Ok, then I guess most candidates must implicitly be for a draft

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Because otherwise, how are you going to keep troops in Iraq for any timeframe longer than a year or two?

We don't have the manpower and we don't have the money.

What don't the candidates and the rest of the Congress not get about that simple statement?

They will drive the country into bankruptcy and decimate our armed forces. The remnants of government functions will be sold off to corporate cronies and we will be supervised and threatened by private armies and police forces answerable to no one - in other words a nation of warlords.

Who is bringing whose form of government to whom?

[babylonsister]

1. Troops and money; that was my biggest surprise from the debate

(the part I watched) the other night. The 'top-tier' candidates jockeying about, hemming and hawing about how long this illegal occupation might last, but did any of them actually address the lack of troops, and the prohibitive amounts being spent? Where will the troops and money come from as we edge towards 2013? Why couldn't someone talk realistically about this?

[zabet]

2. After watching the debate,

at least most of it, and hearing that dumbya was giving
advice about Iraq to Dem candidates, it made me re-think
some of the Dem candidates.

[USA_1]

3. New War On Iran!

This will bring a new draft and those who have been calling for the draft will then regret their desires for one.

The solution for Bush war and imperialism has always been there. But instead of calling for one {a war profits tax} people on this forum keep calling for a draft and, therefore, more war.

YOU'LL BE SORRY!!