"well, there you go again" Mr. Kerry

Remove all ads!

Has this man ever met and issue that he is not on both sides of?

Kerry Says Bush Has Mismanaged Military

Is he still decorated if he threw his medals (or ribbons, they were "interchangeable" after all) over the wall around the White House? Or were they someone else’s medals, or ribbons? We never have got to the bottom of that story. Regardless, it wasn't like Bush had much of a standing military to send after Kerry and his Democratic cronies had cut the military down to next to nothing.

Yes Mr. Kerry, we have heard that you would have built a wider coalition. What you haven't told us how you would have gotten France, Germany and Russia to walk away from the billions they were making from the status quo.

Kerry giving a speech on modernizing the military, you have got to be kidding! Kerry has voted against almost every piece of equipment that our military is using today. If Kerry's votes would have decided the issue our best fighter aircraft would still be the F4 Phantom, and we would still be using Korean era infantry transports, and that is just 2 examples in a multitude of others. As far as the Cold War, if Kerry would have had his way in the 1980's the USSR would still be in existence and the US would be the no better than the second greatest superpower (probably third behind China). Sorry but I am going to judge Kerry exactly how he asked Ralph Nader to judge him, by his voting record. Kerry can try to move to the center 5 months before an election, and I am sure that a lot of sheeple will fall for it, but I won't be in that line.

Will this be another case of "I actually voted for the $87B before I voted against it"? To the best of my knowledge, if Kerry actually follows through with this it will be the first time he has ever actually supported increasing the size of the military. Additionally, it is un-Constitutional to use the National Guard for policing issues unless it is under an extreme event (like a weather catastrophe or major civil uprising). This claim is pure puffery.

In case some of you aren't aware, when you sign up and are sworn into the US Military you, agree to be in the military for a period of time, or longer if there is deemed to be a need. This is not like the military is going back on its word and these people never knew that they could be extended. Technically volunteer service doesn't end at any specific, agreed upon in advance, point of time.

You would know Kerry, you and yours created this military. Besides, Kerry has never been in favor of a military that is prepared to do anything anyway.

It even get more pathetic when you realized that while Kerry is complaining about the dire situation in the military, he refuses to do anything about it now, effectively holding the issue as a hostage in the campaign, as evidenced by:

If John Kerry is the answer to the mistakes that President Bush has made, we are asking the wrong questions. IMO, electing Kerry to counter Bush is the equivalent of cutting your hand off to get rid of a hangnail.

 

You wanna know what the real answer for the US could be ? Making room for more political views, let creative minds speak up. There's more in life than just Democrats and Republicans, if they would be just a little more open minded.

 

You have never been more correct Pac man!

Unfortunately, for the momment, we are stuck in Republican/Democratic Party hell.

 

Gee, I don't know. But this sure is an important issue, isn't it? I mean Bush would never do anything like that. I mean you actually have to earn some medals before you can throw them over a fence, right?

Maybe because it's a completely irrelevant, desperate, legless story?

See, I see stuff like this, and then you get mad at me when I accuse you of repeating bogus GOP talking points.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=147

Bush’s campaign chairman Marc Racicot on Feb. 22 accused Kerry of “voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror” and says Kerry was for "canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser." Another Bush campaign spokesman said Kerry has a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems" (a clear impossibility since Kerry has been in office less than 20 years.)

It's true Kerry expressed opposition to those weapons 20 years ago as a candidate, voted against Pentagon budgets several times as a senator in the early and mid-1990's, and proposed cuts in military and intelligence budgets as deficit-reduction measures as recently as 1996.

But Kerry's votes against specific military hardware were mostly against strategic nuclear weapons including the B-2 bomber, Trident missile and anti-missile items, not against conventional equipment such as tanks. And Kerry has a point when he says “I've voted for some of the largest defense and intelligence budgets in our history,” which is correct. He's voted for military spending bills regularly since 1997.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

Next, are you planning on starting a thread on how badly Cheney has gutted the military? Yeah, good old Dick.

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: "The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years."

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

Great, another non-issue. Supporting a bill providing necessary funds for things like body armor for our troops (which, had the Pentagon not had their heads up their asses, would have properly planned for in the first place), and then withdrawing your support for that bill when GOP Senators refuse to remove a provision that allowed blatant war profiteering, is not a flip-flop. It's called sticking up for a principle. But he was wrong, anyway, because Halliburton and the other private contractors have been completely honest and haven't screwed the American taxpayer by overbilling or anything. Oh wait...

That doesn't mean extending their service couldn't have been avoided, or that it's even a good idea, or that this call for extension isn't a key example of how poorly Iraq was planned. This, combined with poor war plans, lack of proper equipment (like missing doors and plating on hummers and...wait for it...bullets for their guns!) and the prevelance of private contractors skirting the chain of command are doing more to damage troop morale than 20 Ted Kennedys comparing Iraq to Viet Nam.

--

Look, if you want to bash Kerry, fine. There are plenty of factually stupid things he's done without repeating the phony ones that have been debunked a thousand times, and bought by the "sheeple" just because the RNC, Hannity and Rush repeat them so many times they become accepted as the truth. You can do better than that.

Bring up a real issue; Like the lame "Misery Index" thing, or talk about how you feel his ads are misleading, or argue how the policies he's proposing for his presidency aren't going to work. If he's such a bad candidate, and you want to convince people of it, I'm willing to give anything a shot. But you're shooting yourself in the foot when you post stuff like this.

A little intellectual honesty is all I ask. If Kerry is such a bad choice, why can't his detractors come up with anything better than "He threw RIBBONS!! Er, um..like...MEDALS"?

[ June 03, 2004, 21:31: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I share your view on Kerry, Darkwolf.

The guy is very similar to the current Polish president, Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski is an old commie who declares himself as an atheist, but never misses an opportunity to have a photo taken with the Pope, to have his wife or daughter attend some religious ceremony, kiss some ring etc.

He is a commie, as I said, but he's getting along surprisingly well with the business lobby. Basically, he's political affiliation is big cash.

Not like the president can do much in the Polish system, but the guy doesn't actually do anything. That's the best way for you - you won't make enemies. He would only veto very unpopular ideas or cripple some right-wing bill as no party has managed to acquire 2/3 votes (needed to turn down a presidential veto) in the parliament here in a legal way, ever.

He avoids talking about any and all difficult subject, apologises for whatever he can, calls politicians to place the interest of the state above their own, to exercise due and calm deliberation and so on, whatever makes him look good.

That swine (also referred to as Pig) had 80% support in one poll. He managed to screw up a few times (a friend to all is a friend to none), and get himself proven to have looked elsewhere when parliament bills were offered for sale (they're planning to have him tried by the Tribunal of State), so he's done for, hopefully. I'll never forget the moment when he appeared drunk in ceremonies at the burial site of thousands of Polish military and civil officers murdered by the Soviets (Polish commies are guilty by association and so is everyone who associates with Polish commies, period), showing how he didn't give a damn. So much as he enjoys taking photos with the Pope, there are records of how he and his goons mocked the same Pope when they thought no one was listening... and so on.

I would wager dollars against nuts that Kerry is going to be the same kind of president if he gets elected. He always manages to be on both sides. The most spectacular one is his recent problem with the American bishops of the Catholic church.

He is Catholic when it comes to getting votes, but not much so when it comes to voting. So much as he declares himself as a Catholic, he supports basically everything the Church opposes.

The same can be said about his strictly political affiliation.

As Kwaśniewski kept saying he was "the president of all Poles", Kerry would probably start to refer to himself as "the president of all Americans" and babble about "cooperation above divisions" and some such. Whatever gets him votes.

Hope the voters turn him down or he will screw up everything that can be screwed up.

I agree on practically all points you raise.

Guess he didn't even care. The only thing he has to do here is to make himself look better than Bush.

That's what I hope the voters will do. They should also compare how he talks to how he votes.

Bush at least has some programme and some[/] vision.

As a rule, the same authority that has given the medals is needed to take them back for the man to be no longer decorated. I don't know how it is in the US, but here also courts can forfeit some orders and medals in case of particularly dishonourable motivation for a crime committed by a decorated man.

 

DR did most of the job for me, but there is one question I just have to ask based on the following:

??? You have to tell me what you meant to be taken implicitly out of this statement, because explicitly it is baseless. The USSR did not fall due to our having superior weaponry (in fact the opposite is likely true), but rather due to economic related issues. Also, China? You really have to help me out on this one. If we spent less on the military, China would be more powerful today? I'm sorry, I don't get it.

EDIT: One more!

If he's elected, that would be a factual statement. Bush is currently the president of all Americans (myself included), whether or not I voted for or supported him. Similarly Kwaśniewski is presidnet of all the Poles (yourself included) regardless of whether or not you voted for or supported him.

 

Seems like they already have come up with something better, you listed them above this statement.

Thanks for pointing those things out, they weren't in the article I happened to read, but if you would like we could start a discussion on them.

As far as this being overblown, how about instead of depending on others for confirmation lets look at actual bills and resolutions and proposals, shall we?

S. 1580 (2/29/96) Intro by Kerry, to cut defense spending by $6.5B

S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181 1996, would have frozen defense spending increases for 7 years.

Votes on to cut or eliminate spending on the B-2 stealth bomber:H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea

In his 1984 run for the Senate Kerry said he would have voted against the Sparrow missile, the Phoenix missile system, the F14D, the F14A, the F15, the AV-8B, Aegis cruiser, AH-64 and a few others. (document here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082762/posts )
I haven't heard him come out and state that he has changed his position on any of these systems, not that I would believe Flippin-Flop if he did. The man has told one group he supported something at one rally, and then less that 6 hours later stated just the opposite at another rally.

Just because a website comes out and spins something the opposite way as the Republicans are spinning it doesn't mean that there is not some truth in it.

As far as his earned medals, you mean the band-aid Purple Heart that he "earned" by shooting a 50 cal at a rock and catching a piece of a jacket about the size of a hair in his forearm? Yeah, he earned them.

You are right, it is a legless story, just like the fact that they have only been able to find 2 officers he served with that will support him. Most of the rest of them have signed a document stating that based upon what he showed in Vietnam he is unfit to be the President (you did know that he was in Vietnam didn't you... as if he hasn't told us that about a million times by now).
Anti-Kerry vets

As far as throwing the Halliburton thing up, talk about no legs.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200406/06012004.html Halliburton is very good at what they do, subsequently Democrats and Republicans turn to them when they need a job done right the first time.

Please enlighten us as to how.

If the man would propose something without proposing the opposite 10 minutes later I would. Unfortunately all we get is vague promises that he is going to do it differently than Bush, then he goes out and says he is going to do the same things that Bush is attempting to do, only he is going to spend more money doing it, er, I mean do it better. The only plan I have heard the man stick to is rolling back the tax cuts, and we have already discussed that.

As for your continued accusations that I am just using the Republican talking points, just so you know, I spend a little time out at Democratic Underground once in a while, and I have to be honest, every time I come back from that pit and read your posts I get the strangest feeling of déjà vu. You sure DU isn’t book marked in your browser?

Aldeth,

Part of the reason that the USSR fell apart is that we spent them into the ground. They tried to go toe to toe with the US in defense spending and they lost. They probably would have fallen eventually anyway, but Reagan decided that it was better sooner rather than later.

 

Not precisely. You can't become the president of Americans or the Poles or the French etc, you only become the president of the US, Poland France...

Anyway, that statement is so obviously true (after all, he is the president of the country, so everyone is subject to his authority etc etc), so stressing it the way he did was purely political and a way of getting cheap points. That's what I had on my mind, not the legal implications.

 

That was the point I was trying to make. The reason though wasn't based on size or strength of military. By all accounts, the Russians had more troops, roughly equivalent tanks, planes, subs, etc., and way more nuclear weapons.

The question I have though, is what else took place that caused them to be unable to continue to support their military? The dissolution of the USSR started in 1989. At that point, they were about 70 years into the communism experiment, and had been spending heavily in the military for about the last 50 of those 70 years. So, why were they able to afford it then, and not now? Similarly the U.S. also spent a huge percentage of its GNP on defense, and yet we've managed to keep spending - albeit with a deficit. There's something that doesn't add up in all of this. By percentage, the USSR was spending about the same amount on defense every year, so why was it suddenly too much?

 

I am by no means an expert on the cold war but judging by some stuff I have read recently the US based their evaluations of the USSRs military and nuclear capability on worst worst case scenarios and that the reality didnt really measure up to that. Also the USSR may have had a larger number of nukes but I am fairly certain that the US had a much larger nuclear capability what with range and size of warheads and such.

Way here

 

@ Darkwolf

Toot toot, your intellectual dishonesty train just keeps on a chuggin'.

I don't suppose you could post his entire senate voting record regarding the defense budget, could you? Do we get to see the rest of his record to compare, or just the parts you think make him look bad? Because if you only post one or two instances where he appears to habitually gut defense, as you say, and don't mention all the times he supported defense budgets, it may appear like you expect people to believe this is representative of his entire voting record. Or was that really your intent?

Despite the obvious straw-man here, let's examine these, shall we?

Gee, this does look bad. $6.5 billion sure is a lot of money. Sadly, you provide this one simple statement without providing any context or backstory at all. What you conveniently leave out is that defense budgets are typically hundreds of billions of dollars (yes, even back when that sissy Clinton was in charge). This is hardly gutting anything.

And why is that, do you think? I mean other than Democrats being sissies, why would not just Kerry, but many other Senators on both sides propose this and similar measures? Could it possibly be because our government has consistently wasted money on failed or deprecated weapons systems over the last 25 years? And that there are actually some people in our government who would rather fix what was broken and find ways to spend tax dollars more efficiently, rather than, as you like to put it, just throw more money at the problem? Isn't this the same thing you rail Democrats for, spending indiscriminately and wastefully? Besides, it's not like we were at peace, or that there was a huge budget defecit left over from Reagan and the Cold War (I blame both equally) to chip through, right? Oh wait...

His reasoning for this is laid out quite clearly in the document you provided. "John Kerry believes that the time has come to take a close look at what our defense needs are and to plan for them rather than to assume we must spend indiscriminately on new weapons systems." Sounds like pretty smart, responsible business practice to a left-wing tool like me. Among his list of weapons cut also includes the MX missiles. I mean we NEED those, right? Only a sissy would cut those!

But wait...is George H. W. Bush a sissy, too? Because he wanted to cut futher production of the very same systems. How can this be!? Read his 1992 State of the Union, where he says:

"Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles."

Man, that George H. W. Bush sure was a sissy, wasn't he?
By the way - cutting further production of something, even when it's one of the most expensive military vehicles ever made (like the B2 Stealth Bomber), is just that - cutting further production. 20 Stealth Bombers, which are non-squadron, solo-mission airecraft, are plenty to suit our needs, I would think. He never advocated getting rid of these systems, as you and the right appear to be claiming.

Of course this is just my lefty "spin," right?

Yes, John Kerry had a hard-on for this one weapons system. See above for why it's irrelevent. Nice cherry picking, too. Again, do we get to see the rest of his voting record, or just the ones that make him look bad?

When was the last time you've seen any Senator call a press conference to announce they changed their mind on a vote they made decades ago?

This pretty much sums up the futility of argueing anything with you. Alas...

You make this claim often. Prove it, or stop making it.

See, now you're really just reaching. This is sad. The point is not HOW he earned them, as many Purple Hearts were given during that time for relatively minor wounds. In fact, the exact navy policy was that the wound must "require treatment by a medical officer." So even by your inaccurate portrayal of the actual wounds, he still qualifies. Which is more than we can say for Shrub, now isn't it? Bush suffered more injury when he biffed on his bike last week than he did during the entire Viet Nam war.

The point is, anyone who criticizes Kerry (who did actually serve) for symbolically throwing his medals away in a protest, while doing it in defense of a man who used his family connections to avoid serving altogether, is childishly dishonest. The fact that people would actually try to create a controversy around Kerry potentially lying by calling them ribbons vs. medals just illustrates how desperate the right is getting these days. And you repeating it doesn't make you look much better.

This is not accurate, or fair, and you know it. In a picture used in a Kerry ad, where Kerry is pictured with 20 servicemen, 11 have signed a paper saying they don't want to be in his campaign commercial, the Kerry campaign didn't have their permission to show them, and that they also are voting for Bush, so they oppose him. 4 want nothing to do with it, 2 are dead. The news story you mentioned says nothing of the other 3. So who do you count as the 2 that do support him...the dead guys!? You floor me sometimes.

So the ostensibly "non-partisan" Swift Boat Veterans For Truth says Kerry is unfit to be president. I suppose I should take their word for it, but then not a single one of them actually served with Kerry, did they? One of their founding members is John O'Neill, the Nixon shill who's so famously been after Kerry for decades. I suppose I should ignore their hefty, hefty RNC bankroll, too. No, why should we question the motives of these concerned, non-partisan, non-agenda having citizens?

By the way - seeing as how you're so anti-communism and socialism, I find it hard to believe that you would take the word of a bunch of communist sympathizers. Just a little rib poke there.

As for veterans who support Kerry, I'm sure they're all just paid actors and "willing tools of the DNC," right Darkwolf? Wow, look at that picture. There's more than 2!

Which I don't disagree with...though it totally misses the point of what I said. Did or did not Halliburton routinely overbill the Pentagon? Does or does not Dick Cheney still have a vested financial interest and still collect a 6 figure paycheck from Halliburton? The 500 pound "conflict of interest" gorilla is sitting in the west wing as we speak, but I guess I must hate America if I point that out.

Gee, Ida know...maybe following the advice of people like General Erik Shinseki , who actually have some experience planning and waging wars, in that the 100,000 troops Wolfowitz insisted would be plenty was, in fact, horribly inadequate. Maybe if the Bush administration hadn't barred other countries from participating in the reconstruction, whether they opposed us or not, and we would have had a REAL coalition with more international involvement, then maybe things would've gone just a little bit better, and men like Al Sadr wouldn't have seemed so UNcrazy when he succeeded in blaming the entire failure of the occupation on us, giving rise to the insurgency. Just a shot in the dark there...

You know what the funny part is? I've visited DU exactly one time in my life. If they sound like me, I can only assume they do their fact-checking, too.

All kidding aside, the irony here is that in your attempt to brand me a left-wing conspiracy theorist (as DU's reputation suggests) and "Kerry Kool-Aid" drinker, I'm not the one who gets his news from World Net Daily and Free Republic, sites that notoriously float libel and Democratic conspiracy theories that are one "Bat Boy Found in Clinton Library" story away from being the Weekly World News, and the blogs of partisan windbags like Boortz. I never post or rely on a source that isn't reputable. I don't quote blogs and conspiracy theorists, and I certainly don't repeat their ramblings. Unlike, as your recent posts prove, you.

Now, before I lose what little respect I still have for you, if you can produce a valid, credible arguement, with marginally reputable sources (news reports, think tanks, yes...even NRO), for why John Kerry is unfit to be president, I'm all ears. Because as we've discussed in the past, I have my doubts about him as well. But passing on lame smears, rumors and theories is not presenting a good case. As I've said before, I don't care that you don't like Kerry and totally respect that you're not voting for him. I'm not trying to change your vote. All I ask is a little fairness and intellectual honesty. If Kerry is so terrible, it should be easy to prove honestly. Can you handle that?

Present facts - things he has done and said, and document instances where he's done the things you accuse him of, then we'll talk. Until then, I have to assume that either a) you post this crap just to annoy the liberals here at SP (you've admitted as much to me in the past), b) you are just so bitterly anti-Democrat that you are incapable of conducting a fair debate, or both.

 

What is so wrong with cutting military costs? I would think that is the first thing to cut for the US considering the USSR fell apart more than a decade ago so there is no massive threat to the US. Terrorism is pinpricks, even a terrorist nuke in an American city is nothing compared to what a fullscale nuclear war between the US and the Sovietunion would have been. Not to mention that hunting down terrorists and fight terrorism with the army is like swatting flies with a bus.

Cutting military costs should be especially vital now as the US have quite an impressive deficiency. Heck, you guys could cut it in half and still outspend half the world put together. Why not pump some money into education, healthcare and a powergrid? Atleast that are my sissy European priorities.

 

This seems to be a little spin-off topic. There is a always repeating pattern of expanding and contracting.

Well, for one, the expenditures of the US of A compared to the Russians were ridiculously low. Russia has about the half of the population of the US of A and it's economically reasonably weaker. That means, they propably have reached crazy heights like their military expenditure reaching 50% of the whole tax-income. I remember seeing a number from the 70ies saying it was about 15% of the GPD that was wasted for defence. Defence expenditure means to a big part spending money for dead people and trashed weapons, instead of toilet paper and wheat.

By the way, the Russians had a flat-tax-rate. Pretty mean for the common man. The Russians had the biggest army of the world in the 40ies with good reason. In the 50ies, Russia had its reasons to keep a oversized army. In the 60ies, they commited economical suicide and spend the 70 and 80ies diying. That army was to big to afford for them. Way to big. In comparision, the Americans paid a very small sum, more in absolute numbers, but relativly very, very cheap compared to their per capita income.

But then again, that foolishness of keeping a completly oversized army at the expense of feeding the own people, was also a weakness of the Tzars.

That is a general rule, an empire growths until it is overstretched. Beginning from this time, they have to commit more and more of everything they own into their defence. It happended to the Dutch, British, Romans, Mongols and the Spanish and so on. 1850, the British ruled the oceans to a very cheap price. 1890, they had competition from the US, Japan and Germany and their expenditure started to grow into hurting percentages, the sun-down of an Empire, while most people where thinking it was at its height. Things never change. I think the Habsburgian-Empire with it's economical power base catalonia is a very good example, how the wealth of a country was used to conquer a whole peninsula, then expand to Africa, Eastern Europe and the Americas and then having had the motherland starved by the taxes that where necesseary to defend the overstretched empire against all the small predators (of course except the Turks, the most formidable of the European powers), wanting their part from the pie. The Swedes on the other hand are a good example from a major power chosing to get rid of their possessions instead of starving their own homeland to death. So did the Dutch and the British.

Edit: And adding something to the actual topic. I know, that sounds Anti-American and mean. But I want Bush to have a second term. I want him to stay where he is and reap what he has sown. I don't want to see him getting off the hook and going into retirement. I want to see him sweat, when the **** hits the fan.

[ June 04, 2004, 21:12: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Ok DR, I have had it with your whining sniveling "poor me, I must hate America" BS. Show me one time on these boards where someone has said you hate America. Nice to see you are not above the use of trying to get sympathy to prove your point.

No I won't, if you want to do a study to see what the overall effect of all of Kerry's votes on military spending are, you go get em!

Nice red-herring. Yes of course he supported defense budgets, the ones that involved major cuts from the previous budget.

Ever hear of a term called incrementalism? If your boss came up to you and told you that it was decided that your work wasn't worth what they had thought, and that he was not only freezing your raises for the next 7 years, but intended to cut your salary by 1%, you would howl, and I am sure start looking for another job. But really, it is only 1%, I mean, how minor is that?

Except for one fact, the government is still going to spend that money. Kerry wasn't trying to save money, he simply didn't like where it is being spent. It is the equivalent of a business saying, we are going broke, cut the marketing budget by 50% and reallocate 100% of the savings to paying our employees medical benefits. Cutting the military capabilities of this nation is a bad business decision IMO. We have more enemies, and much broader interests to defend than any other nation. It costs a lot of money to do that.

As a side note, what is up with all the "sissy" references, are you again trying to attack me personally by implying that I have said that anyone was a sissy? Or is this just another attempt to move the sentiment of the conversation a la your "I must hate America" whine?

The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush wanted to keep key systems and invest in new ones, Kerry wants the military severely downsized. If that is what you think is good for the US, support it, but don't argue that it is more fiscally responsible based upon the savings.

Many politicians have admitted that they hold a different position today than they did a few years ago, of course they are able justify they change in stance by more than "I am moving to the center so that I will be electable".

Actually, to the best of my knowledge I have made it once. Unfortunately the link I had to the story is dead, but if you need a list of flip flops: Kerry Flip Flops Of course this is on a web site that you discount, even though they do give exact dates and forums, some of which are only 2 weeks apart.

In regards to his medals and your claim that how he earned them is irrelevant, of course it is relevant, he made it relevant by making his Vietnam service the only consistent stance of his campaign. I wish I new how many consecutive speeches and interviews he has given in which he mentioned his service in Vietnam, as short as that was. The fact that he received a Purple Heart for an injury that a 6 year old wouldn't even bother telling their parents about in an apparent effort to get an early out of Vietnam is a slap in the fact to every US veteran who ever fought in a war. He claims that his military experience is part of what makes him better suited for the Presidency that Bush, and yet the majority of the officers who served with him have signed a document stating he is unfit to be President.

Oooops. Look at the kettle calling the pot black, seems someone else is using talking points! I don't remember Bush making a big deal about his service. The fact is that anybody who had the connections to get into the Coast Guard, National Guard, or out of military service at that time did so. Even Kerry tried to postpone his service for a year, no doubt hoping the war would be over before his year was up, not that there is any shame in that. As far as the picture, how many of them actually served with Kerry? If I ran on the Nazi party platform I could get that many veterans to come sign on with me.

Now as for that little shot at me regarding intellectual dishonesty: Halliburton's payments to Cheney, from your own article

and

. This is money that was owed to him for services provided prior to his being VP. I am sure that you didn't intend to mislead by omitting that little bit of info, probably just an oversight. Further, from one of your own sources:http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=182

Now, to address the issue regarding the number of troops. The military by its very nature will always overstate the number of troops needed for anything other than covert ops. It only makes sense to totally overwhelm your opponent. However, if you will be honest, you will admit that if we would have taken twice the number of troops that we did that Bush's critics would have been screaming about how we sent too large of a force, and that we are threatening the stability of the region by making Iraq's neighbors think that this is just the first step in an invasion of the entire Middle East a la Germany's conquest of most of Europe prior to our intervention. Additionally, given the flack that Bush is taking for the cost now, I can only imagine what would be said if the costs were even higher. It must be nice to sit in a position where you get to criticize no matter what would have happened.

And now for the last.

Time for a little quid pro quo:

DR, I believe that on 4/17/03 you called the liberals on this board "yutzes". You also stated "There are too many America-bashers in SP who need their chops busted. Nobody's yelling at Yago and Kazhraj for their "America is evil" broken record", and finally "Kudos! I love participating in your posts and hope you keep stirrin' it up."

Private messages are supposed to be private. I am sure that your brothers in arms will be ecstatic to realize your change of heart, but will any one ever trust you again after this break in faith?

To everyone else,

For the record, I came back because I found an old email notice that said I had a PM from Tal. After reading it I was pissed off, so I came trolling. Then I got a couple emails from people that I had exchanged personal info with, and they were disappointed in what I had done. It made me feel guilty, so I decided to stick around and see if I would enjoy posting here again. And for a while I have. I had forgotten that there is a long list of people that I like and respect here (one less now), a few of which would be surprised to know they are on that list. Unfortunately, someone has decided to make every response to my posts into some kind of personal vendetta, and I am no longer having fun here, and it is starting to show.

So for now I will say goodbye, and take care. I may pop back in after the election, to dish out a little crow if Bush wins, or to eat a little crow if Kerry wins, of course that is assuming that I don't get Shralped for this!