2004 Election Question

[Strelnikov]

As we have elections coming up this may be of value.

Question? How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans, and Southerners?

Pose the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1?Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican Answer:
BANG!

Southerner's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. (sounds of reloading.) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"


And as a Southern Republican, I can assure you that it's ALL TRUE!

Strelnikov

[Krokus]

uh, yea. :rolleyes: ...:D

[JoBelle]

Strel...hey boss :) I posted that joke a while back and took a beating for it. :rolleyes: the thread's around here somewhere, if you're interested.

Watch your back, darlin'. Some folks don't get humor that slaps us all.
Jo

[General Zod]

Well said Strel :D

[areenactor]

i'd be carrying a colt mk4 gov. model, .45.
and you forgot the double tap! come on strel, it's one to the chest, and then you walk over and put an insurance round into his head... tsk, i shouldn't have to remind you of that!:rolleyes: :D

steve

[Shem the Penman]

Meanwhile, the Bush administration response is to let the mugger walk off, and then a couple months later shoot someone who looks kinda like him.

[HisDivineShadow]

ROFL!!! Truth in all of it.:D

[tommytikl]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
Meanwhile, the Bush administration response is to let the mugger walk off, and then a couple months later shoot someone who looks kinda like him.

Yeah but they would have their man!:sowrong:

[evilqueen]

I know freerepublic.com was down for a few hours I but didn't expect to see the backup overflow here.

Republicans like to characterize liberals as sissies who are afraid to touch guns and don't have the sense to defend themselves or protect others. I have an election question myself: How will it feel to wake up November 3 to the election of a man who actually fought and served in a war instead of one who ran away from it?

Here's my answer: It'll feel GREAT!!!!!

[General Zod]

But will he really be better? Personally I hate both parties I just don't know who to vote for:(

[evilqueen]

In light of the incumbent's record on the economy, unemployment, environmentalism, corporate cronyism, national security and a host of other issues...how much worse could the contender be?

[Krokus]

Originally posted by evilqueen
I know freerepublic.com was down for a few hours I but didn't expect to see the backup overflow here.

Republicans like to characterize liberals as sissies who are afraid to touch guns and don't have the sense to defend themselves or protect others. I have an election question myself: How will it feel to wake up November 3 to the election of a man who actually fought and served in a war instead of one who ran away from it?

Here's my answer: It'll feel GREAT!!!!!

well said....well said. Kerry is the man with the plan.

[qjakal]

But something about Kerry isn't instilling confidence in me that he'll get the job done. He has a lot of ties to special interests in the past, despite his ringing denunciation at this point in time. Maybe it's the hairdo...dunno. Not to pat Bush on the back, but at least I DO think he'll fight as and when necessary. Question is defining AS and WHEN of course. Sitting back and not responding (ala Clinton) wasn't effective, and given the change of attitude in Syria and Iran among others, at least being aggressive DOES produce some results. Now if only I could convince myself that it was "right", which so far does not appear to be the case. Unilateral decisions to remove other governments are a dangerous policy, and not to be taken lightly despite the provocations that fools such as Saddam may provide.

It's gonna be a tough election year guys and gals...sigh

Q

[areenactor]

2 weeks ago i heard on the radio about an interview with a former member of one of kerry's boats in viet nam. kerry ended up transfering to another boat. why? cause "the rest of the crew didn't like runing away at the first shot". he did it 3 times, before the crew reported it, and instead of fighting the acusation, kerry transfered to a different boat. don't bother telling me about keery being wounded. i personaly know 2 guys who got the purple heart in viet nam, one for cutting his hand with a can opener, the other for a book falling on his head in a library. purple durples were given out like candy. so i'm not convinced sen. kerry deserves special recognition for his.

sen. kerry also voted to cut the inteligence budget every time. gee, maybe it's his fault that we weren't properly warned about 9/11.
sen kerry wants to raise the taxes, and cut the defense budget. he wants to increase forgein aid. i guess his idea is to pay off the world so they'll like us?

so how will i feels about voting for a former fighter pilot in nov.?
i'll feel great!;)

steve

[MrMacphisto]

I almost hope Bush wins... I have a feeling that if he does, something big is going to happen. Assassination, perhaps? Whatever the case, if he does get re-elected and continues along the same route he has for the last 4 years, maybe there really will be a revolution. I guess it all depends on how far down our standard of living goes. People only rise up when they're desperate, but if this recession gets worse, then desperation will surely follow... This election has the potential to make or break this country, and either way, it will lead to better things than our current state.

[ShadowTklr]

Is it a coincidence that Bush supporters are also the most apathetic people?

[areenactor]

Originally posted by ShadowTklr
Is it a coincidence that Bush supporters are also the most apathetic people?

i'd rejoin the above comment.. but i don't care enough to.:cool:

steve

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by areenactor
i'd rejoin the above comment.. but i don't care enough to.:cool:

steve

Rejoin? Anyway, its unfortunate to see that attitude so pervasive among Bushie drones, especially when so many lives were lost. I wonder if our military dead would have felt differently about laying their lives down for their "country" if they knew how little they actually meant to Bush and his supporters?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by areenactor


sen kerry wants to raise the taxes, and cut the defense budget.

steve

Umm... sounds like a damn good idea to this foreigner. The fact is the US is facing a budget deficit right now over $500 Billion in 2004, and that's predicted to rise to over $5 Trillion in the next decade unless something is done. That's insane, as is pursuing any policy that believes that to be sustainable debt. Most of the states are suffering from fiscal problems and public services desperately need more money to meet the needs of the people. Where exactly is this supposed to come from?

As for reducing the military budget... I know this is a very contentious issue but I'd suggest this is fast becoming a necessity. Certainly some of the more headline grabbing projects (Star Wars or its descendant for one) can be safely canned and the money invested elsewhere. Besides, the days of needing a standing army big enough to invade and take over a country are fast running out, thanks in no small part to the massive technological breakthroughs of recent years, and reducing not only the size but orientation of the armed forces is certainly becoming a valid option.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by BOFH666
As for reducing the military budget... I know this is a very contentious issue but I'd suggest this is fast becoming a necessity. Certainly some of the more headline grabbing projects (Star Wars or its descendant for one) can be safely canned and the money invested elsewhere. Besides, the days of needing a standing army big enough to invade and take over a country are fast running out, thanks in no small part to the massive technological breakthroughs of recent years, and reducing not only the size but orientation of the armed forces is certainly becoming a valid option.

Oh, how I wish that most Americans thought this way... What is it with this country and the military? We're honestly very lucky that we haven't become the victim of a military coup yet. Any other country with as much of a military budget as ours has gone through one. I suppose paying people to "bomb brown people" is more popular than feeding our poor.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
I suppose paying people to "bomb brown people" is more popular than feeding our poor.
Or educating our children, so they don't grow up to be mindless sheep.

~Rose~

[Knox The Hatter]

I think my sixteen year old female cat, Cleopatra, who spends an inordinate amount of time drooling, and caterwauling in the back bedroom out of separation anxiety if one of us has to go do something more important, like visit the head, would make a better president than this one...
I have absolutely no doubt that Kerry would be an improvement. In fact, a great one.

[areenactor]

Originally posted by ShadowTklr
Rejoin? Anyway, its unfortunate to see that attitude so pervasive among Bushie drones, especially when so many lives were lost. I wonder if our military dead would have felt differently about laying their lives down for their "country" if they knew how little they actually meant to Bush and his supporters?

ok, i guess using humor is beyond you. so let's come straight from the hip, shall we?

i am prior service, i have been in combat, i have seen military friends die, i have killed the enemy, i am as fervent a supporter of our military members as any in this great land. i also happen to support president bush!

you sir, shadowtklr, are so far out of line, as to be preposterous! i tried to use humor before to show how rediculos your position is.
your continued remarks along this line are an affront to me! you speak out your ass, and know nothing about which you speak!:sowrong:
before making these kind of hurtfull remarks i suggest you go seek out real bush supporters are ask them how much they support our servicemen!

it will be a cold day in hell when you or any liberal nancy have more love or concern for out fighting boys:mad:

steve

[areenactor]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Umm... sounds like a damn good idea to this foreigner. The fact is the US is facing a budget deficit right now over $500 Billion in 2004, and that's predicted to rise to over $5 Trillion in the next decade unless something is done. That's insane, as is pursuing any policy that believes that to be sustainable debt. Most of the states are suffering from fiscal problems and public services desperately need more money to meet the needs of the people. Where exactly is this supposed to come from?

As for reducing the military budget... I know this is a very contentious issue but I'd suggest this is fast becoming a necessity. Certainly some of the more headline grabbing projects (Star Wars or its descendant for one) can be safely canned and the money invested elsewhere. Besides, the days of needing a standing army big enough to invade and take over a country are fast running out, thanks in no small part to the massive technological breakthroughs of recent years, and reducing not only the size but orientation of the armed forces is certainly becoming a valid option.

well as soon as countries like france, germany, russia, and china stop illeagly selling military technology, and hardware to countries like iraq, north korea, iran, etc. then maybe we the u.s.a. could scale back our own military! untill the need is gone, it would be STUPID to cut our defense budget, and invite disaster.
cut our standing army? why? pick up a paper, or call the u.s. embasy, and ask the military attache' where all the places that american troops are at ,doing peace keeping duties?
frankly, yes i'd like to pull out of europe, and station those troops along the rio grande, to control drugs, and illeagle immigration.

as far as cutting our defense budget, and the overall size of our military, it is as poor an idea as i've heard in months! untill china cuts it's military, we MUST be ready to meet them on the field ,to protect the liberty of small countries.

there is still evil in this world, so there is still a need for a strong defense!

steve

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by areenactor
ok, i guess using humor is beyond you. so let's come straight from the hip, shall we?

i am prior service, i have been in combat, i have seen military friends die, i have killed the enemy, i am as fervent a supporter of our military members as any in this great land. i also happen to support president bush!

you sir, shadowtklr, are so far out of line, as to be preposterous! i tried to use humor before to show how rediculos your position is.
your continued remarks along this line are an affront to me! you speak out your ass, and know nothing about which you speak!:sowrong:
before making these kind of hurtfull remarks i suggest you go seek out real bush supporters are ask them how much they support our servicemen!

it will be a cold day in hell when you or any liberal nancy have more love or concern for out fighting boys:mad:

steve

Which is why you support an administration that tried to cut veterans' benefits and combat pay last year?

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/14paycut.html

Notice the link, by the way? It's part of a concept you seem to be unfamiliar with, doing research and backing up your arguments. As opposed to simply spewing vitriol at anyone who disagrees with you. Try it sometime, maybe people will take you more seriously.

[areenactor]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
Which is why you support an administration that tried to cut veterans' benefits and combat pay last year?

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/14paycut.html

Notice the link, by the way? It's part of a concept you seem to be unfamiliar with, doing research and backing up your arguments. As opposed to simply spewing vitriol at anyone who disagrees with you. Try it sometime, maybe people will take you more seriously.

shem exactly what sort of site do you want me to provide a link to so you can see i support the military? it's kind of hard to imagine what i'm supposed to link to in support of my previous post obout my own feelings?

frankly i don't give a rats ass if you or any liberal takes me seriously. cause gods know i don't take you liberals seriously!
you(liberals in general) are a non-thinking joke. no person with half an ounce of working gray matter could be a liberal, and say the absolute crap you guys spew on a constant basis!
i'll stop spewing my vitriol when you half baken liberals stop insulting us true americans.

steve
p.s. that link is to non-starter b.s.! the troops pay was never cut! more liberal crap! the budget wa sapproved incase you haven't heard. the money for the troops deployed to iraq's pay was part of the 87 billion reconstruction plan that your side didn't want. so if anyone was going to cut the soldiers pay it was you liberals! bush and company, had them in mind, and took good care of the troops.
gee, maybe you should read the links you post, and find out the outcome first!:sowrong:

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by areenactor
well as soon as countries like france, germany, russia, and china stop illeagly selling military technology, and hardware to countries like iraq, north korea, iran


Just for the record, I'm not making any distinction between Democrat and Republican governments here, as there doesn't seem to have been any real change in American foreign policy regarding arms sales for at least the last twenty years or so. I think you forgot a couple of names from that list, namely the UK and USA. Let's start with some generalizations:

http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm

"The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying over half of all arms exports in 1999, four times more than the second largest supplier. U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in instable regions on the verge of, middle of, or recovering from conflict."


http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/arms-exports.cfm


There are 28 terrorist groups currently operating in 18 countries, according to the State Department's bi-annual list of active foreign terrorist organizations (see below). The United States does not arm these groups directly, but weapons sales and other forms of U.S. military assistance (training, etc.) freely flow to many of the countries within which these groups are active. In some cases, the U.S. supplies arms to these countries to assist in the fight against internal terrorist organizations, such as in Spain. In other countries, however, governments, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, are doing little to stem the activities of terrorist cells within a country's borders that are organizing to commit foreign terrorist activities.
In the period of 1990-1999, the United States supplied 16 of the 18 countries on the State Department list with arms through the government-to-government sales under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, or through industry contracted Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) programs, or with military assistance. Recipients included Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka (see below), where, arguably, the risk of diversion is high. In addition, the U.S. military (and the CIA) has trained the forces of many of these 18 countries in U.S. war fighting tactics, in some cases including individuals now involved in terrorism.


There was the selling of weapons to both Iran AND Iraq during the 1980-1988 war:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php



The need for arms and money would make Baghdad more dependent on the conservative Gulf states and Egypt, thereby moderating Iraq's policies and helping to repair ties between Cairo and the other Arab states. The war would make Iran -- whose weapons had all been U.S.-supplied in the past -- desperate to obtain U.S. equipment and spare parts. The exigencies of war might make both nations more willing to restore their relations with Washington. Alternatively, the dislocations of war might give the U.S. greater ability to carry out covert operations in Iran or Iraq. And turmoil in the Gulf might make other states in the area more susceptible to U.S. pressure for military cooperation.

When the war first broke out, the Soviet Union turned back its arms ships en route to Iraq, and for the next year and a half, while Iraq was on the offensive, Moscow did not provide weapons to Baghdad.[30] In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.[31] That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks.[32] The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism[33] (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)[34] and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.[35] In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.[36]






The main tool by which U.S. policy makers sought to secure their position in Iran in 1985 and 1986 was secretly providing arms and intelligence information. As a proclaimed neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was not supposed to supply weapons to either side. Nevertheless, U.S. allies kept the combatants well-stocked.[74] Israel transferred vast quantities of U.S.-origin weapons to Iran;[75] to what extent U.S. permission for these shipments was obtained (as required by U.S. law) is not known, but surely the U.S. had enough leverage to prevent the transfers if it had wanted to.

In 1984, because of Iranian battlefield victories and the growing U.S.-Iraqi ties, Washington launched "Operation Staunch," an effort to dry up Iran's sources of arms by pressuring U.S. allies to stop supplying Teheran.[76] U.S. secret arms sales to Iran in 1985 and 1986 thus not only violated U.S. neutrality, but undercut as well what the U.S. was trying to get everyone else to do. The cynical would note that Operation Staunch made the U.S. arms transfers to Iran that much more valuable.

When this arms dealing became known, the Reagan administration was faced with a major scandal on several counts. Proceeds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. And though the administration's professed uncompromising stand on terrorism was always hypocritical, given its sponsorship of terrorism in Nicaragua and elsewhere, being caught trading "arms-for-hostages" was particularly embarrassing.

Now, in fact, this would not have been the first time the U.S. offered Teheran arms for hostages. In October 1980 the Carter administration had declared that spare parts for U.S. military equipment could be sold to Iran if the U.S. embassy hostages were released promptly.[77] There was even talk among U.S. officials about pre-positioning some spare parts in Germany, Pakistan, and Algeria so that the Iranians could get the equipment as soon as possible.[78] Republicans charged that Carter was trying to buy the hostages out in time for the election; there is some evidence that the Republicans in the meantime were engaged in an election maneuver of their own: negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election to ensure a Reagan victory.[79]




In fact, it was thanks to these arms sales that Saddam could attack Kuwait in 1990 (with the full knowledge of the US government coincidentally, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html ). It was only when Saudi and Israeli concerns began that the US became involved, so a strong argument can be made that the recent conflict can be directly traced to the involvement of the USA in the 1980's.

What about Americas arms sales to Israel? Leaving aside Israel's questionable history at using those weapons, they resell those weapons to, amongst others, China.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm


Transactions between the U.S. and Israel are not necessarily worrisome by themselves; after all, as Israel has proved, there are a host of countries willing to sell the weapons it needs. Currently, Germany is Israel's source for submarines, and if Israel really needed fighters, Russia is always looking to make a buck and always seems to have a surfeit of aircraft and other excess defense articles.
The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.
Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.
Last April, when the Navy EP-3E surveillance plane was forced to land in China after a Chinese F-8 fighter flew into its propeller, photos show Israeli built Python 3 missiles under the fighter's wings.
If Israeli weapons sales to China induce misgivings, including the most recent U.S. blocked sale of Israel's Phalcon airborne radar, the beneficiaries of Chinese arms transfers of Israeli-American technology are even more disturbing. In 1996, as disclosed in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran, along with a handful of combat aircraft and warships. Even worse, in 1997 the New York Daily News reported that Iraq had deployed Israeli-developed, Chinese PL-8 missiles in the no-fly zones, endangering American pilots.


Along the same lines, remember it was America that originally trained and equipped Osama Bin Laden (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm).


Originally posted by areenactor
untill the need is gone, it would be STUPID to cut our defense budget, and invite disaster.


Alright, let me ask you a question, when will the need be gone? What circumstances would have to occur for the “need“ to be removed and allow the defense budget to be cut? What measurable criteria would have to be met?

Originally posted by areenactor
cut our standing army? why? pick up a paper, or call the u.s. embasy, and ask the military attache' where all the places that american troops are at ,doing peace keeping duties?


How many of those places only require troops because they were 'liberated'? Again, don't get me wrong, seeing dictators gone from the world would be wonderful, but there are ways of doing so that don't involve killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Remember the war on Iraq was justified primarily on “Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction ready for immediate launch” which, well, seems to have been a little optimistic (and that's me being polite.). More to the point... Iraq's been a bad idea ever since the British created it back in 1932, too many groups in one area and there is a long history of violence between all sides. In fact there is an argument to be made that ONLY through a dictatorship (though obviously not one as bloody as Saddam's) could the country be held together. I just hope and pray that this time it's different, that it'll work as a democracy... but I have my doubts.

I do agree on the need to have a substantial peace keeping force, but I would suggest that such troops should be trained for this role to attempt to avoid at least some of the tragic incidents we've seen happen in Iraq following the war with regular troops in civilian-rich environments.

Originally posted by areenactor
as far as cutting our defense budget, and the overall size of our military, it is as poor an idea as i've heard in months! untill china cuts it's military, we MUST be ready to meet them on the field ,to protect the liberty of small countries.


May I humbly suggest that I never said the US Military be unprepared to fight an aggressor, though recent history (say the last fifty years) has shown that America's motives for defending small countries are rarely purely to preserve liberty. However, that's a whole other argument and this post is already getting too long, so to answer this point I have two words: Air Power. The fact is that, right now and for the foreseeable future, America can relatively easily control the skies, and with the current generation of fighter planes, bombers, attack helicopters and remote weapons (including cruise missiles and the like) this almost guarantees any attacking army will be driven back.

For proof, look at the testimony from Iraqi soldiers during the first gulf war who were beaten well before the land battle began. I haven't got the exact quote to hand, but I strongly recommend reading Tom Clancy's “Every Man A Tiger” with General Chuck Horner, the commander of US and Allied Air assets during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

The military world is changing, a move away from large armies of men to smaller, more technologically advanced units, better, faster intelligence and faster responses. Look at the havoc British special forces caused behind enemy lines in the first gulf war with little more than a couple of machine guns and a land rover. To put it simply, the American economy cannot sustain continued military spending of over $400 Billion, and that doesn't include the cost of fighting in Iraq which will be covered separately. So where does all the money go? A couple of examples:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094872/


The Air Force wants $4.1 billion to buy 24 F-22 Raptor "stealth" planes, while the Air Force and the Navy together are requesting another $4.6 billion for research and development of a still newer stealth Joint Strike Fighter [..] More puzzling still, these new stealth planes are designed primarily for long-range air-to-air combat. Except perhaps for Israel and France, there is not a country in the world that has an air force remotely competitive with U.S. air forces—in personnel, training, or inventory. Of course, this may not stay true for decades to come, but it's wasteful to spend billions now for threats that, at worst, lie way, way beyond the horizon.



For the third year in a row, the Navy wants $2.5 billion to build a new Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine. It also wants $3.6 billion for three new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and $1.5 billion for a new DD(X) surface combatant ship. These may be nice to have, but—unlike the Army, whose troops truly are stretched thin—the Navy has no gaps in its coverage of strategic sea lanes, especially since there's no other country in the world that has a navy worth the name. The U.S. Navy currently has 55 perfectly capable nuclear-powered attack subs. The only mystery is what their crews do when they go out on patrol. They don't track Soviet subs like they did in the old days, and they don't play cat-and-mouse games with enemy anti-submarine-warfare assets for the simple reason that there are no naval enemies and, if there were, they don't have ASW assets. Similar questions can be directed to much of the U.S. surface fleet.



President Bush is asking $10.7 billion—a 10 percent hike over this year's $9.6 billion—for his much-cherished program to shoot down a rogue state's nuclear missiles as they dart toward our shores. Missile defense is now the military's single largest money sponge. The Pentagon's director of testing says the program has not yet come close to proving its effectiveness. Officials at the Missile Defense Agency acknowledge that the architecture for a multilayered defense system has yet to be worked out. Several scientific panels (including several apolitical ones) have concluded that the program's whole mission lies beyond the realm of real science. Bush is set to deploy the first 20 antimissile missiles by next year. It's premature, to say the least. Cutting the program back to a $3 billion R & D venture—roughly what Presidents Reagan and Clinton were spending—would not be unreasonable. [Supporting Articles: http://slate.msn.com/?querytext=Fred+Kaplan+Missile+Defense+Agency&id=3944&searchfromtoc=Go&action=fulltext]


Let's make this clear, I'm not for a moment suggesting that the American military should be reduced to, say, the level of the British military when it comes to equipment and personnel (though if we can get the equipment problems sorted out the British military could be an extremely effective fighting force at reasonable cost to the public.), but there are quite clearly large areas of the budget AS A WHOLE that could be cut and pushed into, for example, public services.

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by areenactor
(a lot of substance-free name-calling, as usual)

Some days I don't know why I bother.

[areenactor]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
Some days I don't know why I bother.

um shem, is this you putting words into my mouth? or did someone else alter what i said?
i never said " a lot of substance-free name-calling as usual."

steve

[Knox The Hatter]

"2 weeks ago i heard on the radio about an interview with a former member of one of kerry's boats in viet nam. kerry ended up transfering to another boat. why? cause "the rest of the crew didn't like runing away at the first shot". he did it 3 times, before the crew reported it, and instead of fighting the acusation, kerry transfered to a different boat. don't bother telling me about keery being wounded. i personaly know 2 guys who got the purple heart in viet nam, one for cutting his hand with a can opener, the other for a book falling on his head in a library. purple durples were given out like candy. so i'm not convinced sen. kerry deserves special recognition for his."

I recall, back in the summer of '88, watching one of those talking head shows, and some mindless, moronic hack telling the host that then candidate George Bush's WWII episode of being the youngest fighter pilot shot down during the whole war was a GOP hoax, when the records were pretty accessable and well known. I was able to discern election year bullshit, and cast it aside as nonsense, even though I cursed the heavens for giving us so incredibly awful and impotent a candidate as Michael Dukakis to face the man who Richard Nixon thought was only fit for appointments to meaningless posts.
Steve, in my last will and testament, I'm going to leave you something important and wonderful. It's called Insight. Not everyone has it, it is, of course, a gift from God. It would, however, get you to the next level...the ability to debate without resorting to sheer emotion. It's that which frustrates me when I talk to you more than anything else. It certainly isn't your partisanship.
Peace, Steve.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by areenactor
as far as cutting our defense budget, and the overall size of our military, it is as poor an idea as i've heard in months! untill china cuts it's military, we MUST be ready to meet them on the field ,to protect the liberty of small countries.

there is still evil in this world, so there is still a need for a strong defense!

steve

It appears that Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper is on the warpath. Tell me, should we go to Wing Attack Plan R? After all, we must protect our bodily fluids from the terrorists.

[areenactor]

let me re-pay your gentlemanly manor with a story. it's short i promise;)

i received the e-mail notification this morning that you had replied to this thread. at first i had trepidation to follow the links to see what you had posted. see, i too like you. even more i respect you. i dislike being put into a situation where i have to be advaserial with you, not out of fear, but out of fear that we shall once again be enemies. i don't think politics is a good enough reason to fight with you. obviously i did open the links, and was glad i did.
you have shown your worth once again.

i think i do have insight, unless we have different meaning.
i react with emotion, at times, when i am insensed. i found the whole idea that as a bush supporter i was not for the troops to be specous, and rediculous! i tried humor, but alas, it was too high brow for some here. so i was forced to go emotional, now that they understood!
go figure...

steve
p.s. have a great day knox:D