Liberals' Descent into Moral Nihilism

[cantdog]

This is a paraphrase of a quote I have heard attributed to Chruchill.

If you are under 20 and a conservative you have no heart
If you are over 30 and a liberal you have no brain.

As people grow older, more of their security becomes bound up in the status quo. Radical change becomes less and less appealing as more and more of your life becomes bound up in what exists now. Children, the job, retierment, pension, etc. All of your plans for these things are forged in the status quo, and as you become older changes to the status quo are seen as threats to them. By and large, people grow towards conservatism as they get older.

The portion of the general population that is now in the "older" bracket is expanding and I think a shift towards conservatism is to be expected. This contry's attitudes towards nearly everything operates on a kind of pendulum that swings from very liberal (the 60's, roaring 20's) to very conservative (the 50's, 80's). While it does not explain the polarization we are seeing very well, it does explain the shift towards conservatism and the rise of the GOP to its current power.

I believe the current polarization we see is fueled by intolerance. The religious right holds far too much sway with the GOP, and they are fanatical in their zeal, which makes them intolerant in the extreme. On the Democrat's side, a steady erosion of suport by moderte democrats has left the party in the hands of the more radical elements. They too are intolerant and extreme.

This election is showing the smallest % of undecided voters in the history of modern polling. The arguments here in the forums are a microcosm of that, with hardly anyone taking a centrist or undecided stance. This is an election that is nearly 6 months away and everyone already knows who they are voting for.

Being liberal or conservative has really taken a back seat to being a republican or a democrat this time around. Neither candidate is an outstanding example of liberal or conservative values, but each is a solid example of a Republican or Democrat.

GWB is a hawk. Being a hawk is a hall mark of neither true conservatism or true liberalism. It is a hallmark of being a Republican. Similarly John Kerry is anti-military. That is not a liberal or conservative value, but it is a Democratic party trademark.

Are our politicians products of the polarization? Or are they movers in creating that polarization? At this point, I honestly can't tell.

-Colly

I don't think you have the nub, here, Colleen, much though I value your reasoning for the most part. I believe the perception that the country is conservative is 'way off. Let us recall that the last couple of elections set records unequalled since 1924 for voter non-participation. Also, let us remember the thousands who rallied to Perot, to McCain, even to Pat Robertson when he, in his turn, used a little populist appeal for his bizarre ideas.

The people who vote in such numbers in this country for "none of the above" are always poking their heads up when a populist note is sounded. The conventional wisdom always says the Dems need to move right (or centerwards or whatever it is) to capture the heart of the voting public . What they need to do is move into a progressive populism, where they will find the hearts of the NON-voting public, which now constitute a landslide majority.

People are sick of being told, "Business über Alles," tired of being patted on the head with, "Trust us, we're the experts."

But the Dems are trying to out-Republican the Republicans, like Clinton did. He drove a significant proportion of voters away from the polls. They may not belong to elitist "environmental" groups, but in place after place, all over this country, people have banded together spontaneously to check the excesses of the polluters which BOTH parties are pandering to, these days. To name but one issue.

Populism, too, has a wide streak of libertarianism. It's the silly, fluffy, "social" programs of the parties which confuse the issues.

cantdog

 

[shereads]

I have read John Kerry's speech to congress Pure. I don't need Carl Rove or anyone else to interpret for me.

The democratic party is anti military. They consistantly vote to lower defense spending and raise social spending. It's a part of their creedo. Has been since as long as I have been cognizant of politics and is the centerpiece of every democrat's emphasis on domestic issues over Foerign relations that I can remember. Again, I don't need Rove to interpret for me.

The point was not to start an argument over Kerry or Bush, it was that each is a good example of their party, while netiher is a very good example of liberal or conservative values. If you refuse to accept Kerry being anti military or being anti military as a democratic party tradmeark then obivously the point falls down.

-Colly

Colly, I've been a Democrat almost as long as you've been alive, and I'm not anti-military. I am against the greed of a wasteful military-industrial machine, and I'm pro-military.

The Pentagon was able to justify a budget of such enormity that it dwarfs anything else in the federal budget, because we spent decades convinced that the Soviets were going to nuke us. It was - and is - reasonable to assume that without a superpower capable of wiping us off the planet, we ought to be able to secure our borders and occasionally assit our friends with a budget that more than equals that of Russia, China, plus the next highest spending 20 countries or so after them.

I'm anti-Star Wars, as are many Democrats, because we see it as a gift to the industries who were involved in its development before the end of the Cold War.
To spend tens of billions annually on an anti-ballistic missile system makes no practical sense when we have not yet secured our ports against smugglers. While we're spending money on a Soviet-era idea, the Port of Miami still depends on a few dogs and handlers to examine the thousands of containers unloaded from ships each day.

I still don't see how asking the Pentagon to be smarter and more efficient equals being anti-military.

It's a bit like saying that Republicans are anti-child because you don't want to spend more on day care, or anti-old-person because you don't want to fully fund their prescription drugs.

 

[Pure]

Just to put some facts on the table about defense spending, and the opinions of some military persons, here's an article from five years ago:

There is a graph of US and USSR spending, 1855-81 at

http://www.d-n-i.net/charts_data/reagan_weinberger_ussr_comp_1981.htm

Of use, is that the graph separates out the cost of the Vietnam war, to show the overall trend.

------
Here's a table, and some expert opinions; Table goes 1988-1997

http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/defence-spend.html

"Islamic terrorism" helps justify defense spending

By Enver Masud, The Wisdom Fund, January 18 1999



Clinton's $124 Billion Defense Increase Jeopardizes Social Security, Medicare

Desperate to fend off the Republican led impeachment process, President Clinton has agreed to an $124 billion increase in defense spending over seven years, thereby, jeopardizing his earlier commitments to education, social security, medicare, and programs for the poor.

Measured in 1995 dollars, U.S. defense spending has declined from a Cold War high of around $375 billion in 1988 to around $265 billion in 1997, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Defense spending for the USSR was around $260 billion in 1988. With the break up of the USSR, Russia's defense spending has declined to around $30 billion annually. Nevertheless, U.S. military leaders warned that funds were needed to fill alarming gaps in military readiness.


"The scope of the problem was driven home," writes Bradley Graham
(The Washington Post, Jan 14), after Clinton "listened to generals and admirals cite mounting pilot shortages, ships cruising without full crews, rising cannibalization of parts from inactive weapons to make active ones and cutbacks in Army training."

Others remain unconvinced of the need for defense spending
increases. "Here we go again," says Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.), Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information. "The U.S. already spends substantially more for military forces than any other nation, with no significant threats to our national security. We're engaged in an arms race with ourselves."


"Americans don't need to spend more money for military security,"
says Admiral Carroll. "What we should do is to quit wasting money on forces and weapons we don't need to fight non-existent enemies abroad. Instead, we ought to use the same dollars to address pressing national needs such as improved education, medical care, housing and law enforcement right here at home."


Former U.S. presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan, writing in
The American Cause (Jan 12) asks, "With the Cold War over, why invite terrorist attacks on our citizens and country, ultimately with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons? No nation threatens us." Mr. Buchanan cites a paper by the Cato Institute's Ivan Eland, "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record," which documents how attacks on the U.S., or on U.S. citizens, were a direct result of U.S. intervention.


Mr. Buchanan's examples include Pearl Harbor, Viet Nam, Palestine,
Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia. Says Mr. Buchanan, "America is the only nation on Earth to claim a right to intervene militarily in every region of the world. But this foreign policy is not America's tradition; it is an aberration. During our first 150 years, we renounced interventionism and threatened war on any foreign power that dared to intervene in our hemisphere."


But the Pentagon has resisted budget cuts for a decade. Former
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara, and Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, in their December 11, 1989 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, stated that U.S. defense spending could safely be cut in half over the next five years. Anxious to protect cold war levels of defense spending, the Pentagon manufactured the threat of Islamic fundamentalism (Leon T. Hadar, The Green Peril: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat), rogue states and nuclear outlaws (Michael Klare, Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws).


While Russia's defense spending declined to about 15 percent of
Cold War levels, U.S. defense spending declined to about the 70 percent level. The chart below, based on information from SIPRI, shows annual defense spending in billions (1995 $) for the U.S., its allies, and potential adversaries.


[graph of us, allies, enemies, rogues defense spending]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Pardon My confusion:

Senator Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-15. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-16. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff And Landing Jet Fighters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System For U.S. Submarines. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)


n 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.

In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution – a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71.

The site where I found these items seemed to carry a fairly heavy anti-Kerry bias. In the interest of not looking like a fool and posting "Heritage Foundation" type "facts" I went to the U.S. Senate site and looked up the various congreses and the votes mentioned. They are factual. The first one S3189 was in the second sitting of the 101st congress should anyone wish to check up behind me, I'll save you having to wonder where to start.

I did not really intend to get into an argument with my comment, and was prepared to just let it drop since the majority here did not aceept the definitions I used. However, since no one wants to let it drop, that's a section of Kerry's voting record on defense related issues.

Pure, you stated emphatically you have seen no evidence of an anti military bias. And you quickly and rather dismissivly blamed Carl Rove. So the question becomes, do you believe Carl Rove altered the records at the U.S. Senates site? Or do you have an overwhelming majority of evidence on Kerry's voting record that he supported military R&D & spending that makes these votes anamolies?

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

This is purely tangental

First off I know this is off the point of the thread but the votes raise an interesting question.

None of those devices is a tool for guerrila war, which most if not all of our prolonged wars have ended up as since Vietnam and maybe Korea. Considering that basic guerrila warfare tools such as body armor, bullets, etc... are lacking in our combat troops but so much is spent on warfare items built to defeat a well armed national army that no longer exists anywhere in the world but here, it might make sense to reprioritize our spending a bit.

I'm not saying that Kerry is not anti-military. I don't know his reasoning behind the votes. I don't know exactly how much Vietnam scarred him. I don't know much about his thought processes at all. I'm just giving my humble opinion about military spending.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

While at the site and feeling very glum over having labled the Democratic party anti-military for so many years in error I went through the vote roll calls on a decent selection of random defense spending initivies. Certain to find that all this time I had been wrong and that the democrats are actually stuanch supporters of defense. Sadly, that's not what the voting records I saw indicated.

Now that I am so confused, someone please reapeat this mantra & expalin it to me again. Voting against defense spending is actually promilitary, because I just can't seem to wrap my head around voting against military R&D which has produced weapons of war that give our fighting men a qualitative superiority over those they are fighting as being pro military.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

While at the site and feeling very glum over having labled the Democratic party anti-military for so many years in error I went through the vote roll calls on a decent selection of random defense spending initivies. Certain to find that all this time I had been wrong and that the democrats are actually stuanch supporters of defense. Sadly, that's not what the voting records I saw indicated.

Now that I am so confused, someone please reapeat this mantra & expalin it to me again. Voting against defense spending is actually promilitary, because I just can't seem to wrap my head around voting against military R&D which has produced weapons of war that give our fighting men a qualitative superiority over those they are fighting as being pro military.

-Colly

Um, Colly, what about all the pro votes by the Democrats on many of the bills you put up above? Kerry voted nay a lot, but there seemed to be an overwhelming number of pro-defense Democrats who were voting aye. In fact for almost all the bills 5 republicans and 11 democrats are the only negative votes. That sounds like most of the democrats are pro-miltary and 5 republicans are as anti-military as Kerry. Perhaps you something else far more shocking and damning and I'm completely wrong. I'm fully prepared to admit that, but with this I'm not seeing an anti-military slant in anyone but maybe 11 dems and 5 repubs.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: This is purely tangental

First off I know this is off the point of the thread but the votes raise an interesting question.

None of those devices is a tool for guerrila war, which most if not all of our prolonged wars have ended up as since Vietnam and maybe Korea. Considering that basic guerrila warfare tools such as body armor, bullets, etc... are lacking in our combat troops but so much is spent on warfare items built to defeat a well armed national army that no longer exists anywhere in the world but here, it might make sense to reprioritize our spending a bit.

I'm not saying that Kerry is not anti-military. I don't know his reasoning behind the votes. I don't know exactly how much Vietnam scarred him. I don't know much about his thought processes at all. I'm just giving my humble opinion about military spending.

I answered this once, in a long post, I don't remember the thread.

I'll skip the long list of historical precedent I provided about how we have gutted our military everytime we finsihed a war and start the next war hopelessly outclassed techology wise. I'll get to the meat of it. It takes only one innovation to render your military machine obsolete. My example was the battle between CSS Virginia (aka the Meerimak) and USS monitor off Hampton Roads. In one day, of inconclusive battle, in a civil war on the other side of the Atlantic, Great Britan, the world's strongest sea power found her fleet obsolete. That kicked off a military buildup in sea power that has rarely been seen and was only capped by the Washington Naval accords. We all started even, steam driven Ironclads were the stock in trade of a modern navy and the wooden ship of the line couldn't compete if she ran up against one.

As a simple example, if a country were to develop a plane with mach 5 capability, and a misile with slightly better than Mach 5 capability, it would render our entier air wing, both ground based and Naval obsolete. They couldn't catch it, they couldn't shoot at it as none of our misiles are better than Mach 5 and it could shoot them with impunity as none of our planes are capable of better than Mach five speeds to out run such a missile.

When you have a military advantage, it behooves you to stay ahead of the curve on militray technology. If you get complacent, you my very well wake up one morning to find the playing field has been leveled and that means a lot of dead soldiers, sailors & airmen.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And now, dear friends. I am done. I will no longer be posting in political threads here for the foreseeable future. I am worn out, from standing alone constanatly. I don't think a conservative point of view is wanted here or appreciated.

I will leave these threads to the happy band of liberals who enjoy them and wish you well in bashing the occasional idiot Neo-con who pipes up, then retreats. For my part, I am worn to the point where posting & reading these threads is a chore, not a joy and debate should always be a joy.

I'll see you all in the happy threads and writing threads.

Adios

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Re: This is purely tangental

I answered this once, in a long post, I don't remember the thread.

I'll skip the long list of historical precedent I provided about how we have gutted our military everytime we finsihed a war and start the next war hopelessly outclassed techology wise. I'll get to the meat of it. It takes only one innovation to render your military machine obsolete. My example was the battle between CSS Virginia (aka the Meerimak) and USS monitor off Hampton Roads. In one day, of inconclusive battle, in a civil war on the other side of the Atlantic, Great Britan, the world's strongest sea power found her fleet obsolete. That kicked off a military buildup in sea power that has rarely been seen and was only capped by the Washington Naval accords. We all started even, steam driven Ironclads were the stock in trade of a modern navy and the wooden ship of the line couldn't compete if she ran up against one.

As a simple example, if a country were to develop a plane with mach 5 capability, and a misile with slightly better than Mach 5 capability, it would render our entier air wing, both ground based and Naval obsolete. They couldn't catch it, they couldn't shoot at it as none of our misiles are better than Mach 5 and it could shoot them with impunity as none of our planes are capable of better than Mach five speeds to out run such a missile.

When you have a military advantage, it behooves you to stay ahead of the curve on militray technology. If you get complacent, you my very well wake up one morning to find the playing field has been leveled and that means a lot of dead soldiers, sailors & airmen.

-Colly

Okay, first off, no one can catch up with us at this pace. Even the big Russian bear couldn't keep up. No one has even as close to as big of a budget as ours and none have as good planes, ships, guns, etc. except the ones we give them. Your example of a mach 5 missile is assuming that countries are desperately trying to develop mach 5 missiles. The closest we've got is some people desperately trying to get a beginner's nuclear weapon, thus putting them a mere 60 years behind us militarily.

I'd really like to see the history of being outclassed since the Korean War because in Vietnam we had agent Orange and fighter jets and our men were being slaughtered by ordinary rifles and knives. Since then, our military has been able to crush any conventional army within seconds but the second they pull the guerilla tactics, we go ka-thunk. We're fighting a war of jet airplanes and Mach 5 missiles against people who have maybe Vietnam Era weapons at the best. And they're noticing that if you hide out in an area the fighters can't hit well, they can snipe our body armorless troops with impunity. How are patriot missiles going to stop truck bombs. F-16s snipers. Mach 5 missiles, citizens with a pistol or mob chaos. The problem with the whole thing is the assumption that people have weapons so much shinier and nicer than us and we're going to be usurped any day now. In truth, they're finding out that an old Kalishnikov and a nuclear weapon stored at the capital does much better in keeping the US at bay.

We're funding a Cold War/World War 2 style military strategy and fighting countries that have a Vietnam/ Lebanon style tactics strategy. We need to adapt to this or we'll not only still be dying and stalemating, but we'll be broke doing it.

I think it's fitting as well that your example is a war on ourselves. After Russia fell, we've been superpower number one and we've learned that the Big Russian Bear was bluffing about much of the quality of their weapons and technology. Anyway, being outgunned hasn't been a worry since Korea. Now it's about guerilla tactics cause that's what we suck at.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

And now, dear friends. I am done. I will no longer be posting in political threads here for the foreseeable future. I am worn out, from standing alone constanatly. I don't think a conservative point of view is wanted here or appreciated.

I will leave these threads to the happy band of liberals who enjoy them and wish you well in bashing the occasional idiot Neo-con who pipes up, then retreats. For my part, I am worn to the point where posting & reading these threads is a chore, not a joy and debate should always be a joy.

I'll see you all in the happy threads and writing threads.

Adios

-Colly

I apologize if that's what we've been doing. In honesty, you're conservative points are sane and backed up well. My only question has been about the difference in Cold War style planes and missiles technology versus Vietnam style guerilla warfare because I'm seeing more of the latter. I apologize if the tone sounded as if we were attacking you or if my posts seemed overwhelming. Please contradict us on what we're wrong on, for instance that Kerry was pro-military. I'm sorry that we took the joy out of the debates for you and I'm doubly sorry that I have doured your mood.

If you ever decide to return, I for one promise to check anything that I've said to hurt, anger, or infuriate. Cause personally it's a mark of failure (for those left behind) if in a debate all is gained is pain and a feeling of tired hopelessness. Anyways, that's all I wanted to say.

 

[Somme]

I am definately in favour of planting the grounds of the Pentagon out as a vegetable garden, with sheltering trees. I would also like to suggest to my American friends that they write to their Members of Parliament to include in the budget gloves for gardening and the necessary means of turning IBM's, submarines, heavy artillery pieces and the like into gardening spades.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I am definately in favour of planting the grounds of the Pentagon out as a vegetable garden, with sheltering trees. I would also like to suggest to my American friends that they write to their Members of Parliament to include in the budget gloves for gardening and the necessary means of turning IBM's, submarines, heavy artillery pieces and the like into gardening spades.

But why would we want radioactive garden spades?

No, we need a military, we just need to evolve our strategies for the times to assure we're getting the colloquial bang for our buck.

 

[Pure]

Hi Lucifer,

Those were excellent points. What a silly list of votes-- as to its purpose.

IF FTSOA, it proves Kerry is 'antimilitary', it overwhelmingly proves the Dems are promilitary, in those simplistic terms.

Colly, Ya can't have it both ways.

Most specific measures were passed, among Dems, about 42-11, showing about 80% support among the Democrats. For example

[Colly quoting]
Senator Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Senator Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Senator Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319:



CT: someone please repeat this mantra & explain it to me again.

Voting against defense spending is actually promilitary,

That is not the rule of thumb; rather its:

Pure's proposed rule: A vote against a specific measure X, of defense spending, or even modest reduction in defense spending is not necessarily 'anti-military.' Only facts on the specific case could establish that.

For instance, that X, and only X, was vitally needed by the military, right then, yet Joe Blow voted against.

CT:because I just can't seem to wrap my head around voting against military R&D which has produced weapons of war that give our fighting men a qualitative superiority over those they are fighting as being pro military.

This is a parts-to-whole type fallacy. A vote against Fancy Weapon X, is not necessarily 'against military R&D.' The specific requirements of R and D have to be demonstrated--that weapon X was the only way to go.


Some axioms:

The military exist to protect and promote US interests.

No action is *genuinely* 'promilitary' which harms US interests.
----

It follows that wrongly directed increases in the military budget are not genuinely 'promilitary'. (Increases that leave the US LESS prepared to deal with the actual, as opposed to imagined, threats.) An example might be the increases, in the 5-10 years before 9-11.

It follows that cuts to a military budget, e.g., in peacetime, are not necessarily 'anti military,' if the national interest is to convert to 'peacetime' processes and footing.

As Lucifer pointed out, if the 'building' of the military is in the wrong direction, relevant to dealing with the *real* enemy (e.g., terrorists), then in fact, that manner of building is contrary to US interests, and thus not possibly 'promilitary.'

J.

PS: Oh, and I'm not a liberal.

 

[Somme]

But why would we want radioactive garden spades?

No, we need a military, we just need to evolve our strategies for the times to assure we're getting the colloquial bang for our buck.

Hmmm....I do see your point. Mind you, the buckbanging's gotten a wee bit out of hand since........ohhhhh.........Korea, per'aps? I was merely trying to find an adequate, HONOURABLE use for the 'bucks', being as it is that the 'bangs' are becoming far too prevalent. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a country needs defences - especially if somme baddy is likely to.......ummm......invade? It struck me that the liklihood of Al Q wanting to be nasty again would be much lessened if the lads 'n lasses seated around the five walls were given another, more suitable occupation. Good for the digestion, vegetables are - and all those haemorroids garnered on beastly swinging chairs may well benefit. Hmmm.......it may well be the case that said employees of the of the five-star may well stop stealing from their fellow citizens were they otherwise gainfully occupied.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm with Somme and Lucifer on this. It's really a matter of priorities and how the money gets spent.

I'm sorry, but every time I think of defense spending, I think of the $500 billion anti-ballistic missile defense shield, which, as far as I know, they're still funding. (This is $500 billion spread over ten or twelve years, but even so...) Star Wars is a perfect example of an idea whose time has come and gone, and yet if you vote against it, what will they say about you? That you're soft on defense.

The threat we face from ballistic missiles is miniscule compared to the threat we face from low-tech weapons, so why are we wasting money on it?

Liberals are always accused at throwing money at domestic problems, and no doubt they have. But the pentagon does too, and that always slips by without remark.

What sort of weapons systems do we need to get Iraq up and going? What should we have had in place to have stopped 9/11?

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

While at the site and feeling very glum over having labled the Democratic party anti-military for so many years in error I went through the vote roll calls on a decent selection of random defense spending initivies. Certain to find that all this time I had been wrong and that the democrats are actually stuanch supporters of defense. Sadly, that's not what the voting records I saw indicated.

Now that I am so confused, someone please reapeat this mantra & expalin it to me again. Voting against defense spending is actually promilitary, because I just can't seem to wrap my head around voting against military R&D which has produced weapons of war that give our fighting men a qualitative superiority over those they are fighting as being pro military.

-Colly

Counting votes for and against a spending bill IGNORES the fact that alternative bills were proposed and defeated. It's disingenuous to pretend that those votes were against defense. They were against the insanely inefficient spending that made the Defense Department famous for $5000 toilet seats and $500 ashtrays.

Think about it: $390 billion a year.

The single largest publicly funded entity on the planet is the U.S. military. After the cold war, there ought to have been economies of scale, simply by virtue of the fact that there is no other superpower to challenge us. Instead, there is a different challenge - one to which Republicans have given only lip-service, and dedicated a new department, but which in their eagerness to please Raytheon, Bechtel and Lockheed, they have failed utterly to fund. Look at the response to terrorism: instead of canceling the Star Wars program which is nonsensical without another military superpower to nuke us by missile, the gov't does its best to turn terrorism into the new Soviet Union: a military enemy that has to be fought with invasions and new weapons systems. Creating the so-called Homeland Security department but failing to fund the means by which Miami and the many other port cities can secure our seaports - passing the burden of the federal tax cut along to the states and cities so that firemen and police are laid off at the time when they ought to be added - is criminally irreponsible. It isn't anti-military to recognize that the money is being spent stupidly.

How is being in favor of more efficient military spending the same as being anti-military? What you call pro-military I call a failure to hold the Defense Department accountable for its waste. The $5000 toilet seat was a line item in a defense budget that somebody, at some distant point in the past, probably questioned at the risk of being called anti-military.

Colly, do you really think there's no opportunity for greed and corruption in the spending of $390 billion, and that it shouldn't be scrutinized with a skeptical eye each time that money comes up for reapproval?

I'm not anti-military. I'm anti-corruption.

 

[Somme]

(edited for brevity)

What sort of weapons systems do we need to get Iraq up and going? What should we have had in place to have stopped 9/11?

---dr.M.

Right ON, Doc. Lemme fink....ummmmmmmmm....................

decency........nope...
honesty.............(silly Somme)
fairness.........woooo, 'eretical lad I am.....



I know!
Lets all mind our own buisness and sodding well be nice to others? No?

Perhaps we could refuse to buy their oil if they were being mean at home, too?

 

[shereads]

So 'splain this to me: If Kerry votes against an Iraq spending bill, that means he doesn't want to support our troops, right? Unless, as they fail to mention in the Bush campaign commercials, he was attempting to push passage of the alternate bill, which would have spent the same amount of money but funded it from different sources.

You must see that the voting record is meaningless unless you also happen to know what alternative bills were proposed.



Yes, it's true that Democrats favor spending some of that money on social programs. By "some," here's what we mean: With a fraction of the annual military budget - let's say, just the fraction that might be gained if the Defense Department were not given carte blanche, but had to justify the logic of how it spends its money - it would be possible to provided healthcare for every uninsured american, day care for every toddler born into a family living at the poverty level, and to extend the unemployment benefit for the long-term unemployed who just recently were given a pat on the shoulder and a sympathetic tsk-tsk by Congress, who couldn't afford to help them out. We might even be able to provide improved benefits to soldiers' families. We might be able to build more and better Veterans Hospitals.

Is that anti-military? No, it isn't. It's anti-status-quo.

The job of defense industry R&D departments is not to help defend the USA from terrorists, or from China or Canada or Russia. Their job is to make money for their companies, and its the job of the account executives to convince their friends in the Pentagon that their newest idea - if only they can please have a couple billion to build the prototype - is either (a) necessary to defend the U.S. or (b) is so cool that we ought to have it; in fact, its' the next Humvee, and every American will want to own one. But first, taxpayers need to fund its development as a military vehicle.

Suppose a Democrat in Congress were to demand that the taxpayers receive a portion of the profits from the sales of the Hummer, since it was developed at taxpayer expense? Would that be considered anti-military, or just pro-fairness?

 

[Somme]

Suppose a Democrat in Congress were to demand that the taxpayers receive a portion of the profits from the sales of the Hummer, since it was developed at taxpayer expense? Would that be considered anti-military, or just pro-fairness?



she........for statements like that......<smells burning faggots>.......

 

[Xelebes]

Pardon My confusion:

Senator Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-15. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against F-16. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff And Landing Jet Fighters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System For U.S. Submarines. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)
Senator Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Funny how every single one of those weapons are total overkill. Especially the Tomahawk missiles and the Trident submarines.

Is it anti-military if you are against a silly arms race?

 

[cantdog]

Tridents and the whole platform they ride on, those entirely nuke-missile subs , are a weapon we absolutely NEVER INTEND TO USE.

We currently have no such "need." The program ought to be stopped as an unconscionable boondoggle.

I am sorry to hear that anyone thought it a good idea, pro- or anti-.

They must have had a pork-barrel stake in the construction of the things or have been taking campaign money from the businesses making the overrun money.

cantdog

 

[Pure]

Moving past the "who supports our fighting men?" issue.

Harper wants to link the 'neo cons' and the 'theo cons', and thinks it can be done: 1) in a 'moral' foreign policy-- intervene and uphold what's 'right'; smash tyrants; bring freedom.
2) in domestic policy upholding morals, i.e., family matters; laws which strengthen man/woman marriage; their sole responsibility for child rearing, including discipline. Leaving dissemination of sex info to parents; not handing teens condoms and 'telling them how it's done.'

Sounds a bit like GWB, except more 'religious' and 'moral'; Bush seems to *concede* to (or placate) the Christian right, more than he embraces its agenda.

Is this combo feasible? Will it 'fly'. Is GWB an example of its success?

 

[shereads]

I think sex should be disseminated, yes.

 

[shereads]

Does it have to be a descent into moral nihilism?

How about an ascent to a level where government doesn't seek to control individual morality, but is itself moral. A moral government would hold itself accountable when its mistakes have harmed others. A moral government would resist the temptation to use its power to bring any harm at all, anywhere in the world, unless there were simply no other choice.

A moral government would be Atticus Finch: strong, wise, quiet, restrained in its anger; a role model of such dignity that its enemies feel shame.