Possible draft

Yeah but for some reason it seems like Republicans are more likely to use their influence to get OUT of combat rather than into it. Just seems like the trend.

I dunno, when I was in the military I'd say the majority of enlisted were republican. I have no figures, just how it seemed to be when I served. What was it like when you served? Oh what's that, you didn't. Ahh

edit:
I should add, political parties don't matter. The fact is the men and women in the service are Americans. Party doesn't mean diddly shit.

An interesting comparison....

It isn't so much who served and who didn't serve, it's the fact that so many of the people who are now so anxious to send other people's sons to die went to some lengths to avoid being put at risk in a similar situation... and that so many of the people who did serve are less willing to send in troops at the drop of a hat....

Wow, that site isn't partisan, is it? Might as well have a big picture of Bush wearing a nazi uniform next to a nice fat picture of Michael Moore eating pancakes. And...some Moore rants about how Bush didn't shoot anybody in a war. Even though it's ironic that he's criticizing Bush for that since Mikey hates guns himself. hehe..Okay, there I go with the MM stuff again--back on topic.

David: I fully agree. I don't think we were really generalizing in a political sense (that's what I was complaining about actually), although I guess we are in the following sense--I agree with Teeny; the better connected and wealthier are more likely to get away with things. But I might be missing your point.

Teeny: Oh, I definitely agree. I think I was responding to a different comment with the Rep/Dem kid thing. Too lazy to go back and look.

Corwin: I didn't look at your link too long, but off the top of my head I'm thinking maybe some vets who served in a war (*especially* Vietnam) are too emotional about the topic (not that we can blame them). Sometimes force is necessary and you have to try to be as objective as possible about a decision on it.

I don't think that military (or war) experience makes someone's opinion on a decision to go to war any better; perhaps even the opposite in some cases. A Vietnam Vet will ensure that a war is fought correctly (to WIN, not halfassed), but I'm inclined to believe that the emotional factor will play a part. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

The site doesn't really claim to be non-partisan.... it has an agenda and is pretty straightforward about that agenda. The facts it lists can be verified tho. (Such things are a matter of public record as well as the statements of the people involved.)

Bottom line.... the fact that we have someone who went to some lengths to avoid active combat duty (and got a highly sought after spot due to his father being an influential senator) that then proceeded to desert from that cushy position is now sending other peoples' sons to fight over a highly questionable cause is somewhat ironic, no? As well as the support he recieves from people that did pretty much the same thing? And he has the gall to question the patriotism of other people who didn't use family influence to get out of danger? (Kerry volunteered for the navy when his draft number came up, Clinton subjected himself to the draft, etc.)

Say what you will... but the irony of the situation is a bit... thick. Isn't it?

True, it never claimed to be non-partisan. I just don't think the point it was trying to make (from the brief amount of time I spent looking at it) was really a very good point.

If there was a draft, the first thing I would consider doing is signing up ASAP to avoid being drafted, so I could have a better chance of getting a job I wanted which I'd be good at. (Although maybe I'm getting too old to be drafted anyway.) Did Kerry do the same because he didn't have an easier way out like Bush did? Perhaps not, but it's probably pretty much impossible to know.

I think it's moot anyway, since I'm not basing my vote on something that happened decades ago unless it's a big something. But as for whether Bush avoided the war or Kerry supposedly didn't deserve his Purple Hearts (yes I think he did), I don't really care.

I agree that it seems pretty ironic, but that's all it is. If we were to start requiring all of our leaders to have served in a war 20-30 years before they are allowed to dare send anyone else to fight, our leaders would be next to useless. Attacks like this on Bush are just attempts to grasp whatever Democrats can find to make him look bad.

Well, the Republicans relentlessly attacked Clinton in the same fashion. Its just modern, ugly partisan politics. Its only gonna get more messy in the coming months.

Yup, and back then I thought it was pretty stupid too. Now it's just in reverse!