Vote Republican or Die

[Remec]

Re: Re: Vote Republican or Die

It's hard to replicate research of this scope. Isn't it enough that we did it in 2000?

Um...I know this is kerosene on the campfire, but we didn't do it in 2000. A stolen election isn't quite the same as getting the people's vote.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... The Democrats have the best intentions, but aren't ready or willing to do what is necessary.
Oh and nobody ever call Bin ladin a soldier.

In the last four years, bin Laden has exploited every weakness of George W. Bush, while Bush has been unable (or unwilling) to exploit any weakness of bin Laden’s.

As a result, George the Lesser’s troops are stretched thin and tied down in a lengthy engagement, while the ranks of bin Laden’s troops are swelling.

The result can be perceived as no slur against the real soldiers involved in the conflict. What it shows is that as a War Leader, George the Lesser is inferior to bin Laden.

Additionally, this comparison offers no true measure of bin Laden’s abilities as a leader. While his tactics are vile, they have been proving successful — but only because bin Laden is pitted against an opposition being lead by a buckaroo with his head up his ass.

 

[rgraham666]

For a war on terror, the U.S. Military is not, in my opinion, a very effective tool.

The war on terror is an intelligence war. In the old fashioned sense of the word. What's needed is people on the ground, in places where the terrorists are, who know the culture, speak the language and who can spot 'assets' that can be used. It's going to be a dirty war.

And it goes against the grain of U.S. war making which prefers to use expensive technology rather than people.

An effective military is much better than a big one.

The classic example is the Red Army before WWII. On paper, it looked unbeatable. The Germans kicked the crap out of them. Until the Soviets had enough sense to use the strategy that has beat every invader in history; trade space for time and let General Winter take over. They also started to put effective soldiers in charge rather than political appointees.

And the Soviets offer another example of why the military should be kept the minimum required for defense.

As I recall, the Soviet Union was spending something like 30% of it's GDP on it's military. Since weapons drain money from a nation, this excessive outlay for weapons contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union.

If the States isn't careful, it will fall into the same trap.

 

[Remec]

If, in your own mind you can divorce security from terrorism and a strong military the charges seem ludicris. If you believe the cornerstone of a strong national defense against terror is the military, then the charges have legs. one thing the Democrats have failed to do, is demonstrate cuts in the military will not affect our ability to defend the country from further terrorism.

Which, naturally, they can't do without gaining office in Congress and/or the White House to put in some cuts and see what happens. The question is do we risk it?

I think the current trend in the military towards smaller, more easily and rapidly deployable units is the best defense...if there's going to be a defense...against terrorism.

The only way you can truly defend yourself is if there is no one able and/or willing to challenge you and your forces. It reminds me of the dialogue between Costner and Connery's characters in "The Untouchables" where Ness (Costner) is being briefed on the Chicago way.

"They knife one of your men, you shoot one of theirs. They put a man in the hospital, you put one of them in the morgue!" (Granted, may not be verbatim, haven't watched it in a while.<g>)

Basically, it comes down to the best defense is a good offense. And your offense can only be as good as its information. I would say maintain the defense as is...focussing on better training and weapons...stronger committment to proper behaviour in the ranks (knowing both how to behave and follow orders and how not to)...while restructuring it to be more mobile and more intune with the intelligence community so that when something happens (and something *will* happen eventually) we can respond swiftly and ruthlessly without collateral damage to those with the misfortune to have terrorists living among them.

But, civilian or not, if they are harboring the terrorists...they're just as culpable and should expect the same judgement and sentence...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

For a war on terror, the U.S. Military is not, in my opinion, a very effective tool.

The war on terror is an intelligence war. In the old fashioned sense of the word. What's needed is people on the ground, in places where the terrorists are, who know the culture, speak the language and who can spot 'assets' that can be used. It's going to be a dirty war.

And it goes against the grain of U.S. war making which prefers to use expensive technology rather than people.

An effective military is much better than a big one.

The classic example is the Red Army before WWII. On paper, it looked unbeatable. The Germans kicked the crap out of them. Until the Soviets had enough sense to use the strategy that has beat every invader in history; trade space for time and let General Winter take over. They also started to put effective soldiers in charge rather than political appointees.

And the Soviets offer another example of why the military should be kept the minimum required for defense.

As I recall, the Soviet Union was spending something like 30% of it's GDP on it's military. Since weapons drain money from a nation, this excessive outlay for weapons contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union.

If the States isn't careful, it will fall into the same trap.

A significant differnce is here, the outlay on the military fuels the growth of the economy, rather than takes from it. The military-industiral complex acts as a stimulant to the economy, creating jobs and moving money from the government into the private sector.

I do think the war on terror is destined to be a war of intelligence. I don't see much possibly of large, set piece batles. Iraq was probably the last of those for a while.

It is my opinion that the majority of people in the U.S. trust the military more than they do the intelligence gathering departments to protect them however. Unless you can convince the voting populous that military cuts do not equal weakening defense, you are facing a tough crowd. Certainly, an explanation of your plans and the assumptions you operate under are in order. Without them, you are practically begging someone to question your record and to distort it for their own political ends.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Which, naturally, they can't do without gaining office in Congress and/or the White House to put in some cuts and see what happens. The question is do we risk it?

I think the current trend in the military towards smaller, more easily and rapidly deployable units is the best defense...if there's going to be a defense...against terrorism.

The only way you can truly defend yourself is if there is no one able and/or willing to challenge you and your forces. It reminds me of the dialogue between Costner and Connery's characters in "The Untouchables" where Ness (Costner) is being briefed on the Chicago way.

"They knife one of your men, you shoot one of theirs. They put a man in the hospital, you put one of them in the morgue!" (Granted, may not be verbatim, haven't watched it in a while.<g>)

Basically, it comes down to the best defense is a good offense. And your offense can only be as good as its information. I would say maintain the defense as is...focussing on better training and weapons...stronger committment to proper behaviour in the ranks (knowing both how to behave and follow orders and how not to)...while restructuring it to be more mobile and more intune with the intelligence community so that when something happens (and something *will* happen eventually) we can respond swiftly and ruthlessly without collateral damage to those with the misfortune to have terrorists living among them.

But, civilian or not, if they are harboring the terrorists...they're just as culpable and should expect the same judgement and sentence...

It is a question of what you are willing to risk. And as long as it is posed in those terms, are you willing to risk another 9/11, you are going to be successful.

One thing that is working in GWB's favor is that there hasn't been another major terrorist attack in the U.S. While the reasons for that are debateable, that isn't going to stop the GOP from saying, GWB is protecting you, are you willing to risk another attack to see if Kerry can too. That's a powerful message in a time of fear and uncertainty and the GOP is taking every advantage of it.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Quoting the "yes" or "no" vote on a bill is an entirely misleading way of representing the reality of the type of legislation that a senator or congressman has favored. For example, Kerry didn't "vote against providing body armor to the troops in Iraq," as has been repeated ad nauseum in republican commercials. Quite the opposite: he fought for an alternative way of funding the bill, that would have reduced the taxpayer burden by requiring that a percentage of future Iraq oil production would go to pay off the U.S. military expenditure.

How typically Republican that their commercials not only leave out that essential fact, but also ignore this one: body armor was included in the bill only at the insistence of Kerry and other Democrats.

This is exactly the kind of Bush-speak that has Kerry being called anti-defense by Dick Cheney, on the basis of kerry's having opposed weapons that Dick Cheney also opposed.

Bizarre? Yes. But no more deceptive than Republicans killing a bill Kerry fought for (extending unemployment benefits), changing their head-count the day of the vote to make it appear that his absense made the difference - and then making commercials that accuse Kerry of failing to vote to extend unemployment benefits.

The press simply grows bored with refuting the fact that Kerry's record is not anti-defense; it's ant-waste and anti-corporate welfare for Bechtel, Raytheon and Halliburton. Year after year, he has fought for alternative spending bills that didn't necessarily spend less, but spent differently. Favoring an alternative proposal is not the same as being against defense spending.

<sigh>

Another Republican touch: the use of "defense spending" as a synonym for "military spending" as if the two are one and the same. Vietnam and Iraq ought to have proved by now that there is a vast difference.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm going to disagree with you here Colleen.

Although spending money on the military has some effect on the economy, it has very little in comparison to investment in infrastructure or education.

Mostly it is the pay to people that contributes to the economy. They go out and spend that money, which spins the economic wheels.

But a significant portion of the money spent on defense disappears. It goes into things that either destroy themselves, get blown up by the enemy or simply sit there waiting to be used.

As one of my favourite writers puts it, "weapons are an economic negative, but a political necessity."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm going to disagree with you here Colleen.

Although spending money on the military has some effect on the economy, it has very little in comparison to investment in infrastructure or education.

Mostly it is the pay to people that contributes to the economy. They go out and spend that money, which spins the economic wheels.

But a significant portion of the money spent on defense disappears. It goes into things that either destroy themselves, get blown up by the enemy or simply sit there waiting to be used.

As one of my favourite writers puts it, "weapons are an economic negative, but a political necessity."

Yet you would admit if Raytheon, McDonald-Douglas or Lockheed-Martin were to go bellyup it would be extremely damageing to the economy, would you not?

 

[shereads]

"The only way to fight terrorism is to stop participating in it."

Which, naturally, they can't do without gaining office in Congress and/or the White House to put in some cuts and see what happens. The question is do we risk it?

I think the current trend in the military towards smaller, more easily and rapidly deployable units is the best defense...if there's going to be a defense...against terrorism.

The only way you can truly defend yourself is if there is no one able and/or willing to challenge you and your forces. It reminds me of the dialogue between Costner and Connery's characters in "The Untouchables" where Ness (Costner) is being briefed on the Chicago way.

"They knife one of your men, you shoot one of theirs. They put a man in the hospital, you put one of them in the morgue!" (Granted, may not be verbatim, haven't watched it in a while.<g>)

Basically, it comes down to the best defense is a good offense. And your offense can only be as good as its information. I would say maintain the defense as is...focussing on better training and weapons...stronger committment to proper behaviour in the ranks (knowing both how to behave and follow orders and how not to)...while restructuring it to be more mobile and more intune with the intelligence community so that when something happens (and something *will* happen eventually) we can respond swiftly and ruthlessly without collateral damage to those with the misfortune to have terrorists living among them.

But, civilian or not, if they are harboring the terrorists...they're just as culpable and should expect the same judgement and sentence...

 

[shereads]

If enriching Raytheon and Bechtel is essential to the economy, there's always the War on Drugs to fall back on. That uses lots of hardware.

I still don't see a direct link between defending the country and filling the Pentagon's Christmas stocking with everything they want.

I also don't see what Iraq has to do with defending the U.S., but I know that's become a moot point to supporters of the war. The party line seems to be, "well, as long as we're in a war, let's say we're defending ourselves."

 

[rgraham666]

It would be bad, but not deadly Colleen.

But if the States goes under, that would be deadly.

I got the latest edition of Foreign Policy last night. It's major section was The World's Most Dangerous Ideas. One of these ideas was 'Free Money'.

Large and sustained deficits in the United States threaten not only U.S. prosperity but the world's economic health as well. Massive public borrowing in the United States is already absorbing other nations' savings to finance the world's richest country. And it may soon raise interest rates around the world and slow global growth. U.S. profligacy could even invite an international financial crisis that would bring enormous human costs everywhere.

I'm not arguing against the fact that the States needs a large military. It does.

But the U.S. military is ineffective at the job it is currently supposed to do, fight terror. And I worry that the money spent on these ineffective weapons, tactics and strategies is going to beggar the United States.

As always, the greatest danger to a nation lies within, not without. With care, terrorists can do little against the U.S. Without care, the U.S. will tear down it's structural supports to strengthen it walls.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It would be bad, but not deadly Colleen.

But if the States goes under, that would be deadly.

I got the latest edition of Foreign Policy last night. It's major section was The World's Most Dangerous Ideas. One of these ideas was 'Free Money'.



I'm not arguing against the fact that the States needs a large military. It does.

But the U.S. military is ineffective at the job it is currently supposed to do, fight terror. And I worry that the money spent on these ineffective weapons, tactics and strategies is going to beggar the United States.

As always, the greatest danger to a nation lies within, not without. With care, terrorists can do little against the U.S. Without care, the U.S. will tear down it's structural supports to strengthen it walls.

No disagreement from me. I simply note there are several compines in this country whose life's blood is defense contracts. When you slash defense spending, these are the companies that take it on the chin. They are a major factor in our economy.

While they may not produce as much for the country, if you hamstring them, it will be felt across the entire economy. When these guys begin laying folks off and cancelling orders and subcontracts, it can be very damaging.

Because of this, I still feel defense spending in this country isn't comperable to Soviet defense spending in terms of damage to the overall economy. In a command economy, building weapons leaves you with no money and a lot of weapons. Those who produce the weapons don't make more money, they don't spread the money around to subcontractos, they don't employ more people, the end product is all the good you get out of the money spent.

Here you get some economic stimulus from the money spent, in the form of more workers employed, subcontracts and stimulation of the market sectors who supply the materails that go into the weapons.

-Colly

 

[Remec]

"The only way to fight terrorism is to stop participating in it."

Which means what, exactly?

Terrorism can be a useful and viable means of forcing a government that is unwilling to negotiate by any other means into taking seriously the wants and desires of those it has been mistreating and/or ignoring. The problem that occurs these days, is too many groups would use it as the *only* method to gain what they want. They fail to see that it only works as an attention getting device; and once attention comes your way, you must quickly and publicly move towards an unarmed method of negotiation or risk alienating the public that you, hopefully, had backing you at the beginning of the campaign/crusade.

 

[shereads]

The US may not be able to survive a trillion dollar deficit. Don’t laugh. Interest on that money can only be paid by, in effect, printing more money. Printing more money leads to a deflated dollar. A deflated dollar can lead to oil being traded in Euros. The EU now has a population and GDP equal to the US. Its currency, the Euro is stable. Many oil producing countries would like for oil to be traded in Euros. In fact, that may very well be the true reason for the Iraq war. Hussein was asking that his oil be paid for in Euros and should one or two others do the same, we would have a crisis. Without petrodollars, the US cannot pay the interest on its current debt, loses most of its foreign investment money and becomes a second rate economy.

You've been doing your homework. Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan met early during the administration and agreed that social security was finally salvagable, because of the budget surplus. Greenspan was afraid that Bush's tax cuts would put the U.S. back into deficit spending, unless they were passed with the provision that certain economic triggers would scale them back. It was critical, he told O'Neill, that the U.S. never return to deficit spending. If we did, more than social security and medicare would be in danger.


Neither Greenspace nor O'Neill envisioned that the biggest danger to a balanced budget would not come from us tax-and-spend liberals, but from a new and more powerful force: the Cheney faction of White House neocons.

Last week when Greenspan announced that Social Security is pretty much past saving unless there are immediate cuts in the allowance that so many of our elderly are currently scraping by on, I remembered O'Neill quoting Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." O'Neill, who had worked for three Republican presidents, was speechless. He thought Reagan had proved just the opposite.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Damn, I hope Bush wins.

 

[Guest]

Joe - stop trying to start something you cannot finish. You just love to bait people to fulfill some kinky little need of yours.

You are such a master baiter.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh


Joe - stop trying to start something you cannot finish. You just love to bait people to fulfill some kinky little need of yours.

You are such a master baiter.

I have no good arguments for it. Just a few bad ones:

1) I want to see where this is all going. If its a horror movie, I want to see the ending.

2) I think it'll make every liberal in the country consider moving to another country--freeing up some space, maybe making land prices cheaper and jobs more available.

3) I think he needs it more than Kerry does.

Personally, I'm not voting Bush. I just want to see him win.

 

[Edward Teach]

While it is absurd to believe anyone would intentionally make it easier for terrorists, it is quite easy to believe they might do so unintentionally.

Like it or not, the Democratic party has long championed social programs and whenever financing for the programs becomes an issue their first recourse is always to cut defense spending. This policy has endeared them to their base, but you must reap what you sew.

It's quite easy to convince people who are fearful of more terrorism that cutting defense spending is an open invitation to terrorists. In Kerry's case, his voting record shows an almost uniform opposition to defense spending, as well as attempts on his part to actually freeze defense spending on more than one occasion.

You may argue the intent of thses votes. You may argue the brand of anti-military. What cannot be argued is that many americans percieve this near constant attempt to reduce the defense budget as dangerous to our security.

Within the framework of constantly acting to see the defense budget reduced, the argument that Kerry might unintentionally invite more aggression is real, valid and reasonable. To take it to the extreme is obviously propaganda, but as with most good propaganda, there is a factual base for the allegations.

If, in your own mind you can divorce security from terrorism and a strong military the charges seem ludicris. If you believe the cornerstone of a strong national defense against terror is the military, then the charges have legs. one thing the Democrats have failed to do, is demonstrate cuts in the military will not affect our ability to defend the country from further terrorism.

-Colly

Colly,

I agree that perception can be very important and powerful in an election.

But whether it holds any sway with suicide bombing terrorists is doubtful. Further, people sophisticated enough in world politics to manage Al Queda type organizations surely know that one administration is going to be just as difficult to deal with as another.

To argue otherwise, it seems to me, is to argue that Al Queda was more afraid of Clinton than Bush.


Ed

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I guess voting down the Star Wars Anti Missile defense shield--what is that? Like 500 billion dollars or something?--is being soft on defense? This adminsitration is still budgeting for that white elephant. I don't know why more people aren't screaming bloody murder about this totally useless waste of defense money.

If a strong military could stop terrorism, Israel would be a picnic on the beach by now.

The most powerful military the world has ever seen was powerless to stop 9/11, and they'll be powerless to stop the next one. What we need is less billion dollar weapons systems and better intelligence.. The idea is to spend smarter, not necessarily more.

I saw in the paper where the administration is budgeting 27 million for the develop of a tactical nuclear 'bunker buster' bomb to go after hidden underground hideouts. Wouldn't that be great? Going after weasels like Bin Ladin with a nifty little 20 megaton nuke?

These people are mad.

---dr.M.

 

[Edward Teach]

I guess voting down the Star Wars Anti Missile defense shield--what is that? Like 500 billion dollars or something?--is being soft on defense? This adminsitration is still budgeting for that white elephant. I don't know why more people aren't screaming bloody murder about this totally useless waste of defense money.

If a strong military could stop terrorism, Israel would be a picnic on the beach by now.

The most powerful military the world has ever seen was powerless to stop 9/11, and they'll be powerless to stop the next one. What we need is less billion dollar weapons systems and better intelligence.. The idea is to spend smarter, not necessarily more.

I saw in the paper where the administration is budgeting 27 million for the develop of a tactical nuclear 'bunker buster' bomb to go after hidden underground hideouts. Wouldn't that be great? Going after weasels like Bin Ladin with a nifty little 20 megaton nuke?

These people are mad.

---dr.M.

dr. M, don't hold me strictly to these figures, I'm quoting them off the top of my head, but what about the Seawolf submarine.

Eighteen were budgeted for at about 2.2 billion per, the first to be delivered in 2004. The cold war ended and they weren't needed; our LA class sub is better than anything the Russians have and they can't build any new subs.

However, the DOD decided to build six Seawolfs anyway because Electric Boat Co, or whoever had the contract, might forget how to build them if we don't let them keep their hand in.

And think about $2,200,000,000.00. I think even I could build one for that.

Ed

 

[poohlive]

Part of me does agree with Joe on this one. I mean, in the past four years, look at what President Bush has done. It's just amazing, like watching a monkey play with a gun, wondering what's going to happen, excited when he point it at something, or finds the trigger, or it accidentally goes off and he scampers up a tree...
Only to come back a few minutes later to try it all again.

One helluva ride, I tell you what.

Maybe that's what Bush is counting on. Anarchists, Existentialists, and nihilists who want to fuck it all up. I voted for Bush in '00 just to see what would happen. Ajnd a day doesn't go by that I haven't been disappointed in my decision. Bush is one crazy monkey.
I don't know about this next election. Like I said, part of me wants to watch the monkey play with the gun some more... but another part (that grown up part, that for some odd reason reminds you of your mom or dad) is saying, come on now, enough's enough, someone's liable to get hurt.
I'm still undecided. I suppose i'll wait for the debates. Let them tear into each other, see who comes out better.

 

[Xelebes]

In fact it has already been devalued 20% since Bush took office and the huge deficits have not yet hit.

I just wanna back this tidbit up.

2000/2001ish - $1.00 CAN = 62.5 cents US
2004 - $1.00 CAN = 75.0 cents US

The Canadian dollar has been holding steady with the Euro.

 

[Edward Teach]

I just wanna back this tidbit up.

2000/2001ish - $1.00 CAN = 62.5 cents US
2004 - $1.00 CAN = 75.0 cents US

The Canadian dollar has been holding steady with the Euro.

Thanks, Xelebes.

You know you tell people a fact like this and they brush it off as if it doesn't matter when in fact it is going to cause a huge amount of suffering. Maybe more than anything happening in Iraq.

Ed

 

[dr_mabeuse]

dr. M, don't hold me strictly to these figures, I'm quoting them off the top of my head, but what about the Seawolf submarine.

Eighteen were budgeted for at about 2.2 billion per, the first to be delivered in 2004. The cold war ended and they weren't needed; our LA class sub is better than anything the Russians have and they can't build any new subs.

However, the DOD decided to build six Seawolfs anyway because Electric Boat Co, or whoever had the contract, might forget how to build them if we don't let them keep their hand in.

And think about $2,200,000,000.00. I think even I could build one for that.

Ed

Hay! I used to work for the Electric Boat division of General Dynamics near Boston. Honest. I cleaned atomic submarines for about 3 months. They were cool, but talk about government waste!

I just heard about some transport plane that got cancelled after we spent 30 billion on it. It was kind of unusual, because no one wanted it, but they were building it anyway. It's like they just had to burn up that money on something.

How come when money's spent on education or social stuff, it's called "throwing money" at a problem, but when it's wasted on war toys it's considered strong on national defense?

---dr.M.