"I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army" - GW Bush today

[J. J.]

Here is what the article really said:

"'Let me restate that: We will not have a draft. No matter what my opponent tries to tell people and scare them, we will have an all-volunteer army,'" promised the president, who is known for frequent verbal stumbles. "

Jfern, are you really so dense that when you post a link, you think people will not read it.

This was trollish.

[J. J.]

jfern,

If this is the best you can come up with, your candidate and your party are doomed.

To sink to even close to this level, I'd have to claim Kerry committed attrocities, who was from a family of drug dealers.  The difference is, that's technically accurate, but a distortion.

You are being trollish and hackish.

[J. J.]

If the primary tool in the box of preventing nuclear proliferation is unilateral invasion, wasn't it a screw-up to invade Iraq (a country w/o nuclear weapons) if it keeps the US military from being able to invade countries that do have nuclear weapons, like N. Korea?

Can Bush supporters acknowledge the inconsistencies in Bush's strategic vision?

Brilliant, Collective Interest.  Put 37,000 troops about 15 miles ouside of a country making nuclear weapons. 

Move them back and allow an effective land-air war to take care of an invasion.  We're not fighting with fixed bayonettes anymore.

[J. J.]

I'm suggesting that you are not[b/i] facing a country where the threat is going to be met a mass of ground troops.  We will not be restaging WWI.

The way to deal with a North Korean threat will be more technologically advance force, not a lot of people in uniforms. 

The problem with putting in a lot of ground troops is that putting more at rik if the NK uses nuclear weapons.

[J. J.]

If the primary tool in the box of preventing nuclear proliferation is unilateral invasion, wasn't it a screw-up to invade Iraq (a country w/o nuclear weapons) if it keeps the US military from being able to invade countries that do have nuclear weapons, like N. Korea?

Can Bush supporters acknowledge the inconsistencies in Bush's strategic vision?

Okay lets say we invaded N.Korea instead.... Now we would have needed many, many more troops to fight an enemy with a well trained army.

Then let's say at the end we actually won! But, right next door China is feeling very uncomfortable with a strong American presants right next door China invades N.Korea. WWIII might just have been triggered.

That is why I would not attack North Korea.

I frankly don't believe this being proposed by any candidate?

[J. J.]

The way to deal with a North Korean threat will be more technologically advance force, not a lot of people in uniforms. 

What happens after the North Korean military is broken through air power?

Did you pay attention to "shock and awe" and the Iraq War?

You misunderstand, badly.  The troops which in S. Korea are defensive, not offensive.  This has acually been the policy since Carter, and I suspect since Eisenhower.  The idea is to use the land-air war concept against an attack from North Korea.

The only bpeople talking about invading North Korea are some of the Democrats that post here.  I can't even blame Kerry for this.