Help! I'm a Republican and I'm leaning to Kerry! Ahh!

Kerry won't be jumping head-first into elective wars like Bush had already been shown to do, so he wouldn't need a draft. So you can throw that out the window already.

As for your comments, REASON, I was in the same boat as you, I just decided to jump ship a little earlier than you

You've seen how our country has been run into the ground in the last four years. We're making more enemies than we are killing off. We haven't been able to secure either Afghanistan or Iraq, both are still in states of chaos. We had few allies to start with, and some of the ones we do have are wanting to pull out (Poland, for one). Terrorism is just as big, if not a bigger concern, now than it was after 9/11. We have two very serious situations on our hands in Iran and N.Korea, and we can't afford to be dabbling into electives wars such as the one in Iraq. And that's not even to mention the # hole we find ourselves in here in America.

You've already come to the conclusion of what you should do, and it's the right choice. If you think that the country is on the right track, vote for Bush, or simply vote 3rd party. If you think our country is on the wrong track, and simply can't afford another four years of the same, vote Kerry.

That's really what it comes down to, whether you are a third party supporter or not. If you think Bush is doing a bad job -- or worse yet, for the country's sake, that he simply cannot be re-elected -- the only way to fix that is to vote for Kerry.

I admire all these third party supporters out there, but the fact is that a third party candidate will not win. If you don't vote against Bush directly, whether you like it or not, you are indirectly voting for him. That's fine if you think Bush is doing a good job, but if you think this nation can't take another four years of the same (as I do), I think it's your duty to vote AGAINST Bush -- which means voting for Kerry.

.
.

I'm actually not opposed to a draft. If we are to fight these wars, it should not be confined to only the underprivileged to serve. If wealthy and prominent members of society and Congress were to have their children in service as well, we would be much less likely to run off to war in such a cavalier fashion.

One of the things that bothers me so much about Bush is, he's the first U.S. President to give a tax cut during a War. That terribly bothers my conscious. I benefit from these tax cuts. I'm a pretty serious fiscal conservative, sometimes hawkish, that favors a small government and lower taxes. But in a time of War, we must pay for the War. Who is paying for this War? Most people who join the military, join for the college grants. They are young men from humble backgrounds who wish to gain discipline and earn money to pay for college by serving their country. In exchange, those of means would generally accept a financial burden to fund the defense of this country. Bush is putting the young, mostly under privileged, in harms ways (when possibly it was not needed) and giving the well-to-do a gigantic tax break at the same time... So that our children and grandchildren can inherit this debt. I'm a bit ashamed to have this tax cut. There is something very wrong with this picture.

.
.

Hamilton every piece of evidence i gave in my post points to the fact that this is what Kerry and many if not most democrats want in his administration.

Did you check any of the links?....no? Check at least the Democrat link....

Originally posted by Chris G
.
.

I'm actually not opposed to a draft. If we are to fight these wars, it should not be confined to only the underprivileged to serve. If wealthy and prominent members of society and Congress were to have their children in service as well, we would be much less likely to run off to war in such a cavalier fashion.
.

Kerry's "Army of New Patriots" is reminiscent of Hitler's youth programs, except in this case Kerry rewards the children, youth and elderly with education, and it is almost identical to what Castro did also....this coupled together with democrats trying to ban all sorts of weapons and you got a recipe for tyrany...

Bush was the first president ever to say the Second Amendment gave the rights to individuals, not only militias, to own and bear arms and this was passed through congress.. .and of course republicans destroyed the democratic bill for the draft...which democrats lied to the world, including Americans, when they said it was republicans trying to bring the draft back....

Can we say... FLIP-FLOP, FLIP-FLOP......


[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]

When someone mentions draft, they aren't referring to calling young people for 'national service' endeavors inside America that would help to protect our country against terror (hell, I may even support that depending on how it plays out). They aren't afraid of that.

They are afraid of our young men and women being shipped off to some foreign nation to pick up a gun and fight a cause they couldn't care less about.

You can't have it both ways. Is Kerry so soft on terror that he would try to 'negotiate' with the terrorists instead of attacking them? Or is Kerry such a war monger now that the only way to come up with enough man power to use in all these wars he plans to wage is through reopening the draft? Which is it?

Bush is the one that led us into an elective war. Bush is the one who hasn't apologized for it, and has basically said he would do it again. That type of mentality will sooner or later lead us into restarting the draft, whether you want to admit to it or not. I couldn't care less what Bush says, he says whatever he needs to to get re-elected; it wouldn't be the first time he lied to me, or to you. What I care more about is what he does; and what he is doing is leading us into optional wars, with fewer troops than recommended, and not admitting it was wrong. Military recruitment IS down, and they are lowering standards to try and get more people in. This is fact, no matter how the other side tries to spin it.

Oh, and BTW...what did Kerry say, in the second debate I believe, when Bush mentioned that if Kerry was in office instead of him, Saddam would still be in power... What did Kerry say? "not necessarily"

The only way to oust Saddam was by invading... the sanctions on Iraq under Clinton proved this.... So i guess Kerry is telling more lies to Americans and the world...

You want to mention these lies you are so eloquently hinting at?.......
and do back whatever you say please...because i can prove that everything Bush stated was said by most democrats including under Clinton's watch and even by Clinton, Kerry, Hillary, and many of the world's intelligence agencies including the UN.....

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh, and BTW...what did Kerry say, in the second debate I believe, when Bush mentioned that if Kerry was in office instead of him, Saddam would still be in power... What did Kerry say? "not necessarily"

How does that justify what Bush did? Because Kerry would have waited, and instead seen how the inspectors were treated, and if it looked as though Saddam were trying to mislead them, etc? Which in turn would have probably lead to more support from the world? Which in turn would have meant we wouldn't be over there with simply England and a bunch of countries who you've never heard of?


The only way to oust Saddam was by invading... the sanctions on Iraq under Clinton proved this.... So i guess Kerry is telling more lies to Americans and the world...

???

Bush himself admitted that the Saddam was trying to get the sanctions lifted so that he could restart his WMD program. That implies that the sanctions were working, since he couldn't start the programs again with them in place. But of course, Bush went on to say a few moments later that the sanctions were not working, so who knows when you are flip-flopping around like that?

Originally posted by Muaddib
You want to mention these lies you are so eloquently hinting at?.......

Point out what 'lies' you are referring to and I will.

If you haven't had the pleasure of speaking with me in the past ( ), I'll have you know that I don't lie. I have no reason to. I don't have a stake in any of this, I vote for who I think is the best candidate at the time.

So, you probably should focus more on disputing my points rather than simply trying to infer that they are lies. When I prove that they aren't, it detracts from what you are trying to say.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

How does that justify what Bush did? Because Kerry would have waited, and instead seen how the inspectors were treated, and if it looked as though Saddam were trying to mislead them, etc? Which in turn would have probably lead to more support from the world? Which in turn would have meant we wouldn't be over there with simply England and a bunch of countries who you've never heard of?

Bush himself admitted that the Saddam was trying to get the sanctions lifted so that he could restart his WMD program. That implies that the sanctions were working, since he couldn't start the programs again with them in place. But of course, Bush went on to say a few moments later that the sanctions were not working, so who knows when you are flip-flopping around like that?

The sanctions in iraq killed 500,000 iraqi children under the age of 5, you can find this information on the net.

and yeah...the sanctions were working marvels huh...have you heard of the oil-for-food program scandal?....

And the latest UN agency which said that Iraq had no wmd was actually paid with money from the oil-for-food program....that's enough of a motive to want to keep the sanctions in place, and not wanting a war in Iraq like Russia, france, China, NK, Germany and other countries making illegal arms and technology deals with Iraq wanted...

UNSCOM which was the agency that reported that tons of wmd were unnacounted for was not paid by the oil-for-food program...but UNMOVIC which pretty much discredited the world's intelligence agencies and UNSCOM seem to have been dirty also with the OFF deals..

Reading what you are posting I can see you don't know about OFF, and you don't know that in 2002 Iraq owed Russia 200 billions which was funneled through OFF...other countries like France, China, Germany, etc, etc...all those which opposed to the war, were profitting with illegal deals that were arming Saddam once more with banned technology and banned parts by theUN.....

BTW....just like you say Bush would say anything to win, which there is no proof that he will bring the draft or stop the elections, Kerry can say anything also...and Kerry did lie nomatter whether or not you agree with a draft....Edwards and Kerry have said there will be no draft As you can see by those links I gave, he lied....and so did many democrats...


[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Point out what 'lies' you are referring to and I will.

You said Bush lied....

Lied about what exactly?......

I'll assume you are referring to my comments about recruitment.

If so, read:

www.nytimes.com...

It paints a fair picture of what is going on. It doesn't lie and say that most military goals were not met in 2004, because they were. But it also doesn't lie and try to make it seem like military recruitment is going so well, either. The active-duty army and army reserve just barely met their 2004 quotas, and that was after starting the year with 46% of it's quota already filled. In 2005, it will start with 18% of its quota met.

Even with relaxing standards -- the first time it's been done in 6 years, and then it was done in a more prosperous economy so they had to entice young people to join the service rather than doing the college / white collar thing -- would you like to bet me that the active-duty army and the army reserve WILL NOT meet their 2005 quota?

Bush said that Iraq was a 'threat of unique urgency' -- it was not.

Bush said that Iraq was actively pursuing material to make nuclear weapons -- it was not.

Bush said (in his Jan 2003 State of the Union address), "our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" -- that was a lie.

Bush said (in his Jan 2003 State of the Union address) that, "evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida" -- that was a lie.

Bush said in the third debate that he never claimed he wasn't worried with Osama Bin Laden anymore. In 2002, Bush said, "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him ... I don't know where he is. I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Need I go on? I think it would be easier for me to list what the man HASN'T lied about

Where does it say in there that Bush is pushing for a draft?....that first, second they are saying they expect to meet the demand, and they are giving incentives so more young people join. This is not new, and even i took advantage of it when I joined the Navy on Clinton's watch....with some difficulty since we were undermanned.

The difference between what it says on that article and Kerry's plan is that Kerry wants 500,000+ young people enlisting people each year for a decade, and he wants to have a new "police force" in place, among other things....

Kerry said he was not going to do a draft, and those links i gave prove the contrary.

So Kerry is not planning to have wars and he wants 500,000 soldiers each year for the next decade?............. Compare that to the 101,000 soldiers which both the Army and Army reserves are expecting to meet this year..... don't you see a difference?...

I never said Bush outright stated he is going to enact a draft, I said look at his actions. Look at the state of military recruitment. Put two and two together.

If you can read that article and think military recruitment is just going dandy, I'm not sure what to tell you.

It presents a fair represenatation of what is going on. It admits that the military met the 2004 requirements. It admits that the army is starting off the 2005 year with only 18% of its quota met, MUCH different than the 46% in 2004, when it barely met quotas to begin with. It admits the National Guard missed its recruitment quota for the first time in a decade. It admits that the military instituted more lax recruitment standards in an effort to get more people in. It admits that over 1/3 of the army soldiers mobilized for use in a yearlong wartime program have resisted their call-ups.

Those are the facts.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Bush said that Iraq was a 'threat of unique urgency' -- it was not.

Humm...by your response i believe that i already discussed this with you...

Anyways.....Let's see what other people lied then shall we?.......

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Excerpted from.
web.archive.org...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Excerpted from.
www.usatoday.com...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Bush said that Iraq was actively pursuing material to make nuclear weapons -- it was not.

Alright, let's see what one of the liberal news media which was bashing yelling at first about what you mentioned in the above quote had to say.

What is to be learned from these findings? Not necessarily that Mr. Bush and his top aides are innocent of distorting the facts on Iraq. As we have said, we believe the record shows that they sometimes exaggerated intelligence reports that were themselves flawed. A case against Saddam Hussein could have been made without such hyperbole; by indulging in it, the Bush administration damaged its credibility and undermined support for the Iraq mission. But, as both the new reports underlined, no evidence has been presented that intelligence on Iraq was deliberately falsified for political purposes. In the intelligence community, analysts struggled to make sense of fragmentary and inconclusive reports, sometimes drawing varied and shifting conclusions. In the case of Niger, some chose to emphasize the evidence that Iraq explored the possibility of purchasing uranium. Others focused on the seemingly low probability that such a deal had been concluded or could have been carried out without detection.

Mr. Wilson chose to emphasize the latter point, that no deal was likely -- but that does not negate the one Mr. Bush made in his speech, which was that Iraq was looking for bomb material. This suggests another caution: Some of those who now fairly condemn the administration's "slam-dunk" approach to judging the intelligence about Iraq risk making the same error themselves. The failure to find significant stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear program in Iraq has caused some war opponents to claim that Iraq was never much to worry about. The Niger story indicates otherwise. Like the reporting of postwar weapons investigator David Kay, it suggests that Saddam Hussein never gave up his intention to develop weapons of mass destruction and continued clandestine programs he would have accelerated when U.N. sanctions were lifted. No, the evidence is not conclusive. But neither did President Bush invent it.

Excerpted from.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Bush said (in his Jan 2003 State of the Union address), "our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" -- that was a lie.

Ok, first let me quote exactly what President Bush said, and then i will show you he was not lying.....

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Excerpted from.
www.whitehouse.gov...

Where did Bush get this information, ok, let's see, go to the link below, and read the USNCOM report.

Excerpted from.
news.bbc.co.uk...

www.fas.org...

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Bush said (in his Jan 2003 State of the Union address) that, "evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida" -- that was a lie.

Let's se what this democrat said about this, she had access to the same intelligence and information than anyone else did, and she also saw the intelligence when her husband was in office and it concurred with what Bush said....

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

Now lets look at the information that most of the world relied on about the evidence of Saddam wmd program..

But first, let's see how many times, and since when, Iraq decided not to cooperate anymore.. This is just part of you will find at the link.

S/Res/1284 of 17/12/1999 Replacement of UNSCOM by UNMOVIC.
S/Res/1205 of 05/11/1998 Condemnation of Iraq's decision to halt monitoring.

S/Res/1194 of 09/09/1998 Condemnation of Iraq's decision to halt all UNSCOM disarmament work.

S/Res/1154 of 02/03/1998 Endorsement of the MOU on access to Presidential sites.

S/Res/1137 of 12/11/1997 Condemnation of Iraq's behavior, imposition of travel ban.

S/Res/1134 of 23/10/1997 Condemnation of Iraq's behaviour, further sanctions threatened.

S/Res/1115 of 21/06/1997 Condemnation of Iraq's refusal to grant access and interviews.

S/Res/1060 of 12/06/1996 Condemnation of Iraq's refusal to grant inspection access.

Excerpted from.

www.un.org...


Now lets read part of the reports.

Special Warheads

26. Analysis at the laboratories designated by the Commission has detected the presence of degradation products of nerve agents, in particular VX, on a number of warhead remnants which had been excavated at the sites of the unilateral destruction. The October 1998 meeting of international experts convened by the Commission concluded that "the existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq�s declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with any chemical warfare agents. The findings by all three laboratories of chemicals known to be degradation products of decontamination compounds also do not support Iraq�s declarations that those warhead containers had only been in contact with alcohols." Clarification by Iraq of these issues as recommended by the meeting would allow the Commission to make a determination whether or not the current assessment of the quantity of special warheads identified amongst the remnants excavated, accounts for all special warheads declared to have been produced by Iraq and provides for the verification of their unilateral destruction.

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


550 Artillery shells filled with Mustard

33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been "lost" shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq�s other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.

Excerpted from.
www.un.org...

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Bush said in the third debate that he never claimed he wasn't worried with Osama Bin Laden anymore. In 2002, Bush said, "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him ... I don't know where he is. I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Need I go on? I think it would be easier for me to list what the man HASN'T lied about

No...need i go on?..... many times have other members, and I, posted evidence that democrats, including during Clinton's administration and many other intelligence agencies including the UN, were saying that there were unnacounted WMD in Iraq in great quantities.

You are also forgetting all the banned rockets, missile parts, including empty banned missile containers for wmd that were found to be in possession of Iraq before the coalition attacked Iraq, as well as the documents in mass on wmd....

You are forgetting the 9 missiles which Iraq fired on the coalition at Kuwait, at least two of those were scuds and the rest were other types of missiles which were also banned.

If he kept all of these was for a reason, and if he kept playing cat and mouse with the commission hiding evidence, not realeasing all information, etc, etc, destroying supposed wmd without UN supervision, he would be stupid since, "if" he was complying to all the mandates of the UN, then he had no need for such deception, outright lies, exagerations, and such games..

Who was lying again?..........and i am not presenting other info and links i have given before of other intelligence agencies giving this same info. You can do a search on the forums with my name and find it there...its too late, and i am tired of always having to remind those who seem to have short memory problems that Bush was not alone. If what he said were lies..most of the world lied...

Nearly the whole world was saying the same thing , but some countries wanted more sanctions so they could make more money while making illegal deals with Iraq. That was the difference.




[edit on 26-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
........
If you can read that article and think military recruitment is just going dandy, I'm not sure what to tell you.
.........
Those are the facts.

The fact is, the military are almost always worried, and much more after Clinton's downsizing of the military, of not getting enough soldiers, and in order to attract more people they make incentives.... It has been like this for quite some time.

BTW...we still have a lot of military in Europe, which can be called upon if need be. We are not stretched thin, and we do not need a draft, since we have a very specialized, voluntary Armed Forces.

The goal of the Army and the Army reserves is achievable as they stated in the site, and their goals are not how many children, youths and elder people Kerry wants to get...which is 500,000+ each year for a decade...now that is almost impossible, except that Kerry and democrats have already decided to make a draft, and make other police type squads, etc, etc...

What worries me is the amount of people he wants...and that it includes children, I wonder up to what age, and elderly people able to work.

Originally posted by REASON

I am Very undecided in the election which is about a week away.

I am a business owner, I am against banning the 2nd amendment, I feel the right to bear arms is very important, therfore I guess I am a Republican!

A refreshing find to see someone using their moniker to it's desired intent!

As a business owner, I know getting Bush out of office is key to our nation's economic health. Getting our "customers & investors" back is paramount. Nothing but a bloody trade war pitting the EU vs. US will occur in a Bush second term.
Guns are not going anywhere for hunting & collecting enthusiasts. I own guns, I hunt, I belong to hunting advocacy associations ( NOT the NRA). I am NO LONGER a Republican; haven't been since Ronnie killed the party.
A vote for Kerry, as numerous Republicans have seen, will set the balance back amongst our branches of government. All republican government has lead us to the brink of disaster.
3rd party candidates offer no resolve to our domestic & global situation; there is not a sound leader among them. Enabling a close race that Team Rove can steal again is their only purpose.
John Kerry will have the Senate & House support from Republicans, yet will offer a counter.
Ask yourself if non-stop fear mongering & voter suppression is the sign of a capable incumbent "leader" going for re-election!?!

Can't vote for a traitor, just to have a democratic president and republican house and senate. Maybe if the Dems would have put out someone who did not have just flaws, I might consider voting for them.

-----

The first documentary evidence that Vietnamese communists were directly steering John Kerry's antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been discovered in a U.S. archive, according to a researcher who spoke with WorldNetDaily.

One freshly unearthed document, captured by the U.S. from Vietnamese communists in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended.

Kerry insists he attended the talks only because he happened to be in France on his honeymoon and maintains he met with both sides. But previously revealed records indicate the future senator made two, and possibly three, trips to Paris to meet with Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh then promote her plan's demand for U.S. surrender.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

[edit on 26/10/04 by jrsdls]

FACT: Kerry co-sponsors a bill that would ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, a gigantic step toward bringing Australian-style gun control to the U.S.1

This should be reason enough!

Hunters beware!