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

[CollectiveInterest]

Before Bush took office was there pressure on the all-volunteer military to implement a draft? How much pressure?

After Bush's Iraq War policy is there pressure on the all-volunteer military to implement a draft? Has the pressure increased?

Is this a good or bad thing? Who is responsible?

[CollectiveInterest]

Indeed. This sort of thing is low indeed. Remember the draftee of said draft is a Democrat.

What is pressuring the USA to consider a draft?

[CollectiveInterest]

Indeed. This sort of thing is low indeed. Remember the draftee of said draft is a Democrat.

What is pressuring the USA to consider a draft?

Lack of volunteer enlistment?

Enlistment is still strong, especially for the AF, CG and Navy.  The only area having trouble is the NG and Reserves, but they are no where near critical levels.

Can the U.S. military put two more divisions in Iraq with the current manpower? Can the U.S. military take military action against Syria, Iran or N. Korea with the current manpower levels and the requirements of occupying Iraq?

[CollectiveInterest]

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?

[CollectiveInterest]

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.

Please explain the point you are trying to make.

[CollectiveInterest]

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?

[CollectiveInterest]

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 to them. Plus they see it as a perfect chance to expand their empire because the American's are completely over stretched. China invades N.Korea. WWIII might just have been triggered.

That is why I would not attack North Korea.

I'm not advocating invading N. Korea to deal with its nuclear weapons program.

I am drawing attention to the fact that Bush invading Iraq (a country w/o nuclear weapons) has put the USA in a weaker situation to deal countries that do have nuclear weapons or nuclear programs that have the potential to build nuclear weapons.

So Bush has made negative progress on this issue which he says is the most important foreign policy challenge.

[CollectiveInterest]

They kicked inspectors out.

When Bush ordered the invasion Iraq had offered to allow inspections and Bush rebuffed the offer.

Did Bush make a mistake?

[CollectiveInterest]

As far as Iran and N.Korea those countries are a great deal harder to invade. Korea because of it's well trained army and the fact that China would be very angry if we were right next door and Iran because of the terrain. So it makes sense that we are using different tactics when it comes to dealing with them.

So invading countries willy-nilly isn't an effective way to deal with the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

By invading Iraq and being wrong on Iraq's WMD programs did Bush make it more or less likely countries would cooperate with the USA in dealing with N. Korea or Iran?

[CollectiveInterest]

*shrug* simple gaffe whose only purpose will be for us Dems to use it as a joke once in a while.  Like the Bush being wired thing

The gaffe was a joke; the draft isn't.

And Bush's claim that he's the candidate that will make a draft less likely is an outright lie.

[CollectiveInterest]

The draft is extremely unlikely.  Even I as an extremely partisan Democrat can say that.  All in all, I am very wary of Kerry using the draft in his political rhetoric, it stinks of fear mongering.  It seems far too much like Bush's use of terrorism in the campaign.

Have Bush's policies made a draft more likely?

[CollectiveInterest]

No

Philip, are you considering enlisting or applying for an ROTC scholarship?

[CollectiveInterest]

We're not invading either of those countries.

Are you saying invasion is not an effective strategy for dealing with nuclear weapons proliferation?

[CollectiveInterest]

No, I'm saying we're not invading either of those two countries

Is invading countries a viable non-proliferation strategy? When should it be used?

[CollectiveInterest]

In cases like Iraq

What details made it appropriate for Iraq?

[CollectiveInterest]

A 12-year old enemy who wouldn't quit pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Regime change has been our policy since '98 and it was time to bump him off.

In Iran, we should just immediately destroy any nuclear reactor.

You do understand Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons? It didn't have a nuclear weapons program? And it offered to let UN inspectors verify this, but Bush said it was "too late" and invaded anyway?