Liberals can't defend America
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, July 15, 2006 16:08
VIEWED: 13702
PAGE 7 of 11
Quote:Well, let me inject a note of specificity. WHAT do you consider "reasonable"? How much money? How many weapons systems? How many divisions? Where should they be deployed? How many fronts should we be preapred to fight on? How many nuclear bombs should we drop? Or, are you recommending that we militarize to every extent possible? No cost too great? No stategy in mind, just the concept that an unspecified military "threat" will... what?
That military buildup and the great renewed vision of liberty fostered by Ronald Reagan, Margeret Thatcher, the Pope, Helmet Kole, and even Francois Mitterand to no small extent, they committed themselves to policies of military preparedness and avoided the terrible conflict though inevitable by the contempory American liberal establishment.... There is a difference between reasonable defense management, as many Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Sam Nunn have pursued as opposed to the legacy of coming down on the wrong side of every national defense policy or program
Despite arms reduction, we STILL have the capacity to slag the planet. Why hasn't that guaranteed us world dominance? Why are the Central and South American nations forming an alliance against us? Why are we having such difficulty with poor small nations like Afghanistan and N Korea? Could it be that there are limits to what military power can achieve?
PS- so- what about those phantom WMD?
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
No, just everyone from the Defense Secretary on up. During the '90s the size of our army was slashed in half. Our bases were closed by the bushel. Vital weapon and defense systems were delayed. It was so bad it was a key issue in 2000.
In 2001 we began a review of the entire Defense Department to modernize our capability in the 21st Century...turned out it was too late, just a few months later we were at war.
Imagine if we'd had another light infantry division (my favorites were the 6th and 7th from the old RDF days) and maybe a couple more independant heavy brigades...all in the regular army. Then perhaps your Iraqi 'we didn't send enough troops' and 'the National Guard is too thin' wouldn't be so easy to make.
I must say that it is refreshing to see a Republican condemn downsizing.
Let me give you some help in rephrasing your comments so that they are more focussed.
Original: 1993-2000 were wasted years for national defense.
Implication: Everyone involved with national defense was incompetent between 1993-2000.
Revised statement: Between 1993-2000, the administration made decisions that I feel were detrimental to our ability to defend ourselves.
More focussed. Targets the group you have a problem with. Doesn't smear millions of men and women who defend our country. And I think this captures your complaints more accurately. Although I could be wrong.
Now, since I'm in the Dear Abby mode, I'll offer you some information. The Clinton administration was not a liberal administration. There has not been a liberal President for decades. There has not been a liberal majority in either house of Congress for decades. The belief that the media is liberal is a myth based on one study that looked at the beliefs of individual reporters. Media ownsership is not consolidated among liberals. If you want to listen to a conservative viewpoint all you have to do is tune your radio to the AM dial or turn on your television to a news channel. There is no widespread corrolary for disseminating the liberal point of view in the established media.
In short, liberals are not in power and have not been in power for quite a long time. The majority of Americans do not know the liberal position on many issues because the media bends over backwards to avoid presenting anything that could be remotely construed as liberal. And, even with all those barriers, those who self identify as liberals has remained remarkably steady at about 20%.
Yet Republicans such as yourself love to trot out the straw man that is the all-powerful liberal, responsible for all the ills of society. It is a bogeyman that they hate. Most often hate arises from fear. So I have to ask myself, what is it that people fear about liberals?
I just don't get it. I realize that it's necessary for any group to have a scapegoat to focus attention away from their own failures. But you'd think that Republicans would eventually wake up to the fact that their elected majorities in Congress and this administration really have done a lousy job of running the country. At some point, Republicans have to realize that they are in control. The buck stops with them. Not with some group who has been marginalized politically for decades. It doesn't surprise the rest of us who think that putting a party that self-admittedly hates big government in charge of big government is a recipe for disaster.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero pounds on bogyemen because it makes him feel in control. And I know why he behaves that way. 
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, let me inject a note of specificity. WHAT do you consider "reasonable"? How much money? How many weapons systems? How many divisions? Where should they be deployed? How many fronts should we be preapred to fight on? How many nuclear bombs should we drop? Or, are you recommending that we militarize to every extent possible? No cost too great? No stategy in mind, just the concept that an unspecified military "threat" will... what?
They are all good questions. Boiling them down to the essentials leaves us with:
1. How much do we need? The answer is 'enough', we need enough. How much is enough? Its certainly more to 'too little', but it is 'too much'. Too much might leave some left over, but thats ok, cause history teaches us there's always a next time and we can use it then. Too little gets people killed at best and loses the war at most..."for want of a shoe" and all that.
2. What strategy? The idea was that we needed to be able to fight two big wars and one little war at the same time. The idea was a big war in Europe, a little one in Korea, and maybe another big one in either China or the Middle East or perhaps a couple little ones in Central America in lieu of the 2nd big one. More recently the strategy has changed. They want to be able to fight several low intensity conflicts and one big one. I think this is ok, given the world at this time, but we sure could use a couple of the divisions Clinton mothballed, especially if Mr. Kim in Korea, decides to prove he's not an impotant little wuss.
Quote:
Despite arms reduction, we STILL have the capacity to slag the planet. Why hasn't that guaranteed us world dominance? Why are the Central and South American nations forming an alliance against us? Why are we having such difficulty with poor small nations like Afghanistan and N Korea? Could it be that there are limits to what military power can achieve?
Sure we can slag the planet, but we arent going too. If we were then we'd have a lot less trouble. A nuclear bomb can't occupy a hill, neither can a stealth fighter or an aircraft carrier, till they can, we need the bloody infantry.
As for Central and South America the alliance are so vast and powerful that there are two whole countries (although they want to go global by embracing North Korea) in it wallowing in paranoid delusions of the American invasion force just over the horizon. In truth they are a couple tin-pot dictators and wannabes. Venezuela is the most dangerous cause the man has the money to make things happen. I think he'll find that the real world does not work that the way he thinks, for example, if he decides to sell his American made F-16s to a hostile power like North Korea...I doubt they will arrive at their destination. The high seas can be treacherous after all. And if he wants to play around with the oil, that fine...we can just casually stop him from shipping it anywhere, then his oil isn't power, its just useless. Eventually his people will cry freedom and we will be there to embrace their return to the free world.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice salvo Soupcatcher, reality is the ultimate wet blanket to most 'conservative' arguments.
From what I have seen so far, for all this wasted money and resources, all we've achieved via this mini arms race with North Korea is a parity of incompetence.
They have a missle that can't make it to it's target and deliver it's payload.
We have an anti-missle that can't even FIND their missle, much less hit it, even if it did.
And how much did this Charlie-Foxtrot cost ?
Bloody hell, send ME that money, I'll spend ten bucks on the yellow umbrella which is all we need to defend against a missle that can't even reach us, and spend the rest on medical and rehab services for our casualties who came back (mostly) alive.
The best way to defend our nation is to stop creating enemies, not just by pissing folk off with our outrageous incompetence at the negotiating table..
(come on, you don't want some manly lay-down-the-law moron who's going to make EVERYONE hate you, you want a shyster who could sell ice to eskimos who'll get what we want and make them HAPPY TO GIVE IT!, Bolton is a disaster, and an incompetent one at that.)
But also by NOT setting up, arming, training, and equipping these nutburgers who boomerang on us like Noriega, Saddam, Osama.... WE created these goons in the first place.
Also, that conservative-cowboy crap is national suicide.
Diplomacy and Negotiation are weapons every bit as solid as a cruise missle, and our incompetence on that front is killing us, period.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Diplomacy and Negotiation are weapons every bit as solid as a cruise missle, and our incompetence on that front is killing us, period.
Diplomacy and negotiation are liberal for appeasement and capitulation. Perhaps Carter could go to Korea and barter us a deal. How about we give them a crapload of money and they promise to stop...worked in 1994, except the stopping them part.
Anybody who's ever been in a fight, whether its in the schoolyard, bar, or World War knows that there comes a time when diplomacy is no longer effective and often thats right after the other guy has slugged you. Not being prepared to fight back just means you get your ass kicked, makes you a slave to the other fella's will. Alot of liberals will just take the ass kicking and hope for the best, meekly accepting the chains offered them. Conservatives are ready to kick some ass right back, win or lose, they come out better then the wuss who lies there and takes it.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Margeret Thatcher and Liberty in the same sentance! That's just too much! Wow that was funny, you should be on stage Hero, what's next for your ironic musings, Ghandi as a dictator?
Originally posted by Hero:
That military buildup and the great renewed vision of liberty fostered by ... Margeret Thatcher...
Quote:You mean ready and willing to stand behind the bigger kid for protection?
Alot of liberals will just take the ass kicking and hope for the best, meekly accepting the chains offered them. Conservatives are ready to kick some ass right back, win or lose, they come out better then the wuss who lies there and takes it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In other words, you have given this question no thought whatsoever.
How much do we need? The answer is 'enough', we need enough. How much is enough? Its certainly more to 'too little', but it is 'too much'. Too much might leave some left over, but thats ok, cause history teaches us there's always a next time and we can use it then. Too little gets people killed at best and loses the war at most..."for want of a shoe" and all that.
Quote:In other words, we should be on constant wartime footing. So- how many troops on combat duty? How many in training? How many stationed overseas? How many aircraft carriers, bombers, transports, etc? Do the math. It would be an interesting exercise for all concerned. My pencil whipping tells me that this level of preparedness on a continuous basis is insupportable without a “peacetime” draft.
What strategy? The idea was that we needed to be able to fight two big wars and one little war at the same time. The idea was a big war in Europe, a little one in Korea, and maybe another big one in either China or the Middle East or perhaps a couple little ones in Central America in lieu of the 2nd big one. More recently the strategy has changed. They want to be able to fight several low intensity conflicts and one big one. I think this is ok, given the world at this time, but we sure could use a couple of the divisions Clinton mothballed, especially if Mr. Kim in Korea, decides to prove he's not an impotent little wuss.
I also think it’s unnecessary. You’ve defined “our interests” as so broad and so far-flung that we would essentially need to be able to fight several wars any place at any level, including low-level insurgencies in South America and “wars of liberation” in Africa and the Mideast and defensive wars in Asia. I think you need to sit down and figure out what “national security” really means. Clearly, we need to defend our borders and our military allies. But I don’t think that we should be using our troops to make the world safe for corporations or to put a lock on oil and gas sources. The United States managed very well for a couple of hundred years w/o being an empire, and what we’re doing now is a far cry from what the Founders ever envisioned.
Quote:Not necessarily. You’re assuming that it’s always a zero-sum game, but nations often have legitimate common interests and negotiation is the art of creating win-win solutions.
Diplomacy and negotiation are liberal for appeasement and capitulation.
Quote:There’s a difference between being prepared to fight and picking fights, and I think you’re picking fights. Besides, the best strategy for schoolyard bullies is not fighting them... but your thinking apaprently hasn't evolved past the schoolyard stage.
Anybody who's ever been in a fight, whether its in the schoolyard, bar, or World War knows that there comes a time when diplomacy is no longer effective and often that’s right after the other guy has slugged you. Not being prepared to fight back just means you get your ass kicked, makes you a slave to the other fella's will. A lot of liberals will just take the ass kicking and hope for the best, meekly accepting the chains offered them. Conservatives are ready to kick some ass right back, win or lose, they come out better then the wuss who lies there and takes it.
Quote:yes, what would happend to all of "our" resources if we did?
Sure we can slag the planet, but we arent going too.
Quote:Why would we want to interfere with his oil shipments? See, this is exactly what being the sc
As for Central and South America ... Venezuela is the most dangerous cause the man has the money to make things happen. I think he'll find that the real world does not work that the way he thinks, for example, if he decides to sell his American made F-16s to a hostile power like North Korea...I doubt they will arrive at their destination. The high seas can be treacherous after all. And if he wants to play around with the oil, that fine...we can just casually stop him from shipping it anywhere
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:In other words, you have given this question no thought whatsoever.
How much do we need? The answer is 'enough', we need enough. How much is enough? Its certainly more to 'too little', but it is 'too much'. Too much might leave some left over, but thats ok, cause history teaches us there's always a next time and we can use it then. Too little gets people killed at best and loses the war at most..."for want of a shoe" and all that.Quote:
LOL, I can totally envision Rummy saying something along these lines. 'Can't know the unknowable, who knew? We know where, in the north, south, west and east and around that area, you go with what you have not what you might wish to have or like to have. Am I talking outta my ass? Sure! Do I like answering my own non sequiturs? You bet!'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I call BS, would-be-hero.
Diplomacy and Negotiation also would have included the solution of using a proxy to bribe an even bigger kid to hospitalize the jerk in question, leaving your own hands clean even if he did spill, you don't have to be NICE when you negotiate.
That idiotic 'cowboy' thinking is part and parcel of our problem....
I woulda dropped the Kurds enough firepower and supplies to create a major problem for Saddam, then mowed down his armed forces wholesale when he tried to engage them, and then GOT THE HELL OUT before we got bogged down, and let matters take their natural course.
You cannot ram "freedom" down someones throat on a bayonet, it doesn't work, they don't want it, won't keep it, and will resent you for upsetting the order of their little universe, and it's not even freedom to begin with if you sit there telling them what kind of government they must have, what candidates they can run, and the like, that's just a damn puppet regime that will lead to yet ANOTHER war in 10-15 years or so.
This game is getting a little old now, hell, even our blockade served Saddams purposes by giving him a ready enemy to rally his people against, muchlike our constant hasslement of Castro has actually kept him in power - without our nitpicking, either of these guys would have likely fallen to their own people sooner or later.
There's a merit to leaving the hell alone, and it's cheaper to negotiate with governments than smash them and replace them with puppet regimes that turn on us eventually - we supported Saddam, we armed him, supplied him, helped knock off his political enemies, and now where are we ?
Kicking him out, and trying to set up ANOTHER puppet... stop this merrygoround, I wanna get off.
Get the hell out, let the inevitable blood spill as they sort it out, and then negotiate with the government THEY choose to have, in the long run, it's cheaper.
And no, I do not believe that such would be a threat to us in any substantial way given that we've practically reduced their country to the fekkin stone age.
We keep going down this path, they might dredge up another Saladin, and you would not want that.
-Frem
PS - If you don't know who Saladin is, pick up a history book and fekkin READ for once, heh.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME