Regardless of whether or not there were WMD's, it was an immoral war, but that's not the point. Bush went in with not nearly enough troops. Even conservatives (Franks, Novak, Bremmer, and others) agree on this. We need more now, that's near indisputable.

HI,

I think there needs to be the this discussion, and might as well keep it here. Although no one will argue that politics is a "science" and good luck with the tech support on that.

I think that we have to bozos running for office. I'll be voting for Bush because I think Kerry is the greater of two evils. I do wish there were a different choice for canidates, but feel that anyone *qualified* to take the job *WONT* because of all the other baggage associated with the position. With all of the nuts running around today, why would a successful, intelligent, effective leader want to expose himself and his family to the rigors of high political office? A lot of energy to be spent, and what would he achieve? (I am using him for the sake of argument, I think a woman can lead too) I think that the way the press eats alive the private lives of the canidates seriously narrows the canidates, and flushes out the good ones who won't put up with the slander. So we get good ole' boys to run, and mediocre results continue.

I think we had to go to Iraq. I do not think it will end soon, and to be honest, am surprised that martial law is not in effect over there, and everyone sorted out. Then again, I repair computers and networks; I am not a military tactition. I do realize, though, that after WWII, Japan was occupied for 5 - 10 years and re-built, at the cost of the American Taxpayer. Too bad no one really learns history deeply anymore; war is war, and we are trying to change the attitudes in Iraq, and the Middle East.

In some ways, I support a draft! Other countries have it, and young people can learn a trade from the military, a sense of discipline, and how to work together. When I was 18 - 19, I knew college was in line for me; I wanted to be an engineer or computer guy, and I knew what direction to go and steps to take. I knew a lot of people who didn't. Perhaps the military would be an answer to try different things while being paid, and discovering internal things about ourselves.

Then again, a draft implies wartime action, especially in this day and age. Could I ask someone to go in my place? No, my constitution forbids that. Unfortunuately, I also realize that someone over there has a hatered for my country, and might be planning to attack me, because that person has no other viewpoint to work with. But I have no doubt in my mind that if the war comes here, I will arm myself, and be prepared to defend my friends and family without question. (I am a believer in gun safety, and believe that people kill people, and guns do not kill people). I think everyone should know how to fire a weapon, and be ready if the war comes home.

I am thankful for the soldiers of yesterday that have served our country. I am thankful for the soldiers today who serve today. If drafted, I would ask for a computer support assignment or communications assignment, so that I could support others in the field, and to my part.

I'll come back later,

Christian

What Alex is referring to here is called bias or 'media spin' and you can read more about it here if you're interested:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/05/25.html , but I can give a couple of examples that I myself posted here.

In my very first post in this thread (post #1), the word Democrat doesn't really need to be there. The meaning of the post would not change at all. But by having it there, it subtly shows that it was a Democrat that started the Draft rumor that many are blaming on Republicans.

In post #7, I could have just given the link to the WMD report without comment; this would have been unbiased. But by including the comments I did, I gave the impression that I didn't agree with the prior post.

The most blatent example of this is the recent Dan Rather scandal. Now, I'm not saying that Mr. Rather knew these documents were fraudulent, be he had staff members telling him they didn't look right. He should have done more to insure their accuracy before airing them; but he had an agenda he wanted to protray and these fraudulant documents fit it perfectly.

The reason I'm posting this thread is so everyone remembers to get all the facts for themselves, not to rely on any one else's "opinion" (especially not the 'News'!) because, whether intentional or not, it will usually be biased.

Hey, did anybody catch in the last debate (10/08/04), where Kerry said he was going to add 40,000 more troops??? How is he going to do that? It's all volunteer now, so is he going to somehow get 40,000 more people to join? Or is he secretly planning to start the draft again? Well, he won't get congress to start the draft again, and he said he wasn't going to, so I'd like to know just how he plans to get another 40,000 troops. Anyone have any ideas?