Message to America's Students From Ralph Nader

[sponge]

*I'm curious to see what people have to say about this.

Nader: The War, The Draft, Your Future


We have been down this road before.

U.S. troops sent to war half a world away. American foreign policy controlled by an arrogant elite, bent on projecting military power around the globe. A public misled into supporting an unconstitutional war founded on deceit and fabrications.

As the death toll mounts, we hear claims that the war is nearly won, that victory is just around the corner. But victory never arrives.

As the public loses confidence in the government, the government questions the patriotism of any who express doubt about the war.

When a presidential election arrives, both the Democrat and Republican nominees embrace the policy of continued war.

The military draft comes to dominate the lives of America's young, and vast numbers who believe the war to be a senseless blunder are faced with fighting a war they do not believe in, or facing exile or prison.

The year was 1968. Because voters had no choice that November, the Vietnam War continued for another six years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you died, were maimed, or suffered from diseases like malaria. A far greater number of Vietnamese died.

Today, the war is in the quicksands and alleys of Iraq. Once again, under the pressure of a determined resistance, we see an American war policy being slowly torn apart at the seams, while the candidates urge us to "stay the course" in this tragic misadventure. Today's Presidential candidates are not Nixon and Humphrey, they are now Bush and Kerry.

Once again, there is one overriding truth: If war is the only choice in this election, then war we will have.

Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place.

Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the sixties.

I am running for President, and have been against this war from the beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' future from this looming disaster.

- Ralph Nader

 

[jimnyc]

Other than Nader inadvertantly assisting Bush in the upcoming election - I think he's a waste of time. His desire to allow terrorists and dictators to work unhindered is ridiculous. There's not much surprise in the knowledge that he'll garner such a small amount of public support.

 

[sponge]

Why do you say he has a "desire" to allow terrorists and dictators to work unhindered?

I'm also curious what he's talking about when he says "the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place".

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by sponge
Why do you say he has a "desire" to allow terrorists and dictators to work unhindered?

I'm also curious what he's talking about when he says "the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place".

Refusing to engage the terrorists is allowing them to roam free.

I believe the draft references are a bunch of crap. Charles Rangel, a democrat from NY, was responsible for starting legislation to bring back the draft. It's received no serious consideration and was scoffed at by many. It's on the shelf and going nowhere.

 

[sponge]

I agree that Naders' presence will definitely help Bush, but should we just stop trying for reform and accept things the way they are? It has to start small, but I am all for having equal political recognition for multiple parties. Having a multitude of choices for any office can only be a good thing IF their opportunities for exposure are equal.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by sponge
I agree that Naders' presence will definitely help Bush, but should we just stop trying for reform and accept things the way they are? It has to start small, but I am all for having equal political recognition for multiple parties. Having a multitude of choices for any office can only be a good thing IF their opportunities for exposure are equal.

I am all for multiple parties as well. I think that's one of the things that makes America so great. I just don't think Nader is a good choice.

 

[sponge]

Nader said he is against our war with Iraq. That's not refusing to engage terrorists. Iraq wasn't behind the terrorist actions on this country.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by sponge
Nader said he is against our war with Iraq. That's not refusing to engage terrorists. Iraq wasn't behind the terrorist actions on this country.

Nor did I say they were. But don't think for a moment that they weren't a terrorist supporting/proliferating country.

What exactly is his stance on the overall war on terrorism?

 

[sponge]

I should have prefaced everything I wrote by saying that obviously I am new to the board. As of now, I have no political affiliation. I am hoping to get some better perspectives from a site like this to help me solidify my political beliefs. I'm not supporting Nader necessarily because I posted this letter from him. It's just something I read recently and figured I'd kick off my plunge into this message board with that letter. It is no reflection of who I support party-wise or candidate-wise.

And to answer your question about Naders' stance on terrorism: as of now I am not sure. I haven't yet read much of his ideas and stances for this election.

 

[jimnyc]

Welcome to the board, sponge. Glad to have you here.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by sponge
Nader said he is against our war with Iraq. That's not refusing to engage terrorists. Iraq wasn't behind the terrorist actions on this country.

Why do people stll think that the WOT is soleley a war against the parties involved in 9/11? It is a war against all terrorist organizations and their sponsors of which Sadaam was certainly one. No more proof is needed to legitimize our invasion than the fact that he was financially supporting the families of Hamas suicide bombers.

 

[sponge]

I believe Saddam was a dispicable man and needed to be dealt with at some point in time. I don't argue with that.

What I do question is why our focus suddenly was on Iraq? Was Saddam and Iraq the most dangerous thing facing us? I think this is where a lot of people question Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. No, the WOT does not only include the parties involved in 9/11, but shouldn't those parties be our number one focus or priority?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by sponge
I believe Saddam was a dispicable man and needed to be dealt with at some point in time. I don't argue with that.

What I do question is why our focus suddenly was on Iraq? Was Saddam and Iraq the most dangerous thing facing us? I think this is where a lot of people question Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. No, the WOT does not only include the parties involved in 9/11, but shouldn't those parties be our number one focus or priority?

I dont think anyone ever argued that Saddam was the most dangerous thing we were facing. Simply that it was a start and that we have already exhausted diplomatic efforts with him. We should have taken him out 12 years ago but we didnt have a mandate then and so we waited. put sanctions on him. threatened him. even lobbed a few missles at him and he was still defiant and in violation of the ceasefire agreement signed by him at the end of gulf war. The war would have come eventually regardless. But coming now is a great strategy on the war on terror.

By liberating Iraq we drew terrorsts to Iraq making them easier to kill

By Liberating Iraq we are in strategic position to take out Iran since we now have it pinned between Iraq and Aghanistan. We are also in position to take care of Syria and Saudi Arabia if we have to.

By liberating Iraq we shifted political power of the middle east in favor of Freedom. When we succeed with a having a free Iraq, the terrorists will lose considerable power because 1)They wont be able to force their propaganda down the populations throats 2)More people will demand freedom for themselves 3)With less problems they will be less likely to turn to terror to make their lives better.

Iraq was a clear and logical step in the war on terror. To say that its not part of the war on terror is to be totally ignorant of politics, military strategy, and the nature of terrorism.

Oh, and contrary to your belief. if The Youth of America need to be drafted. Most of us will gladly go serve our country. We have only to look at the slaughter that occured in Southeast asia thanks to the "Antiwar" effort of the 60s to know that we must fight and win.

 

[sponge]

I never stated any "belief" that the youth of America wouldn't be happy to serve their country. But I doubt that it would be "most" of you. People that would be happy to serve their country shouldn't need to be drafted. Or there should be a separate list for people who don't want to be in the military, but if need be, will fight for their country rather than drafting someone that wants nothing to do with war. Who would you rather have fighting for you?

Even though I said that I doubt "most" of America's youth would be happy to serve their country, I think that with all the active military personnel, reserves and people like yourself we should almost never be in a position to force a draft upon our youth.

 

[MtnBiker]

I have serious doubts about a draft being needed.

-------------------------------------------------
More Americans sign up to serve


NORFOLK, Va. --Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for military service and are re-enlisting at record rates.

The services believe a combination of patriotism and the economy is driving people to the military and keeping them there.

"The war is not only not having a negative effect, but it is helping to reinforce the number of people who want to join," said Cmdr. John Kirby, a spokesman for the Navy's Bureau of Personnel.

Even the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof," Guard spokesman Major Robert Howell said.

link

And I doubt anyone will hear Nader speaking of this.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by sponge
I believe Saddam was a dispicable man and needed to be dealt with at some point in time. I don't argue with that.

What I do question is why our focus suddenly was on Iraq? Was Saddam and Iraq the most dangerous thing facing us? I think this is where a lot of people question Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. No, the WOT does not only include the parties involved in 9/11, but shouldn't those parties be our number one focus or priority?

Actually the focus was suddenly Afghanistan. What did the taliban have to do with 9/11. As much as Sadaam did. they harbored terrorists in their nations and allowed said terrorists to carry out there evil plans whether in the US, israel or Europe. People think its all about iraq when they fail to look at the big picture. IRaq is not the end of the War on terror. IRan, Syria, North Korea the list goes on. As long as countries are willing to fund and hide terrorists, then the War will continue wherever it needs to in order to end terrorism or at least limit its effectiveness.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by MtnBiker

And I doubt anyone will hear Nader speaking of this.

I doubt anyone will hear nader speak since he wont garner enough support to be seen at the Debates with the Big 2. Someone might be watching C-Span when the 3rd party debates are on and hear nader.

 

[cptpwichita]

I don't even think nader is the best third party candidate.Check out the constitution party and the reform party.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
We have only to look at the slaughter that occured in Southeast asia thanks to the "Antiwar" effort of the 60s to know that we must fight and win.

You've gotta be kidding. That is like blaming the other teams cheerleaders when your football team loses. The public did not start off opposing the war in Vietnam, the public lost confidence in the political and military leadership that was running the war.

US forces in Southeast Asia won every major battle in which they engaged the enemy in force.

The US had more than four times the troops in Vietnam then we currently have in Iraq.

The US dropped more tonnage or ordinance on Vietnam that was used in World War 2.

Two million Vietnamese died. Think about that number. It simple cannot be said that the US forces were fighting with one hand when you have casualty counts in those staggering numbers.

The civilian and military leadership lied to the American public about Vietnam. You can fill a library with books that have been written about that, but I suggest you start with the Pentagon Papers. Support for the war among the public deteriorated when, in the face of mounting casualities in the tens of thousands, the public started asking questions about the war. Many will seem familiar with the readers of the news today. Why are we fighting in Vietnam? And how do we define victory so we can leave?

The answer to the first question, the domino theory, was never embraced by the left in the US and they were proven correct.

But more important is the second question. The US went into Vietnam (Iraq) badly miscalculating how difficult it would be, attempted to impose a government in S. Vietnam (Iraq) that was not perceived as legitimate by the Vietnamese, could not distinguish between friend and foe in S. Vietnam (Iraq), and had no "exit strategy" that would allow us to disengage the Vietnamese (N. Korea, Iraq).

In short, the war was lost by the assholes running the war, not the Americans who resisted it.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by insein
I doubt anyone will hear nader speak since he wont garner enough support to be seen at the Debates with the Big 2. Someone might be watching C-Span when the 3rd party debates are on and hear nader.

Yes, you are probably right about that, I should have said, Nader will not be talking about voluntary enlistment into the military having such good numbers. Rather than saying no one will hear Nader comment on the subject.