Forum Discussion

Good to say Kerry still great fodder for toons!

: )

Did John Kerry put on a military uniform? Yes he did.
Did he serve his country? no he didn't

hope that clears it up for you

Yeah... Why did he even go over to Vietnam. He could have just gotten 5 defferements or hid out over in Texas National Guard.

//Yeah... Why did he even go over to Vietnam. He could have just gotten 5 defferements or hid out over in Texas National Guard. //

Or he could have gone to College in Canada while NOT inhaling marijuana and frisking co-eds during the beer bong party like our dear Mr. Clinton.

>frisking co-eds during the beer bong party like our dear Mr. Clinton.

Or dear drunk Mr. Bush

//Or dear drunk Mr. Bush //

Hm I don't recall W. ever having any lawsuits for sexual harassments against him when he matured(married Laura), are you sure you're talking about George W? Now there was that skydiving frat party incident with Bush Senior, hooty hoot that guy's a party animal...

DUI

Yeah!!! only people who never fought wars should talk about them. Let see where can i find some....hmmm...5 defferements Cheney seems to qualify. And so does Hide out in National Guard Bush....

No one is saying that Kerry can't talk about it, but he did lay it on pretty thick. His disdain for the military made his frequent "I was in Vietnam" talk pretty dubious. He testified against the military actions in Vietnam, but then boasted to us about his service there.

Cheney may not have served in military, but his credentials as a former Secretary of Defense during a War, so his military credentials are pretty good.

Bush served intensively in the National Guard with high marks from his superiors.

>but his credentials as a former Secretary of Defense during a War, so his military credentials are pretty good.

Just because he got appointed as a Secretary of Defense and then there was a war does not mean he got any credentials on it. There have been tons of millitary commanders in history appointed and otherwise who could not tell a bayonet from a steak knife.

Authority can be appointed, respect must be earned.

>Bush served intensively in the National Guard
Did not he spent whole bunch of time working for campaign of various political figures during that? Plus military training on a base does not beat actual combat experience.

> with high marks from his superiors.
And yet you guys think that Kerry's high mark in a form of purple hearts and Bronse Medals are nothing. So what does it say about Bushes high marks?

The Persian Gulf War went pretty well. His respect was earned.

Bush may have worked on campaigns. But nevertheless during his five years, he earned 704 more points than he needed to (50 points required each year). So he put in plenty more time than needed. I can also go into the hours he spent actively training and flying, etc. If I were only in the Guard to hide out, I don't think I would have put in the extra time and effort, like Bush did.

As for Kerry, based on accounts from witnesses, such as the doctor that treated him, he was technically eligible, but not truly deserving. Which is unfortunate, because it cheapens the meaning of the medals. Kerry's flawed history with his Vietnam service (including his slanderous testimony to Congress) wouldn't have been a big deal to us had he not try to wear it on his sleeve.

>As for Kerry, based on accounts from witnesses, such as the doctor that treated him, he was technically eligible, but not truly deserving.
It still beats sitting on a safe base in a middle of a country with no enemy in sight. Or running around doing fundraising on army time. Any way you look at it, neither Bush nor Cheney come out on top.

> The Persian Gulf War went pretty well. His respect was earned.
How is that? The generals (and mind you not just US generals) planned the mission, the soldiers executed it. None of that gives Cheney military experience, any more then it gives a manager at a supermarket farmer/agricultural experience just cause he asked for certain type of bread for his store.

This is going no where. Unless I show video footage of Cheney doing something relating to the Persian Gulf War, you will just say "that doesn't mean anything." I'm not saying it's unreasonable in a debate to be skeptical and ask for evidence. But at a certain point, it is unreasonable to demand evidence of the most basic statements. It is a stretch of the imagination to think that Cheney as Defense Secretary did nothing relating to the military or the war it conducted. And it is further a stretch to think that at the same time, he had nothing to do with our success in the war.

But if you do feel that way, I am sure that you are quick to correct your liberal comrades, when they attack Rumsfeld, that he doesn't have any involvement with the current Iraq war.

As for the comparison between Bush and Kerry, fine. Bush did not see enemy combat, though he did participate in many fighter pilots execrises as both the enemy and as the US fighter pilot. He wasn't just marking time, he was making the most of it to excel in being a fighter pilot. And Kerry did see combat, but did what he could to get out early (i.e. "earning" enough Purple Hearts for scratches), and then slandered his fellow soldiers.

I have no idea what fundraising you're refering to, so it is your turn to provide the evidence. Photos of him in the process of raising funds are preferred. I do know that he sought and got permission in 1972 to work on a Senate campaign. Seeing how he earned more than three times the points he needed, I don't see how he was doing it on "army time". He fulfilled his requirement threefold.

//It still beats sitting on a safe base in a middle of a country with no enemy in sight.//

No I think lying about what he was doing is worse than serving within the borders of your country.

http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Christmas

"The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.

John Kerry was never shot at by Khmer Rouge and Cambodians. He never took CIA operatives into Cambodia to search for enemy enclaves. In fact, John Kerry's boat never came within 50 miles of Cambodia."

Here's my favorite part about the "purple hearts"

"It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer."

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryinVietnam

Looks like the only enemy Kerry needed to worry about was his own clumsiness. You can relate to that can't you, Goot? Night, night snook'ems!

Invader:
>But if you do feel that way, I am sure that you are quick to correct your liberal comrades, when they attack Rumsfeld, that he doesn't have any involvement with the current Iraq war.

Involvement is the wrong word. Competent execution of it is what matters in a Secretary of Defense.
And the way this war is prosecuted I'd have to say he is lousy at that. Lack of body armor, not enough troops to hold the region pacified, troops going for the 5th tour of duty (fatigue is a serious issue), requirement falling. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he spoke the following words on February 7, 2003, "The war with Iraq could last 6 days, 6 weeks, or 6 months." Recently I heard on Rumsfeld in the interview with im Lehrer say this: It may last up to 12 years, insurgencies usually do. (not an exact quote).
That just shows that war is badly planned.
Also were not we supposed to use Iraq oil money to pay for reconstruction. The oil production is way lower then prewar levels and noone of it is paying for anything. More over only I think a week ago its been announced that less and less reconstruction money is going to reconstruction because they are required for security.

All of what I mentioned above is easily verifiable (just search the Google news). Now you can either actually look them up and tell if that is an indicator of a badly prepared for and executed war or just pull out talking points. If you choose to argue on merit then please stay on the subject. Lets have a debate that is limited to particular issue without dragging in everything since then it just becomes a food fight. :)

Now I am sure you will be quick to attribute this to liberals but remember this: Wars are not want by acts of heroism but by careful preparation.

Invader:
>I have no idea what fundraising you're refering to, so it is your turn to provide the evidence.
Part of the campaign was raising money for the candidate. He was a political director for one for sure, and that job does include planning fundraising efforts and events. You can nitpick but seriously he spent several month working on two diffent campaigns. You seriously think there is no fundraising involved?

TJ: Swift Vets have prooven to be top notch smear people. I am sure there are facts in there, but the general sense of anyoen who heard or read them is that about 80% of what they are saying is elegantly phrased, for luck of better word, crap (used as a descriptive term here, not offensive one).

>"It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer

All of this still beats sitting a Texas on base far away from the war. It still gives one more military experience. More over its interpretation of his actions by people who were not there. I noticed that people who were there and whom he pulled out of the fire seem to agree with his version of events.

//I noticed that people who were there and whom he pulled out of the fire seem to agree with his version of events.//

So wait, Goot, you're talking about 3 guys to 11 others he served with. I don't know if you noticed, but you're conversing with a group of people that have this whole "majority rules" outlook, you know, like democracy. Truth be told, two of those guys were "iffy" to start with when in came supporting Kerry.

As far as how Bush did his service, he was in the AIR Force. I'm not sure how much you know about the Air Force, but in the 8 1/2 years I spent in the Air Force were spent in an office repairing all the computers on my base. Rarely did we even step foot off our bases in terms of the military mission. George just never received any of those assignments. Of course I served when Clinton was in office, and he wasn't much for using any of us (Army, Navy, AF, Marines) to defend the country.

And you can own up the lack of preparedness to that Clintonian era seeing as how he riduclously cut back the military budget while he was president. If "W" had tried to jam the defense budget back to where it had been or where it needed to be as soon as he'd gotten in the White House, there'd have been an caterwauling of libs and dems about his "needlessly" shifting the money to defense...and then BOOM! 9/11 happens and now Rumsfield is criticized for using WHAT THEY HAD AVAILABLE after all the CLINTON CUTS. Don't even go after Rumfield being unprepared, he used what was available, and when it comes to bureacracy ordering and designing newer and better equipment, you know for a fact there was some DFL pork bellies delaying as long as possible to get their cut.

>So wait, Goot, you're talking about 3 guys to 11 others he served with.
Ok! Who should I listen to? None of the other "swift vets" served with him.

>Of course I served when Clinton was in office,
Bush served during a war. And he was in National Guard not regular Air Force. Had he joined regular Air Force, he would have been in Vietnam for sure. What stopped him? Hell he could have requested going to Vietnam, he would nto have said no trained pilot. But hey you can not do that if you are trying to working for politicians who are trying to get elected.

>guys were "iffy" to start with when in came supporting Kerry.
Why were they iffy?

>Rumsfield is criticized for using WHAT THEY HAD AVAILABLE after all the CLINTON CUTS.
Oh please we spent more on this war then any other war ever. Its been years but soldier still are not getting their body armor. Or getting substandard one:

And to add injury to insult:
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514

...snip....
The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
...snip....

I am staying on a particular issue. My point is you suggest that Cheney had nothing to do with the Persian Gulf War as the Defense Secretary, but Rumsfeld has to do with everything [bad] about the Iraq War. If you want to go into details about Rumsfeld, that's for another thread for another day.

Frankly, I don't care if Bush raised money for candidates. I just never heard of his political activity other than in '72 when he went to Alabama, with senior officer approval, to work on that Senate campaign. He more than fulfilled his duty for the NG, threefold.

As I said, this is obviously going no where. I can only give the same responses to your same comments so many times. You've worn me down. I will do battle with you on the Rumsfeld stuff on another day in another thread.

>you suggest that Cheney had nothing to do with the Persian Gulf War as the Defense Secretary

I did not say nothing. I said it does count not as military experience.

Hey Good Will, speaking about "spending money on war" did you know the USA spent over 5 billion dollars(approximately) on Europe and lost over 4 million men in combat in WW2?

If you are trying to argue that this is "the most expensive war ever," try putting the number 2 thousand lost in Iraq next to 4 million soldiers lost in WW2. And put the number 5 billion dollars spent on rebuilding Europe.(You do the math).

It's probably pointless for me to argue with a pig-headed liberal anyway....

Bridget, what point are you actually making?

A. 4 million men in combat in WW2?
Q. United States did not lose 4 million soldiers in WWII. I do not know where you are getting you facts, but if you are paying money for that, ask for a refund. Here is a link for break down of the loses by country. Please check your facts. Where did you pull 4 million from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

Second, 5 billion's need to be adjusted for infation rates over the years. (just to compare, a trip to the movies back then was 10 cents, now its liek $11 on average)

More over:
Unlike Iraq, WWII was a much larger war against a much better equipped and organized opponent with a huge industrial base. We spent money to builds thousands of tanks and air planes, millions of bimbs, to equip and feed and train nearly a million troops.

What was your point exactly?

>It's probably pointless for me to argue with a pig-headed liberal anyway....
When can not argue on issues, villify, villify, villify, villify, villify. I welcome the member of the Villification Party to the debate.

John Kerry was in the military!!!
Bush let me think about...MIA!!!

Merely having served does not automatically qualify one for greater respect (even on military matters) than one who has not. Kerry's medals were basically publicity stunts (he himself requested that he be considered for them...) and not remotely "earned", and then he turned around and spewed venom at the entire war effort (and any vet will tell you that protests of that particular sort *do* lower morale, encourage the enemy, and ultimately harm the troops).

Bush *did* get intentionally deferred, but at least he was honest about it, and didn't run to Canada like Clinton.

If you're serious about giving vets more credibility though, and if most Dems will actually hold to that principle, then please, elect McCain in a landslide in '08, because his military credentials are not compared to Kerry's as Kerry's are to Bush, but rather as Kerry's are to Clinton - i.e. McCain's *true* service and suffering for his country makes Kerry's claims to have "deserved" those Purple Hearts and "served" his country seem (as they are) nothing more than a tasteless joke.

What about Five Defferement that mister Cheney had?

>and any vet will tell you that protests of that particular sort *do* lower morale, encourage the enemy, and ultimately harm the troops
Not any vet.

>If you're serious about giving vets more credibility though, and if most Dems will actually hold to that principle, then please, elect McCain in a landslide in '08
What about General Westley Clark? He fought for our country. Can I give my vote to him?
Also should the fact that they were in the military be the deciding factor in election as you are implying. And if you think that just because someone was a good soldier it does not mean they are a decent politician. Duke Cunningham got tons of medals, that did nto stop him from accepting about 2.4 millions in bribes. You know he is on trial for that now right?

This is a bit off topic, so feel free not to reply: Did you know a 1/3 of all America's homeless are vets?

OK, in order...

1) OK, so Cheney got deferrments too... like I said, I've got no problem admitting that about Bush, so why would I have a problem admitting it with Kerry? A large number of current politicians on *both* sides of the aisle were deferred. It is, however, interesting that most of the *blatant* draft-dodgers who didn't even bother with a deferrment, but simply broke the law are Democrats (sorry, haven't had a chance to research this yet for actual stats, but who's really going to contest the assertion that most Vietnam protesters were/are Dems?).

2) OK, not *any* vet. Most vets, excluding of course those who themselves joined protests.

3) Go ahead, vote Clark, but though his rank is higher, his actual *combat duty* record is nowhere near McCain's.

4) You missed my point. I was *mocking* the idea that one candidate should be favored over another merely because of military service. I'd still *love* to see you vote McCain, because I still do think he's a true war hero and an exceptional politician, but the part about needing to vote for him because of his war record was a sarcastic extrapolation of an idea someone implicitly stated before me - that Kerry was a better candidate because he served in Vietnam and Bush didn't.

>It is, however, interesting that most of the *blatant* draft-dodgers who didn't even bother with a deferrment, but simply broke the law are Democrats (sorry, haven't had a chance to research this yet for actual stats, but who's really going to contest the assertion that most Vietnam protesters were/are Dems?).

A. Saying stuff does not make it true.
B. Does it ever occur to you that peopel who disagreed that war was necessary do not want to fight it?

>4) You missed my point. I was *mocking* the idea that one candidate should be favored over another merely because of military service.
Oh I agrre with that one. But when people start saying Bush know more about military then Kerry, its somewhat laughable given the difference in their combatr experience (well bush has none actually).

OK, that's fine... I don't know who says Bush knows more about combat than Kerry, but I agree it's absurd. Now, that doesn't automatically make Kerry a better Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, but I take your general point.

As for my other statement...

A) Are you *really* going to argue that most protesters/draft-dodgers (I mean real dodgers, not legal-if-perhaps-questionable deferrments) were *not* liberals?!? <incredulous stare>

B) Since when does disagreeing with the purpose of a law give you carte blanc to break it? I disagree with the prospect of my taxes going into certain liberal social programs that are currently in effect (not because I object to charity, but because the programs are grossly inefficient), but that doesn't mean I'll skip paying my taxes and expect not to be considered a criminal tax-evader. Likewise, I object to the pending law in MA that says cops can pull you over for a seatbelt check, but I won't resist arrest if it's passed.

> A) Are you *really* going to argue that most protesters/draft-dodgers (I mean real dodgers, not legal-if-perhaps-questionable deferrments) were *not* liberals?!? <incredulous stare>

Well look and Cheney.

I very specifically *excluded* those who got *legal* deferments, regardless of how much you may question whether those deferments were *fair*. Also, pointing out a single person who doesn't fit a generalization does not disprove the generalization. To disprove my assertion, you'd have to prove that *most* draft-dodgers were not liberals.

>To disprove my assertion, you'd have to prove that *most* draft-dodgers were not liberals.

No I do not. You defined what "draft-dodger" was. A guy who got defferments is not a draft-dodger, just because you DEFINED them this way. Regardless of whether the defferment is fair or not.

So its pointless to have a debate unless we speak about the same terms. As any debate teacher will tell you.

Anhow here we go:
To me a draft-dodger is someone who is able to go to fight a war but specifically does things to avoid it. Going to Canada qualifies just as much as using pretext and connections, or legal loopholes to avoid service. More over if this person say they support this war but still refuse to fight it I'd consider them ten times the normal draft dodger, given how they are hypocrats.

Whats your definition?

Also an additional question, do you believe that there such people who are consciencious objectors, who actually object to fightng a war based on their very strong beliefs against it.

Well, for starters, my definition of a "draft-dodger" is quite simply one who illegally evaded the draft. As with a lot of my distinctions and definitions, it comes down to whether you broke a law or not.

//"hypocrats"// I assume the Democrat resemblance is just a typo? :-p

I do agree though that if one supports a war, they should fight in it if able (obviously excusing the unfit and those whose circumstances leave them unable to leave the country for an extended period). It used to be that politicians of both parties considered it a matter of honor and pride to send their sons to join the military... now being the son of a politician (again, of *either* party) is the best way to stay out of the military...

As for consciencious objectors... yeah, I believe they exist, but far fewer than the number who claim to be. If you are a *true* pacifist, and therefore have an objection to violence in general, that counts (though if you have medical skills I'd say you'd be at least morally obligated to go as a medic - I don't buy the argument that by patching up the soldiers, you're contributing to the violence). If you *truly* believe that the war is a grave injustice (i.e. that we *really would* be the "bad guys" in the war), that'd also count, but I can't think of any war we've been in where that would be the case. On the other hand, if your "grave moral objection" is just that you think it's not our fight or that we don't have a right to intervene, then that's really a political objection, not a moral one. I think all too many people use the label of "consciencious objector" as an excuse, rather than admit that they just don't think the cause is worth risking their lives for.

> but I can't think of any war we've been in where that would be the case.
Well others might.
For example I am very sure the Panama invasion was only done for the Panama Canal and not the drug reason (I mean if we were to invade anyoen to fight drugs it woudl have to be Columbia). Totally unjust. Should nto have been there under that pretense.

>//"hypocrats"// I assume the Democrat resemblance is just a typo? :-p
Actually I mispelled Hippo-crat!!! :-P Goooo hippos.

>Well, for starters, my definition of a "draft-dodger" is quite simply one who illegally evaded the draft. As with a lot of my distinctions and definitions, it comes down to whether you broke a law or not.

What about an unjust laws that break the constitution. (no need of an examples I hope)
If we went to war under false pretense (think Panama), is it a crime to no want to fight it? Or is just because the war is legally declared, one must obey the draft?

//For example I am very sure the Panama invasion was only done for the Panama Canal and not the drug reason (I mean if we were to invade anyoen to fight drugs it woudl have to be Columbia). Totally unjust. Should nto have been there under that pretense.//
When I said "grave injustice", I meant not that you think it is unjust to be forced to fight it, but basically that you believe you would become the "bad guy" by fighting in it. However, in your example I can see why some might think this.

//What about an unjust laws that break the constitution. (no need of an examples I hope)//
It is not the prerogative of the American public to decide what is and is not a constitutional law. Therefore, until a law is duly overturned by the Courts (or if it *blatantly* contradicts a previous ruling), it is law and must be followed. The exception of course is civil disobedience. I agree that there are some laws where civil disobedience is appropriate, *but* Dr. King did say that a key component of civil disobedience is being willing to face the *consequence* of breaking the law (i.e. you might be morally right to break the law, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be arrested for it.

//If we went to war under false pretense (think Panama), is it a crime to no want to fight it? Or is just because the war is legally declared, one must obey the draft?//
It is not a crime to *want* anything. It is a crime to evade the draft by extralegal means. As for "must" it depends on whether you mean a legal or a moral obligation. Morally, if you think the war is seriously wrong (not just as in a bad move, but as in evil), you "must" *not* fight it... but you "must" be willing to be arrested for draft-dodging and you "must" be willing to admit to draft-dodging - because *legally*, yes, you "must" obey the draft.

And yeah... good hippos :-p

>It is not the prerogative of the American public to decide what is and is not a constitutional law.
I would not call it decide. I can decide that the law is unjust and work to overturn it though.

>The exception of course is civil disobedience. I agree that there are some laws where civil disobedience is appropriate, *but* Dr. King did say that a key component of civil disobedience is being willing to face the *consequence* of breaking the law (i.e. you might be morally right to break the law, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be arrested for it.

And she accepted the consequence of being arrested. That does not mean she should have been arrested. And now I believe Cindy will be challanging the incedent in court on Freedom of Speech base. Her argument is teh 1st Ammendment trumps "dress code" law or what ever it is. Of course you could have made your case easier, if the police did not actually drop the charges. it sort of liek they admitted they do not really have any and did not in the first p lace. :-D (nice backhand do nto you agree? )

>Well, for starters, my definition of a "draft-dodger" is quite simply one who illegally evaded the draft.
I am going to go out on a limb here. I do not think the legality is the question really. If it is I believe a significant number of those "draft-dodgers" were doing the civil disobedience thing.
If civic duty is in question (the part about, need to fight for country) Then one who uses the law that was intended for something else to avoid the draft, are the worst offenders. Also is going out of country before you get your draft letter even illegal?

//I would not call it decide. I can decide that the law is unjust and work to overturn it though.//

Sure, but in the meantime you have to either obey it or suffer punishment.

//And she accepted the consequence of being arrested. That does not mean she should have been arrested. And now I believe Cindy will be challanging the incedent in court on Freedom of Speech base. Her argument is teh 1st Ammendment trumps "dress code" law or what ever it is.//

Still haven't found that case law, but basically if she asserts that the 1st trumps any sort of right of a private venue (which an invitation-only gathering definitely is) to set dress code, then she'd have to deny the validity of *any* restriction on dress at any time anywhere (I suppose she could concede obscenity and nudity restrictions, but nothing else). Furthermore, yes she *should* have been arrested. That was the point. If you break the law, you get arrested, even if you claim you were right to break it.

Also, the police having dropped the charges has nothing to do with my case because I'm arguing on solely legal merits ;-)

//I am going to go out on a limb here. I do not think the legality is the question really. If it is I believe a significant number of those "draft-dodgers" were doing the civil disobedience thing.//

And as I said... civil disobedience is illegal. That doesn't mean it's always bad, but it *is* illegal.

//Also is going out of country before you get your draft letter even illegal?//

Admittedly an open question to which I have no definitive answer.

>Sure, but in the meantime you have to either obey it or suffer punishment.
Sure.

>>//Also is going out of country before you get your draft letter even illegal?//
>Admittedly an open question to which I have no definitive answer.

I betting it is not. A congress passes the draft. That does not mean eery eleigible person in the country under country arrrest unless specifically specified. Not to mention that I can think of hundreds of jobs and other matters where you need to go out of the country. More over a draftee needs to be specifically notified (at least first class mail with the signature OF the ACTUALLY recepient, or personal delivery like they do when someone is being served with a lawsuit.).

So to recap:
By your definition (legalese): to be a draft dodger you need provably recorded as having received the draft notice. And then if you disobey it with no good reason (oh let say like getting run over by a car), you are a draft dodger. If you go out of the country and never receive your notice then youa re nt a draft dodger (pending a reasonable assumption that you can leave the country during draft).

I am betting this cuts down a large number of legal draft dodgers (those who went to Canada before their notice)

It seems to me this covers the legality of draft dodging but not the morality of it,

I'll buy that definition actually. It makes sense to me. As for the morality of it... basically if you avoid the draft for the wrong reasons (anything but legitimate deferments - i.e. student or disability deferments - or true conscientious objection), then you're in the wrong... to a greater or lesser degree depending on how you avoided it. I still maintain that fleeing the country is worse than joining the Air National Guard, because at least in the Guard, Bush did *some* service to his country, rather than just taking a vacation and "not inhaling".

>I still maintain that fleeing the country is worse than joining the Air National Guard, because at least in the Guard, Bush did *some* service to his country, rather than just taking a vacation and "not inhaling".

If he was a capable military fighter he shoudl have went to help out in Vietnam.

Hey, I don't get this cartoon...was John Kerry in the military or something? He said the same thing at the Convention, something is telling me that...he was...in war time...I don't know. Can somebody explain this to me? What was it...3 or 4 purple hearts he got, and he never stepped foot into a hospital? Thats strange. How did he get purple hearts, why is he saluting, was he in the military? Thats it! I'm on the investigation, something tells me that John Kerry was in the military.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. The guy makes so many references to Vietnam that it almost makes me sick.