U.S. Military Support? - Page 2




View Poll Results :Which Presidential Candidate would be the best supporter of the U.S. military?
Kery 7 26.92%
Bush 19 73.08%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
August 6th, 2004  
David Hurlbert
 
Hmmmmm, will Kerry provide the U.S. military with better support than Bush? Well as a matter of public record,

Quote:
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)
.........I say it is doubtful.
August 6th, 2004  
cPFC/SAJROTC
 
I have to go with Kerry because of the current problems Bush has caused.

1) Invasion of Afghanistan, Regime Change, and now American forces are STILL fighting Taliban cells and rebellions and recontruction supplies are being stolen due to lack of security.

2) Iraq, American forces took the country but are now facing a daunting task of controlling renegade militias, such as Al-Sadr's and managing to get reconstruction done on the scale it NEEDs to be. Also the fact that the war's whole premise of Saddam acquiring WMD has been widely agreed to be a fabrication.

3) Bush has pledged a regime change in Iran by separating the ruling party from the populace. Now correct me if Im worng, but this is the same thing we attempted to do in Iraq for over a decade, and that led us squarely to the 2nd Gulf War.

Plus the fact that Iran's ruling body would take the nessicary action to maintain control and Iran has something resembling a military. Iran's military could be sent into Iraq where our forces are already under heavy strain, and potentially break the Coalitions control of the country plunging the middle east into further turmoil as Iraq becomes a hotspot in the world that neither the UN and the already proven depeleted US forces could retake.

4) Bush has also abolished more international treaties than any other President and under his leadership, the US lost it's appointments in the World Court, AND, has managed to create anti-American sentiment with the Iraq war in nations that have virtually always stood aside or aided the United States in it's endeavors.

If Bush continues down this path, we could be facing a major problem with the United Nations, as well as former allied nations such as Germany, France, and other EU nations.

I vote Kerry, he hasn't said he's invading any nations and he knows combat, he knows leadership from his Vietnam days, and he is friends with many Vietnam veterans who, in addition to current military personnel, could prove a valuable base of advice to Kerry.
August 7th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The problem with Kerry is the problem with ANY democrat. They love to make cuts to the military. Clinton did it, and so will Kerry because that's the agenda of his political party. Kerry might be more experienced in military service, but if you're in the military then voting Bush would be more in your interests for job security.

Now as far as Kerry vs Bush for Iraq, the War on Terror, etc ... well, Kerry has yet to suggest any new ideas in any detail, and based on his voting record in the Senate, he'd have done everything the same as Bush has so far.
--
August 7th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
military raises from Clinton until now

1993 3.7%
1994 2.2
1995 2.6
1996 2.4
1997 3.0
1998 2.8
1999 3.6
2000 6.2
2001 4.1
2002 6.9
2003 4.8
2004 4.1

As you can see Bush gave us a better deal than Clinton. If you are in the military, the republican ticket is generally the better way to vote.
August 7th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
Also the fact that the war's whole premise of Saddam acquiring WMD has been widely agreed to be a fabrication.
200,000 dead Kurds say that all the "there were no WMD" rhetoric is a complete load of crap! Were the WMD's there when we got there? No. Did 200,000 Kurds suddenly die of simultaneous food poisoning? Again, no.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction were there, but we gave Saddam 11 years to off plan a disappearing act the moment he got invaded, or at some point beforehand. Similarly, his nuclear program most cerainly existed. We have the scientists who worked on it still around, but the physical evidence for that, also managed to disappear.

Lets face it, just cuz I can't find Jimmy Hoffa's body does not mean he didn't exist.
August 7th, 2004  
cPFC/SAJROTC
 
Thats is what I mean G.O.T., the White House went to war on the premise, that there would be WMD found because he was actively trying to create it. Now we know he had it before, but where is it NOW? And why were we told he had it now? We've scoured Iraq and found nothing.

And not to start a flame war here, but there is the "Bush invaded Iraq because he saw his daddy screw it up and wanted to save face for his dad, or to prove he can do it"

And there's the serious risk of Bush having an agenda from Day 1 in office to invade Iraq sometime during his term. It has been widely reported that Colin Powell was against the war in Iraq but Bush was only listening to those who supported an invasion. Powell changed his siding.

As for Kerry cutting military funding. I doubt it. Kerry knows that right now we're in deep trouble because of the thin spread of our armed forces. I would place money down on the fact he's going to sign increases, as well as work towards creating the new units the US military so badly needs to retain it's effectiveness and downgrade from using the Individual Ready Reserve and some Reseve units.

my 2 cents
August 7th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Its a worthy point of discussion. We invade on the premise of WMD is there, that much is unquestioned.

Did Saddam have the capability of making a nuclear weapon in the near future? We don't know for certain.

Did he have WMD? Of course he did, everyone knows that. (Yes, chemical and biological fall into the category of WMD.)

Did he have the capability of making more WMD? Yes, of course he did.

Did we catch him red handed with WMD and the facilities to make more of them? Nope. Therein lies the problem, where did they go? Saddam offs his WMD stuff to Syria or MAYBE Iran, and then it passes from there into parts unknown. I think it was Saddam's plan all along to screw the US no matter what we did. "Haha, you American infidel pigs, if you don't invade me and force me stop, I'll make you regret it. If you invade me, I'll make you regret it more. I win both ways!"

All that considered, can you justify invading? Yeah. Can you justify not invading? Sure. Our invasion of Afganistan made more sense, because its stated purpose was to go after Al Qeda, who had directly attack the United States.

IMHO, the invasion of Iraq never should have been done under the premise that WMD were our primary objective. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the worlds number one funder of global terrorism. The messy part of that comes with the fact that his primary focus was Israel, which is controversial as all hell. Nonetheless, we'd be foolish to believe that Al Qeda never received support from such an enthusiatic supporter of terrorism, and we'd be even more foolish to believe that he'd leave any trail of evidence to prove it. Just like his WMD, he did a brilliant job cleaning up after himself.

My point on military cutbacks is this: It always manages to show up on the Democratic Party's "to do" list. We're still feeling the effects of Bill Clinton's cutbacks. Kerry's voting record is ominous at best.
August 7th, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
1) Invasion of Afghanistan, Regime Change, and now American forces are STILL fighting Taliban cells and rebellions and recontruction supplies are being stolen due to lack of security.
We needed to attack al Qaeda. The Taliban was propped up by them and refused to give them up. We went in and completely disrupted al Qaeda's training facilities. At a minimum, al Qaeda was forced to move training underground in new areas, costing them time and resources. In addition, by numerous accounts, we've eliminated more than half (some estimated have up to 75%) of al Qaeda's leadership. Everytime we kill one, the expertise of the organization diminishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
2) Iraq, American forces took the country but are now facing a daunting task of controlling renegade militias, such as Al-Sadr's and managing to get reconstruction done on the scale it NEEDs to be. Also the fact that the war's whole premise of Saddam acquiring WMD has been widely agreed to be a fabrication.
al Sadr's militia is a punk outfit. Every encounter with that rabble has had the smae outcome. He raises his head and loses about 200 men. He called for an uprising (months ago) and was widely ignored by the Shiite community. This put him on an island. He continues to fight, not for some noble cause, but because he's wanted for murder of a fellow cleric. The guy's a pimple, compared to the Sunni militias.

Regarding the WMDs, keep in mind the international community also concluded he had active WMD weapons. Out intel community tracked him for over a decade, though we lost true "eyes" when the inspectors were forced to give up their work in 1998. Also keep in mind, David Kay testified:

Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans- to post-conflict.

and later:

Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans-conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
3) Bush has pledged a regime change in Iran by separating the ruling party from the populace. Now correct me if Im worng, but this is the same thing we attempted to do in Iraq for over a decade, and that led us squarely to the 2nd Gulf War.
But the tactic for regime change is completely different. There is no need for US military intervention. The populace of Iran is ruled by a small body of clerics. On paper, they are an Islamic Republic, but those elected must be approved by the clerics and cannot deviate from their policies.

Next, they have a homogenous population, so there is little chance for an outside power to play "one against the other." They are almost all Persians and almost all Shi'a. The good news is the reformers and the younger population area also pro-Western.

So, we don't need to do what we did in Iraq to accomplish regime moderation/change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
Iran's military could be sent into Iraq where our forces are already under heavy strain, and potentially break the Coalitions control of the country plunging the middle east into further turmoil as Iraq becomes a hotspot in the world that neither the UN and the already proven depeleted US forces could retake.
That would be suicide for the Iranian government and they know it. Now, they are supplying the militants covertly. However, they would never make an overt military move into Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
4) Bush has also abolished more international treaties than any other President and under his leadership, the US lost it's appointments in the World Court, AND, has managed to create anti-American sentiment with the Iraq war in nations that have virtually always stood aside or aided the United States in it's endeavors.
The Kyoto Treat was never in place. Clinton signed it in his last days because he knew the Senate would never approve it. It hamstrings the US economy and does nothing to encourage the Chinese or Indians to comply.

I can't believe any person associated with the US military would decry the US blowing off the ICC. The ICC opens US troops to charges in courts with far fewer civil rights protections. Joining the ICC would ensure the US would never put her troops in harm's way because Old Europe would like nothing more than to see the US humiliated by bogus court rulings.

Another treaty Bush pulled us from was the antiquated ballistic missile system. He did it so we could proceed with a missile defense system (a system forbidden by the treaty). Considering the North Koreans already have nukes, the Chinese now have missiles capable of hitting the mainland, and Iran is pushing to acquire nukes, I think it's the right strategic move. Also interesting to note is the other signee (Russia) didn't kick up a fuss at all when we abandoned the treaty.

Finally, let's remember Washington's adice in his farewell speech. He specifically warned America to avoid binding international treaties because they are specifically designed to limits powers and never to expand powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
If Bush continues down this path, we could be facing a major problem with the United Nations, as well as former allied nations such as Germany, France, and other EU nations.
France hasn't been an ally for three decades or more. They pulled their military forces from NATO at the height of the Cold War, only to return once the Soviet Union was in shambles. They also decry US intervention, though they've sunk a Greenpeace vessel, intervened militarily throughout the globe and without the UN's approval (as if that is necessary). Alienating France is just calling their bluff.

The UN has been shown to be a debating society. It did nothing in Rwanda. It was called to provide "serious consequences" when Iraq failed to comply with the 17th resolution. It is impotent in the North Korea nuke negotiations. What have they done to deserve respect? If you ask me, I think the US should hold their seat in the Security Council, debate the issues, and abstain from every stinking worthless resolution. Expose the UN for the toothless and corrupt bureaucracy it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cPFC/SAJROTC
I vote Kerry, he hasn't said he's invading any nations and he knows combat, he knows leadership from his Vietnam days, and he is friends with many Vietnam veterans who, in addition to current military personnel, could prove a valuable base of advice to Kerry.
He voted against the first Gulf War, voted in favor of the Iraq War, and voted to not fund the troops once they were in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted "No" because he wanted to raise taxes to pay for it. Is that the right time/bill to make such a stand? Why not on another, less crucial, bill (like the prescription drug bill)?

That's leadership? Pass.
August 13th, 2004  
GuyontheRight
 
The simple fact is the Democratic Party in the USA is too influenced by self interest groups, and a radical almost socialist front. Are they a minority, of course, but in exchange for their support, Kerry will not be able to wage an effective war against terrorism. The Democratic Party is more split then the Republicans, at least we know what we want to do and do it. Kerry hasnt even outlines a stradegy for Iraq.
August 13th, 2004  
David Hurlbert
 
Like many of us in this forum, I honestly think it is very easy for most Americans to be diverted from the solutions by problems [especially those introduced by the media]. I frequently witness how we lose ourselves in debating the justifications for going to war. Caught up in the problems much like a smokescreen we seek the right justifications for the invading Iraq. From exploring the human atrocities of Saddam Hussein or our need to find weapons of mass destruction to proving an Al Qaeda-Iraq nexus or trying to establish “good cause” for every casualty, we are actually blinded to the one and only solution that will positively impact the Middle East while affording future generations [our children] greater security. In a word, this solution is DEMOCRACY. This is the real reason we are at war and this is the only solution that will foster true change on Mother Earth in general and the Middle East in particular.