|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812 |
Originally posted by Trapps:
CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?
709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) MILITARY PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT
232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR
WARHEADS
ON
232 MISSILES.
500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND
SUBMARINES
PLUS
ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO
SUSTAIN
SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
IS THIS COUNTRY-
RUSSIA ? NO
CHINA ? NO
GREAT BRITAIN ? NO
FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN ( What a Laugh!!!!!)
MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG (SORT OF)IT USE TO BE
THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.
AND [their elimination] was 100% SUPPORTED BY JOHN KERRY (THESE ARE ISSUES HE DID VOTE ON)
This is not a new message, but a reminder of why we now have over-deployed our National Guard and Reserve Units.
HE SAID CHECK THE RECORD
Sen. John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts says he is the
strongest Presidential Candidate on National Defense ! He said Check the Record..
We Did !
Here is what we learned:
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to kill the B-1
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to kill the FA-18
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the F117
He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, including a bill for battle armor for our troops.
It is most likely, with Sen. John Kerry as President and Commander in Chief of our Armed Services, that they will cease to function making it impossible for our country to protect itself.
John Kerry voted to kill all anti-terrorism activities of each and every agency of the U.S. Government.
He voted to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%.
He voted to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%.
He voted to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
THEN, and this is abhorrent to almost every American Voter be you Democrat, Republican or Independent, he voted to increase OUR funding
for U.N operations by 800% !!
Ask yourself Is THIS the person you want as President of these United States providing for the Common Defense of the Nation and be the Leader of the Free World ?
Voting history can be accessed through Senate voting records. The above is an accurate summary.
Civil debate on! Please keep it civil.
Now while I do believe we need a strong military for DEFENSE purposes only - not liberating third-world nations - I don't really see the problem with getting rid of 3,114 nuclear warheads, and 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads. The United States has made 70,000 nuclear weapons, however 50,000 have been disassembled. Currently we have only 17,000 nuclear bombs ready for use.  Now, it would take 1000 medium-sized nuclear bombs to whipe out 75 percent of the industrialized world. So with 17,000 we could completely destroy every form of life on earth in a matter of seconds. But hey, we have to do whatever it takes to keep our families safe from terrorists!
I mean, Jesus, how many times to we want to be able to completely destroy the earth. Why don't we use the nuclear bombs we already have, and then we can make more.
And even with these cuts to the military, we completely took down Iraq and Afghanastan in a matter or days. I mean, hell, should we put every penny into military funding so we can bring down a nation during a commercial break?
I also don't like giving money to the UN. That's money that could be better spent on say, domestic issues? I think it's important to have a group to promote peace and strengthen international diplomatic relations, but not to dump billions of dollars into.
1999 Black SVT
"If I were an admin I'd ban you without a second thought. " ~Trapps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 294
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 294 |
Quote:
How do you reconsile these FACTS. Forget what your liberal brainwashing PROFs are telling you and think it through!
Excuse me, I went to one of the most conservative universities in the nation and I've been out of school 10 years. I've learned to think for myself, thank you very much.
The fact remains, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Again, how and when should we have dealt with Iraq?? For me, that question was a question of the future, not an imminent threat. You know, you couldn't maintain sanctions against Iraq forever. What happend after WWI when all those sanctions were levied against Germany? It ruined their economy and gave rise to the Third Reich. What happened next?? You can't strangle hold a country forever.
Don't be fooled either. There were disenting opinions about Saddam's real status with WMD's. A prominent former weapons inspector, Mr. Ritter, was very vocal before the Iraq war started that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons after the first Gulf War. And did anybody really buy into the aluminum tubes theory?? Come one. It was controversial from the start. And people forget, Iraq was allowed to build arms within limits. They were allowed a defense. They were a sovereign nation. Granted Iraq was required to live up to the terms of their cease fire but you can't police forever. Again, look back at what happened to Germany.
The US was getting a bad name in the Middle East even before we invaded Iraq. Why were Saudis flying planes into the twin towers? They didn't do it for nothing. We had a flawed foreign policy. The blame stems way back to the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration failed us too.
And so then we get lucky and establish democracy in Iraq. There is no guarrantee that we will have a liberal democracy. With the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, chances are the democracies that will be formed will be illiberal---Look at Turkey---The only Islamic democracy in existence. Sure, majority rules but minority rights are stamped out. I'm sure it's great to be a woman over there in Turkey.
I am all for non proliferation but I guess I'm cynical that in the end all countries will eventually proliferate. Countries feel safer with nukes. Maybe the world would be safer if everybody had them? Then we wouldn't have to worry about everybody ever going to war because mass destruction would be guarranteed for all. Now I don't really believe this but you can see that all countries have a security dilemna. All countries feel insecure when their neighbors have nukes and they don't. Why don't we worry about India & Pakistan who both have nukes?? That's because they both keep each other in check. The real threat with nuclear weapons is them finding their way into the hands of an irrational actor such as a terrorist. We may have not liked Saddam or Iraq, but he was not an irrational actor. Iraq was no immediate threat---Al quida was/is.
stock 1998 silver frost SVT E0 #1545 out of 6535
* K&N drop-in air filter
* DMD
* Koni's w/ stock springs
* Autolite double platinum
* Tranny cocktail
* Mobil 1 Snyth Oil @ 60K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 20
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 20 |
Originally posted by holycowSVTpaul:
The fact remains, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Again, how and when should we have dealt with Iraq?? For me, that question was a question of the future, not an imminent threat. You know, you couldn't maintain sanctions against Iraq forever. What happend after WWI when all those sanctions were levied against Germany? It ruined their economy and gave rise to the Third Reich. What happened next?? You can't strangle hold a country forever.
The US was getting a bad name in the Middle East even before we invaded Iraq. Why were Saudis flying planes into the twin towers? They didn't do it for nothing. We had a flawed foreign policy. The blame stems way back to the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration failed us too.
Not sure where you stand...you say future threat. Clearly Sadam planned to reconstitute WMD after sanctions lifted. Then you say "you couldn't maintain sanctions against Iraq forever"...So we should have stopped sanctions? Or should we have kept them with what we know of the UN corruption? Dissent, sure..always. But Scott Ritter was in a pretty distinct minoriy of global intell opinion on the subject. What proof did he provide that WMD were destroyed?
I ask you..Why were Saudis flying planes into the twin towers? . SOUNDS like you blame OUR "flawed foriegn policy". We had it comming?? You know, militant Islam is on the attack in about 30 countries globally....Russia, Sudan, Indonesia, Phillipines. Maybe its something about THEIR Philosophy rather than ours??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 294
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 294 |
Quote:
I ask you..Why were Saudis flying planes into the twin towers? . SOUNDS like you blame OUR "flawed foriegn policy". We had it comming?? You know, militant Islam is on the attack in about 30 countries globally....Russia, Sudan, Indonesia, Phillipines. Maybe its something about THEIR Philosophy rather than ours??
Agreed. It is something with THEIR philosophy. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism is the newest and biggest threat to our national security since the the end of the Cold War. I mentioned that in my first reply. And, in no way did I intend to suggest the US had it coming. I almost qualified that remark as I was typing it the first time. Maybe I should have.
I also take issue with the phrase WMD. Although I too use it, I think it is a propagandist phrase that came out of the Bush administration as a rational for war. What are WMD's?? It's an ambigous term. Does the US have WMD's? What are they. Now I'm not suggesting you are that stupid either but Iraq had every right to build and maintain arms under the terms of their cease fire from the first Gulf War. BUT, other than economic sanctions and enforcing the no fly zone, the US had no clear exit policy on Iraq. I guess we were just silently hoping that Saddam would fall victim of a coup d'etat. Remember, the reason the first George Bush left Saddam in power was because there was no one to fill the power vaccume. And, also, one of the reasons the US allied ourselves with Iraq prior to the Gulf War was because Saddam's government was secular and also despised radical Islamic Fundamemtalist. International politics are often complex and it is sometimes impossible to sort it all out but irrespective to all that, again, one more time, Iraq posed NO immenent threat to national security or to regional stability. Instead, we were economically crippling its people who were for the most part, detached from their government. Iraq served it's purpose in the international arena of chaotic actors---It acted as a check in the balance of powers in the region. Maintaining the status quo could not have been worse than rushing to war.
Back on the rational for Saudis flying planes into buildings---Again, it was a supreme act of terrorism and terrorists should be hunted down and killed but I do think the US underestimated the bad feelings the US was fostering in the Middle East while occuping Saudia Arabia. Most of is citizens resented the US presence there. True, the Saudi monarchy is an ally to the US but the monarchy is not in touch with the majority of its people. Again, we had no good exit policy on Iraq. And really, so what if Saddam devloped nuclear weapons. Israel across the sea had them too. We had the region covered. It's only when Iraq invaded Kuwait that the US got nervous. We had to protect our oil. And admittedly, we remembered the lessons of appeasment before WWII, especially since back then Iraq maintained the fourth largest standing army.
Quote:
But Scott Ritter was in a pretty distinct minoriy of global intell opinion on the subject. What proof did he provide that WMD were destroyed?
He was a prominent former weapons inspector--I think he was pretty credible, don't you?? Besides all that, I think we stopped short the weapons inspection by the Hansman to satisfy the international community and consequently there wasn't any coalition building either. Bush was planning the Iraq war back when we were in Afghanistan and he made it clear who his axis of really evil was. Moronic statements like that only make our enemies less secure and less willing to use diplomacy. Please, if you want to fight terrorists, fight terrorists. War is a last resort and even then is only supposed to be used as an extention to diplomacy.
Where I stand is clear. Bush has a credibility gap. I am mistrustful of people who mislead. I will vote for Kerry. I am not onboard with most of his parties agenda but I have to vote my conscience on this one.
Peace.
stock 1998 silver frost SVT E0 #1545 out of 6535
* K&N drop-in air filter
* DMD
* Koni's w/ stock springs
* Autolite double platinum
* Tranny cocktail
* Mobil 1 Snyth Oil @ 60K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Damn, well said SVTpaul! I am also a IR major and I believe one of the biggest problems is that the US doesn't really know what to do after the Cold War. Well most books will tell you that. The US lead the world during the cold war, yet when the cold war ended the US had was not sure of it's place. The world rapidly changed from a bi-polar world to a multi-polar.
About downsizing the military, it really is not that bad to rely on allies. Europe did so for centuries. It was the Concert of Europe that unified Europe, though against Post-Napoleonic France, militarily as well as politically. Even before, during Richelieu there was some idea of sharing military responsibility. European powers knew they could not sustain war unilaterally therefore the worked with allies in war and moreover to prevent war. The US should now realize that it can not wage war alone. Dismissing our allies will only lead to a weaker US. Kerry already has the support from Germany and I believe that will lead to more allies joining in the Iraq effort. I think the choice is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882
Highly Medicated Member
|
|
OP
Highly Medicated Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882 |
Originally posted by Fat Mike:
I also don't like giving money to the UN. That's money that could be better spent on say, domestic issues? I think it's important to have a group to promote peace and strengthen international diplomatic relations, but not to dump billions of dollars into.
Common ground! Who'd have thunk it possible.
Mark
Semper Fi
"They've got us surrounded. Poor bastards." -Chesty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Didn't Kerry vote to increase our UN funding while near simultaneously voting not to fund equipment for troops in Iraq? Asking a serious question, hoping someone can answer it for me.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by holycowSVTpaul:
Agreed. It is something with THEIR philosophy. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism is the newest and biggest threat to our national security since the the end of the Cold War. I mentioned that in my first reply. And, in no way did I intend to suggest the US had it coming. I almost qualified that remark as I was typing it the first time. Maybe I should have.
I also take issue with the phrase WMD. Although I too use it, I think it is a propagandist phrase that came out of the Bush administration as a rational for war. What are WMD's?? It's an ambigous term. Does the US have WMD's? What are they. Now I'm not suggesting you are that stupid either but Iraq had every right to build and maintain arms under the terms of their cease fire from the first Gulf War. BUT, other than economic sanctions and enforcing the no fly zone, the US had no clear exit policy on Iraq. I guess we were just silently hoping that Saddam would fall victim of a coup d'etat. Remember, the reason the first George Bush left Saddam in power was because there was no one to fill the power vaccume.
Back on the rational for Saudis flying planes into buildings---Again, it was a supreme act of terrorism and terrorists should be hunted down and killed but I do think the US underestimated the bad feelings the US was fostering in the Middle East while occuping Saudia Arabia. Most of is citizens resented the US presence there.
OK, glad we are in agreement about militany Islam.
WMD...varied but not ambiguous in concept. US has WMD, as do many other countries. "Iraq had every right to build and maintain arms under the terms of their cease fire from the first Gulf War"...but NOT WMD, and this was clearly spelled out. And again, Sadam deliberately generated an illusion that he had WMD, to his people to his generals, and to the 4 best intel agencies on the planet. My point is that doing nothing..leaving the status quo was allowing Sadam to generate vast billions in wealth via "oil for food" allowed by corrupt UN, French, Russian, Chinese officials. And, he bought there vote to look the other way & block US intevention. We were wrong about active WMD, but not mislead by the Pres. We were right about about Sadam providing money to terrorists, sanctuary to Al Zarqawi & other terrorists, training camps. We were right about the millions murdered. We uncovered what has been called the largest financial scam/UN corruption in history. And we IMO were right in planting a democracy in the heart of the mideast as the "antijihad" seed....as the 2 are mututally exclusive "matter-anti-matter" to borrow from Rodenburry...though only after many YEARS will this be clear. Historianns will mark these as interesting times.
Exit policy...well we NOW have one. This is good as we were harming Iraqi citizens with sanctions..especially since the UN aid process was corrupt. Yet we would STILL be sanctioning for the forseeable future without the invasion. And again, when sanctions stopped..Sadam planned to go back to his usual tricks. BTW, Powell/Bush I wanted to finish Sadam but the UN blocked that citing "power vacuum" as you put it. In hindsight...maybe that was a bad move. The UN has been just full of great ideas..
"US was fostering in the Middle East while occuping Saudia Arabia"...explain? We were occupiers?
Bush has not been perfect in this but on balance, I think Iraq & Afganistan will pay dividends long term..well after the election hype. I believe Kerry to be a fraud...an antiwar passivist "uberliberal" masquerading as a centrist hawk when politically expedient. He offers no new ideas...boasts a "plan" which is the same as GWB only "smarter". Says he will expand by 40,000 troups yet says Bush is the one planning a draft. Says he will get more UN involvement when France, Germany have refused him flat, voted against the 87 billion for tropu equipment, yet is critical of Bush for not equiping troups, moans about no UN involvment in Iraq yet voted NO to Gulf War I with a coalition, says he supports more intel yet authored the largest intel cut bill in history AFTER WTC I, says he will fight with conviction in Iraq, yet clearly lacks it "wrong war..wrong time". He hammers the president as responsible for frayed relations with UN yet IGNORS mounting evidince that they infact, BETRAYED US (France sold there UNSC vote, Russia armed Sadam days before we invaded!). I find his retoric to be most harmful to the moral of our troups, our allies who he trivializes, and emboldens our enemy. As I consider THIS matter to be the prime responsibility of the Pres..above and beyond any economic panderings that go on, under no circumstances can I in good consious vote for this man to be president.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
About downsizing the military, it really is not that bad to rely on allies. Europe did so for centuries. It was the Concert of Europe that unified Europe, though against Post-Napoleonic France, militarily as well as politically. Even before, during Richelieu there was some idea of sharing military responsibility. European powers knew they could not sustain war unilaterally therefore the worked with allies in war and moreover to prevent war. The US should now realize that it can not wage war alone. Dismissing our allies will only lead to a weaker US. Kerry already has the support from Germany and I believe that will lead to more allies joining in the Iraq effort. I think the choice is clear.
Common...who bailed out Europe for the bulk of the 20th century?
Look, I am all for allies but let me ask you this. What kind of coverage is "oil for food" getting in Austia? Are you aware that captured Iraqi intel documents mention in the Deulfer report specifically mention that the French vote in the UN security counsil had been bought? Do you recall the Colin Powell statement 2 years ago..basically that France had assure their support THE DAY BEFORE THE INITAL VOTE. How about the 2.7 billion in Iraq oil perks afforded to key Russian politicains in the runnup. 2.5 billion for China, 1.8 billion for France. Several million to the UN undersecretary in charge of the program...all in Deulfer's report. And the French, Russian arms sales to Iraq up to DAYS before we invaded...high tech, night vision..body armor, hand held antiaircraft missiles. Insiders have said this the tip of the iceberg. Any of this getting air time over there? Do Europeans know this or just dismiss it point blank? And just say it is true...does BUSH deserve all the blame?
Some HERE have begun suggesting that had France not undermined the sanctions, that Sadam would have come clean to avoid invasion..that he was confident that we would not invade without the UN approval he controlled. Who knows?
France may have a LOT of blood on their hands over this...
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
