Oct 8 2004, 5:01 pm
In response to N1ghtW1ng
|
|
Jotdaniel
 |
Only if they haven't been replied to yet.
|
Ter13 wrote:
So, as it turns out, Kerry tonight mentioned adding 40,000 troops to the war effort. Bush, however claims he wants the ammount of troops to stay about the same. The chances are zero either way. Kerry's figure is taken from the reserves. Lummox JR | |
I didn't think about that... I thought we only had a surplus of about 24,000 or so...
Though, I agree that the chances are so incredibly small that it is almost a joke. | |
I only browsed quickly, but Bush said on a debate tonight that there will never be a draft while he is in office.
Yeh thats REALLY gonna make me vote for him. | |
I think what he was trying to say was that The draft thing was the Democrats trying to scare up some votes for Kerry. I don't know if Kerry supports this idea, but he actually badmouthed Bush during the debate for using "scare tactics".
I'm not pro-Bush, I'm not pro-Kerry, but I'd rather have a president who I know his agenda. At least, I know he won't CHANGE his agenda. It's an opinion, I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but it's just how I feel. Anybody feel the opposite? | |
Blah, I hate that I had to register for the draft on my 18th birthday. If the draft would ever for some reason be reinstated, I'd have to fight for the two things I really wouldn't want to fight against. Communism or terrorism. Not that I LIKE either of those things, but I'd feel better to fight against someone who was committing genocide like the Nazi's or something. (Though I'm sure you can also label terrorists as genocidal, but fighting them would be difficult and dirty work. I highly respect those who served in Afgahnistan and Iraq).
Kind of an empty concern since the draft is so unlikely. But it still stews in the back of ones mind. | |
I'm not pro-Bush, I'm not pro-Kerry, but I'd rather have a president who I know his agenda. At least, I know he won't CHANGE his agenda. I look at it this way: if the country is cruising along at 200 miles per hour and there's a huge brick wall in our path... I want a president who realizes that altering course in response to new information is a sign of intelligence, not weakness. | |
Due to the way our bodies work, I believe it would require a lot more training for women to be able to match those guys. Testosterone and other chemicals are used at different levels within both of the sexes, and because of this women have a harder time developing resistance pushing muscles. However, I believe it so happens that women might not get the physical strength down, they can get a lot more physical endurance, but endurance doesn't lift a huge crate of ammo, the strength part does, so in order to get to use that endurance they would have to work double time on strength. I remember some tests done on women in the military and they put them through different tests in which the outcomes were not so good. You also have the problem of the men being distracted by the women, and if they act on their feelings then it could really turn the tables the wrong way in the battle they are fighting.
| |
Let's just put it this way:
Both males and females have positive and negative talents. Most males cannot do half the things a female can do such as most females cannot do half the things a male can do. Both males and females are unique in their own way...and females going to war is just not one of them.... | |
Bah let me put it this way everyone is unique and has their own strengths and weaknesses. If you took the average strength of a man and the average strength of a woman the average strength of a man would probably be higher however that does not mean that all men are strong and all women are weak. I'm quite sure there are a lot of women who would fare better in war than I would.
Grouping people based on traits is useful for a quick survey on people's possibilities with a varying margin of error but it will never be 100% correct. Generalizations are useful but should never dictate what an individual can or can't do. | |
Okay, answer this:
If the military was full of women, not men, do you think the wars would be better, or worse? | |
If the military was full of women, not men, do you think the wars would be better, or worse? What does this question have to do with anything that I was argueing? Restricting the military to either gender would get rid of plenty of fully capable soldiers and thus is just plain stupid. | |
Well said. I find it odd that everywhere except in politics, adapting to new information is a *good* thing. I am baffled by the constant cries of "waffling" or "flip-flopping" that accompany elections. To me, it shows an unwillingness or inability to address issues.
Personally, I am quite disappointed by the Bush campaign's onslaught of personal attacks and negative ads. From Swiftboat to Friday's cries of tax and spend liberalism, they are patronizing an nasty. I would rather see Bush focus on his strengths and answer Kerry's claims about the war in Iraq, terrorism, job loss, etc. As to clarity, despite negative attacks to the contrary- I think both candidates' positions are pretty clear, even if they both seem to refuse to get very specific. Interestingly, their positions don't seem to be very far apart! | |
Personally, I am quite disappointed by the Bush campaign's onslaught of personal attacks and negative ads. From Swiftboat to Friday's cries of tax and spend liberalism, they are patronizing an nasty. I would rather see Bush focus on his strengths and answer Kerry's claims about the war in Iraq, terrorism, job loss, etc. Well Bush wasn't responsible for the Swiftboat ads anymore than Kerry was for Fahrenheit 9/11. There are just some real nasty 3rd party sources :P. | |
Man, I was just asking. No reason to get feisty. Uh I was just asking how the question related to the argument not attacking you. | |
they will be signing an And what, pray tell, would ever convince us to sign such a thing? Gosh, peaceful young men and women want to come to canada and stay. Lets send 'em all back, and just keep the criminals. Thoughtful people who are willing to act upon their beliefs should never be permited to stay in Canada. lets chase them all away. Nope. no room for independant thinkers here. But they dont know how to properly punctuate their sentences with 'eh'! Of what use could these people be? Lets return them to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, along with a leash for each one. | |