SwiftVets.com

bluesteele · Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject:

CTW and others; it is best to know the other sides platform--read the Democratic Party platform statement for 2004. It does say that the party wants to bring in 40,000 more troops, but doesn't specify how this would be done. Perhaps they believe that there will be an all-out recruiting effort to bring in those numbers rather than resort to a draft?

shadowy · Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:38 pm Post subject:

The most powerful way to counter this one is to make anyone who believes it think about what would happen to enlistments if Kerry was elected. So many patriotic Americans who would want to serve otherwise would not in a Kerry administration. A draft would almost surely be necessary. Then we'd have the kind of divided, unwilling, disgruntled military liberals love to see.

I have always told my son that I would support his decision to enter the service, but if Kerry was Pres. I definitely would not. I would tell him to avoid it any way he could, because there is no way I would want him in a demoralized, disrespected, underequipped military. More than that, I would be absolutely oppposed to him being exposed to the possiblility of being tried as a war criminal in some phony international court under the jurisdiction of America hating, terrorist sponsoring nations. I think Kerry would jump at the chance to expedite that. If most of the people who believe in defending the country would get out or stay out of Kerry's military, a draft would be inevitable. That's what should scare whoever is afraid of a draft.
_________________
It's downright brilliant the way he's reserving his devastating intellect to spring it on us at exactly the right moment.

gia_lin_fo · Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:28 am Post subject:

Some what off the draft topic. Bush has not criticized Clinton for leaving him a military that was inadequate for the missions that emerged after 9/11. I am somewhat sure the there were four less army divisions than when Clinton took office. If it were not for the superb performance of the services with what they had, it would have been inadequate. Senator Levin sat there and said that it was the army that Bill Clinton built that took Bagdad in three weeks. It was Democratic malfeasance that put us in that situation and, then, they have the gaul to turn around and say that it is Bush's fault we don't have enough troops to do the job.

I believe that it will be Kerry policy, that, in order to secure French support, he will reduce the military to the point where it cannot do the job alone. Not sure what he will do to get the Russians, Chinese and British on board? Use that vast intellect of his to build a coalition, like the uniting not dividing he has done in this campaign. Oh yeah, he's loosing.
_________________
VietNam 1970-1971

CTW · Rear Admiral Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 691

I am quite certain there would not be a huge line to enlist if Kerry was elected. The young people say they will vote for him because THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A WAR. They think he will end this and everybody will come home and life will be great again. So they will vote for him and then as was said on tv tonight by one of his people (sorry can't think of his name, somebody here will know. I have great confidence.) , "there will be a call up". He said it. he will be in the cabinet. and all those young people will find themselves picking what color uniform they want to wear.
"40,000 more troops" no other way to reach that number. Rangel et al will insist that all young people are included. That's what the debate was about. Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes...on the record. It was a shot over the bow to say the next draft is for every young person. Don't ignore this. CTW

Never Ever Kerry

cipher · Vice Admiral Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 902

The draft issue is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

If Kerry is elected, the military is NOT going to be a fun place to be. Let me be clear, by "fun", I mean getting up out of bed every morning before dawn and actually looking forward to the day ahead, for as long as it lasts.

Every GI I've ever served with lived the military "one day at a time". If that day doesn't look like it's going to shape up into something worthwhile, then apathy sets in REAL fast. And it's contagious.

I watched it happen right before my eyes during the Carter administation. When I went into work and I knew from the day before I'd have to figure out what to steal from whom to keep my equipment running so we could carry out our missions, that was very much NOT fun.

I can imagine it's pretty much the same for the grunts. If you don't have confidence in your leaders, then morale goes right out the window.

If the "lifers" bail out -- the NCOs and Staff NCOs -- because it's not worth it to stick it out for your 20, then you've got a recipe for disaster.

And the seeds for a draft.

With Kerry as CinC, I can see a draft happening. With Bush, it's not even a possiblity.
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92

fanningp · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Posts: 89

Nobody was PROUDER than I was to serve in the Navy during the Reagan-Lehman years. Their dreams of a 600 ship Navy, tho never realized, help keep our strength where it needed to be.

Then along came Clinton and many of those ships are sold or scrapped. Some were long overdue. But the idea was gone. I tell everyone I transferred to the IRR in '91 for family reasons.....sometimes I wonder.....
_________________
Pete Fanning
US Navy, DP1, '84-'92
http://peterepublic.org