. :thumb:

[Ben Franklin]

We've been in Germany since WWII and will continue to be there for another 6 years or so.(IIRC, that's when Bush's plan will finish up and we will mostly be out there) We have permanent forward bases across the globe, I've lived on a few of them.



Me, too. I was in Germany, and did a couple of temporary deployments, one to Spain and one to Turkey. I'm in Japan now, and detailing for new orders, but since I'm Navy, the two big overseas choices are either Italy or Japan.




We aren't there because we are there to take care of day-to-day security operations, but because we need(ed) forward bases in case of a war with Russia.



IMO, America forward deployed troops to poltically deter communist spread, not to make them the vanguard of a Soviet invasion (or German trip-wire). That might have been NATO's strategy, but I don't think it was Truman's.




As the Iraqi millatary steps up more, we will step down more and play less and less of a role in their security.



Interestingly, the Sunni clerics seem to think an American-sponsored election will guarantee a continued American presence in Iraq, and they're boycotting the election.




Likewise, we will have bases in the MidEast for a good long time, not for general security operations, but for the forward deployed strategic advantage.



Cirisme, IYO, what would the purpose of stationing American troops in the Middle East...? What do you mean by "strategic advantage"...? Other than protecting American access to oil resources, I can't imagine any benefit.

[apple]

We've been in Germany since WWII and will continue to be there for another 6 years or so.(IIRC, that's when Bush's plan will finish up and we will mostly be out there) We have permanent forward bases across the globe, I've lived on a few of them.

We aren't there because we are there to take care of day-to-day security operations, but because we need(ed) forward bases in case of a war with Russia. Of the top of my head, we have forward bases in Japan, Italy, Iceland, Germany, Cuba, Portugal, South Korea, (formerly) Saudi Arabia, and I think we share a couple bases with Australia and Britain. Yet when was the last time you heard of the US doing day-to-day security operations in any of those areas? As the Iraqi millatary steps up more, we will step down more and play less and less of a role in their security.

Likewise, we will have bases in the MidEast for a good long time, not for general security operations, but for the forward deployed strategic advantage.

The difference is the other countries where there are bases are stable countries. The US will continue to be involved in Iraq's day-to-day security until such time as Iraq is stabilized. Due to the nature of Iraq that will take a long time, if ever, meaning the war will continue.

There is a sizable group of Iraqi citizens that do not want the US there, at all. That is another difference between Iraq and the other countries you mentioned.

The point is the soldiers put their lives on the line because of the belief Iraq and Saddam were a threat to US citizens. We know that was/is not true so they should not be required to continue to put their lives on the line simply to build a forward base. They are dying for an unnecessary reason. If Bush said he was going to invade a country so he could build a forward base would that be a good reason to risk the lives of the US military? That is precisely what is going on now.

The reason for the war, the supposed WMD, no longer exist. Instead of saying the mission is over Bush has decided to call a new mission. That is what is wrong and dishonest and getting people killed and turning others against the US and contributing to the terrorist propaganda. How can anyone expect the people in that part of the world to believe the US when Bush is lying to them? There is no danger to the US from any WMD in Iraq. The reason for the war is over IF that was the true reason to begin with.

[Alden]

Thanks again Kevin for reminding me what a nut you are for proxy voting for Bush.

I hope you are a better musician than you are as a political activist/strategist.

dlw

Doesn't this go against the definition of "Christian" behavior that you are constantly trying to institute at this site? :ahem:

[$cirisme]

The difference is the other countries where there are bases are stable countries.
They weren't when we first established bases.


The US will continue to be involved in Iraq's day-to-day security until such time as Iraq is stabilized.
Of course, the pattern continues.


Due to the nature of Iraq that will take a long time, if ever, meaning the war will continue.
Arguable.


That is another difference between Iraq and the other countries you mentioned.
No it's not. There is a sizable number of people in Portugual, Japan and a few other areas that don't want us there.(that is based off a report I heard in '98, so it had nothing to do with Bush or Iraq)


If Bush said he was going to invade a country so he could build a forward base would that be a good reason to risk the lives of the US military?
Err, you miss the point. We did not invade because we wanted a forward base, that is not the reason we did it in the first place. Think of Afghanistan, we did not invade for forward bases, but we're doing exactly the same thing we're doing in Iraq.

[apple]

apple: The difference is the other countries where there are bases are stable countries.

cirisme:They weren't when we first established bases.

apple: Sure they were. Germany, Japan, etc. were stable countries in the sense they were not internally divided and threatened by civil war like Iraq was/is. Those countries were defeated in the war but they were individually united.
.................................

apple: The US will continue to be involved in Iraq's day-to-day security until such time as Iraq is stabilized.

cirisme: Of course, the pattern continues.

apple: Again, it is not the same pattern. We are not talking about one culture, one national identity. We are trying to take two major groups of people and fit them into one identity along with the Kurds. It is not the same as it was with the other countries such as Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.

.................................

apple: That is the difference between Iraq and the other countries you mentioned.

cirisme: No it's not. There is a sizable number of people in Portugual, Japan and a few other areas that don't want us there.(that is based off a report I heard in '98, so it had nothing to do with Bush or Iraq)

apple: There is a difference of having been in a country 50 years compared to starting out. Also, in the case of Japan and certain others they were the defeated enemy. Iraq was not an enemy. They were not a threat to the US.

..................................


apple: If Bush said he was going to invade a country so he could build a forward base would that be a good reason to risk the lives of the US military?

cirisme: Err, you miss the point. We did not invade because we wanted a forward base, that is not the reason we did it in the first place. Think of Afghanistan, we did not invade for forward bases, but we're doing exactly the same thing we're doing in Iraq.

apple: But Iraq was not an enemy. Bush invaded because of a threat to the US and there was no threat. Hindsight shows there was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. Permanent bases will mean US soldiers will have to risk their lives for something that is not their job.

One thousand (1000) have died for the wrong reason. Whether one wishes to call it an honest mistake on Bush's part or a deliberate lie the point is they are still being asked to put their lives on the line.

Summed up, there should be no permanent base as there should not have been an invasion in the first place. Iraq was not a threat to the US. To move into a country, take over security and build a permanent base is an invasion, a hostile takeover of a country and US troops are paying with their lives for an action that has been condemned world-wide.

As Kerry said "We have to get out." Bush is digging in deeper.

[$cirisme]

Summed up, there should be no permanent base as there should not have been an invasion in the first place.

And that sums up our differences on this. We won't ever agree with eachother because of this.

I am fine with building permanent military bases for long term strategy, whether that be in Germany, Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

[Ben Franklin]

I am fine with building permanent military bases for long term strategy, whether that be in Germany, Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.



It really has been awhile since America's utter degradation and defeat within it's own borders... That was the War of 1812, right...? Man, the Brits let 'em off easy, compared with what America does to the countries it defeats. Too much hubris in America, I suppose. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" hasn't seen the light of day there for quite awhile, it seems...!

[Ben Franklin]

Think of Afghanistan, we did not invade for forward bases, but we're doing exactly the same thing we're doing in Iraq.



??? You mean that, America is looking for Osama bin Laden in Fallujah...? Cirisme, what are you illustrating with this analogy...? :huh:

[$cirisme]

??? You mean that, America is looking for Osama bin Laden in Fallujah...? Cirisme, what are you illustrating with this analogy...? :huh:
Exactly what I say I am illustrating. We're building longterm bases in Afghanistan yet no one says, "We changed missions. Bush lied!!!!!11111 OMG"

[Ben Franklin]

Exactly what I say I am illustrating.

We're building long-term bases in Afghanistan yet no one says, "We changed missions. Bush lied!!!!!!!!!! OMG"



America is building bases in Afghanistan just to build bases in Afghanistan, and America is building bases in Iraq just to build bases in Iraq...? :huh:

Are you using a teleological argument to support base-building...? :huh:

[apple]

And that sums up our differences on this. We won't ever agree with eachother because of this.

I am fine with building permanent military bases for long term strategy, whether that be in Germany, Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Iraq was not a threat to the US but the US invaded Iraq and you are in favor of building permanent bases. Does that mean you are in favor of taking over the world one country at a time?

[$cirisme]

Iraq was not a threat to the US but the US invaded Iraq and you are in favor of building permanent bases. Does that mean you are in favor of taking over the world one country at a time?
No.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am fine with building permanent military bases for long term strategy, whether that be in Germany, Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
What if the Iraqi's aren't fine with it?

[$cirisme]

What if the Iraqi's aren't fine with it?
Then the coming administrations will probably ignore it like past administrations did in Portugal, Italy, Germany, etc.

Whether that is for better or for worse is another debate.

[$cirisme]

Then the coming administrations will probably ignore it like past administrations did in Portugal, Italy, Germany, etc.

Whether that is for better or for worse is another debate.
Well, it should be pointed out though that if the Iraqi government requests our departure, then we should leave. If it's just some vocal citizens like it was under Clinton in Portugal then it is likely nothing will happen.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then the coming administrations will probably ignore it like past administrations did in Portugal, Italy, Germany, etc.

Whether that is for better or for worse is another debate.
You said that I am fine with building permanent military bases for long term strategy, whether that be in Germany, Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

I asked were you fine if with it if the Iraqis weren't.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it should be pointed out though that if the Iraqi government requests our departure, then we should leave. If it's just some vocal citizens like it was under Clinton in Portugal then it is likely nothing will happen.You are aware the Iraqis have virtually no faith in our military right? There is no way in heck Iraqis would be alright with the Americans establishing a permanent base. I'd link you to the CSIS report that goes over such things, but I've already had a thread on it.

[$cirisme]

You said that I am fine with building permanent military bases for long term strategy, whether that be in Germany, Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

I asked were you fine if with it if the Iraqis weren't.
I'm undecided. I'm still not sure about the European side of things, but it's a moot point since we will be redeploying anyway.


There is no way in heck Iraqis would be alright with the Americans establishing a permanent base.

Time will certainly tell whether that's true or not.

And I just told you what I think if the Iraqi government dislikes it.

[Ben Franklin]

Well, it should be pointed out though that if the Iraqi government requests our departure, then we should leave.



In Okinawa, mayors (Naha) and state (provincial) governors have told the American military to get out: in many cases, it's based on legal agreements and not public sentiment.

Can you clarify your position...? I'm curious... At what point or level are you willing to accept a call for American troops to leave Iraq...? :huh:

[$cirisme]

At what point or level are you willing to accept a call for American troops to leave Iraq...?

Err, I can't "accept" anything--I'm not a government or military official.

As far as your paticular question, traditional diplomatic channels would be sufficient.(such as ambasadors, for instance--that's the whole reason we have them)