What I’m saying; and addressing to the specific points made by Sam Stone; is that you have laid out a clear path of “defence” defined specifically as offensive measures.
Guess what! This can be done for a fraction of the current cost and can be done with the efficiency of a permanent solution.
Just one drawback =( Sorry Sam.
You see, the only people who build all that cool shit that half-breeds use are all pacifists d’oh!
“and arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan”
Check out this fascinating little interview by Zbigniew Bzerzinski boasting about how the Carter Administration helped the Mujaheedeen even before the Soviet invasion as a means of provoking a Soviet response. http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_11/20011103.html
Of course in the light of recent events ol’ Zbig might be less cavalier about “some stirred-up Muslims”
Here is ZB summing up the Carter policy:
“I think, on balance, it was much tougher than most people realize. Not only did he take some historic decisions which no other president had before - such as the decision to aid directly the Mujaheddin against the Soviet army - but he took a very tough position in December 1980, when the Soviet Union was poised to invade Poland.”
Again:
"But what is even less known is that even in the early years, when he was generally perceived as being soft and overly accommodationist, he took some very tough-minded decisions which were simply not known publicly. Robert Gates, the subsequently director of the CIA, and at that time a member of my staff, reveals in his book that as early as 1978, President Carter approved proposals prepared by my staff to undertake, for example, a comprehensive, covert action program designed to help the non-Russian nations in the Soviet Union pursue more actively their desire for independence - a program in effect to destabilize the Soviet Union. "
The actual policies of the Carter administration (as opposed to the conventional wisdom about them) decisively refute any notion of post-1972 Democrats being reflexive peaceniks.( whether those policies were good or not is of course another matter).
All that can be reasonably claimed is that Dems are on average less hawkish than the GOP which is hardly the same as being “soft on defense”.
I’m not doing this for the sole purpose of absurdity.
People have been continuously pointing out that there are much more efficient means of “offencive/defensive” (emphasis on offensive) measures to achieve the hypocritical results of the votes of these republicans. I’m pointing out (and others have vaguely implied); that the republicans are wasting money in accordance with the platform theyt embrace and the measures they excersize from this platform. They DO use these weapons; they DO funnel tons of money into research to make these weapons better.
They are wasting this money unecessarily. If you take it as a given that innocent people must die, and that social reform and education reform is a bad idea compared to the effect of a gun (that incidentally must be used); then put some teeth into your philosophy. What’s all this “half-way” crap?
Build eugenic biological weapons and code out the DNA strains that you want to have left. Run the OP so that the suspicion becomes internal until all the people are dead. Publish the deaths of people who are equally coded to survive and run them into an armed bunker until the biological task has been accomplished. Make sure that the only surviving people are Americans.
Bingo! National defense, offensive. Settle the rest of the territories as American soil and design a propoganda blitz upon the new society of americans which controls the structural integrity of a still plutocratic system of slavery.
Because - slavery is as American as apple pie.
One must preserve the ‘intent’ of the constitution; not the wording. Nationalism! Why don’t those republicans get off their asses and do it!? I don’t see how they’ve established some moral line through precidence. It’s done all the time; in the name of national security.
“Oh, but it only matters if torture and abuse is over 2 million innocent people, or else it becomes a crime, and that’s really bad
I like it when they waste my money and are hypocrites about it; that’s my party; those are my heroes!”
No, it wasn’t. There, I have conclusively refuted you.
:rolleyes:
OK, I am biased, but Sam Stone keeps coming up with these extensively researched and cited posts showing that your arguments are without merit, and you keep trying to dismiss them out of hand. Then you want to hurry on to the next point and hope no one notices that you haven’t countered the point.
Is this the best you can do?
Ah, no. The thread title at the top of my browser reads “Are Democrats soft on National Security”. No mention of the word “defense”. And are you seriously suggesting that driving Saddam out of a country he invaded was offensive?
Something on which we can agree. And the aggregate of the record, in which Democrats are consistently against all new military spending, and where there is a hard core of the pacifist Left consistently against any use of the military, even in defense of our legitimate interests, shows that the Democrats are, indeed, “soft on National Security”.
Thanks for the suggestion. What I actually said was “in self-defense, or in defense of an innocent third party”. Then I cited the votes of Democrats against the Gulf War resolution, which was in defense of Kuwait, an innocent third party. Some of those voting against the Gulf War were leaders in the Democratic party, like Kennedy, Biden, and Daschle. Maybe they are the ones who need detox.
Although in one of those cases, it doesn’t seem to have helped.
Shodan, are there weasels in your family history? If someone has ever authorized the use of violence in self-defense, then it is incorrect to state that they have never authorized the use of violence in self-defense or in the defense of an innocent third-party.
When you make an outrageous statement because you’re hopped up on diet pills, or because you’ve eaten too many twinkies, or because you’re up past your bedtime, the graceful thing to do is admit it and move on, not try to defend the absurdity.
Shodan: First, I was merely offering my opinion on Panama, not trying to conclusively demonstrate anything about it. It’s a whole 'nother thread if you actually want to debate that particular venture.
Second, it’s polite to acknowledge it when a poster provides examples of the type you demanded. Bosnia, Kosovo, and Wag the Dog, remember?
D’oh! My bad.
Yes, in the sense that we were not defending ourselves. We were clearly on offense on that one. Justifiably so, of course, but offense nevertheless.
The hardcore pacifist left are about as relevant to the Democratic party as the KKK is to the Republican party, i.e., not at all. And you are 100% incorrect when you claim Democrats are “consistently against all new military spending.” They are fairly consistently against the levels of spending advocated by the Republicans. Not the same thing, you see.
I just checked their site and can find no such ratings. Would you kindly provide a link so that I can demonstrate that you’re full of crap by showing that, in fact, those Democrats have supported billions of dollars in military spending? Thanks much.
I mentioned Kennedy, Biden, and Daschle previously. They were, after all, the ones who voted against the Gulf War. I thought we were in agreement that such votes were mistakes.
Of course, if what your leaders do is irrelevant, your votes to cut funding are really a show of support, and the inability to find the moral courage to fight when necessary shouldn’t be considered, it will probably be much easier to argue that you are strong on defense.
To others in your party, that is. To the average voter, you are going to have a bigger problem.
I think minty green and Spavined Gelding have been doing a great job in presenting rational and well-reasoned arguments in the face of demagoguery. Apparently many feel that unless you vote for each and every toy that the Pentagon wants, then you are “soft” on defense. If indeed the Democrats are against any defense spending, then why was there any defense budget in the early Clinton years when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? We can all agree that a Democratic defense budget would be smaller than one crafted by Republicans. But it has not been shown that a smaller Democratic budget would provide an inadequate level of national security. Responsible government isn’t a contest to see who can throw the most money at something.
So some Democrats voted against the Gulf War? So what? Would you rather have a government like Iraq where every parliamentary vote is unanimous?
Gee, I had no idea that voting against the Gulf War (or, more precisely, voting against an authorization for Bush the Elder to do whatever the heck he wanted) made one a “hardcore pacifist.” Thanks for clearing that up.
Just curious what Shodan, Sam, and Debaser, or anyone else think of the cancellation of the Crusader self-propelled artillery system. Is that a sign of responsible, real-requirements-based management by the Pentagon, or a symptom of being “soft on defense” on the part of the administration that did it?
The replies should be a good indicator to the repliers themselves of the depth of their understanding.
The question “Are Democrats soft on National Security?” is unanswerable unless we can agree upon what constitutes “soft on national security”. Minty and others appear to be saying that being “soft on national security” means having a military incapable of defending the country. While Sam and co. view “soft” as being less prone to military spending/action relative to Republicans. IMHO no progress can be made in this thread until “soft” is clearly defined for purposes of this debate, otherwise “soft” is purely subjective.
If the question is “Do Democrats support/propose military spending to the degree that Republicans do?” the answer is an unequivocal “No”. I’m assuming no one in this thread disagrees with this.
If the question is “Do Democrats spend enough on the military?” then some other questions need to be answered first. The first question obviously is “Spend enough to do what?”. The acceptable level of military preparedness is dependent on the purpose and goals of the military. Here is a general list (please mention any that you think important that I’ve missed) of military goals:
U.S. Military Goals
Defend our borders/airspace/seas.
Assist/defend allies to a limited degree (allow use of U.S. satellite info, air bases and/or aircraft carriers, other support craft/vessels) but no DIRECT military assistance (i.e. no U.S. personnel active in combat roles).
Assist/defend allies to a large degree (allow use of U.S. satellite info, air bases and/or aircraft carriers, other support craft/vessels) as well as DIRECT military assistance (i.e. U.S. personnel active in combat roles).
Serve as a (small) peace keeping force if necessary (,2000 or fewer U.S. soldiers).
Serve as a (medium) peace keeping force if necessary (2,000 - 10,000 U.S. soldiers).
Serve as a (large) peace keeping force if necessary (greater than 10,000 U.S. soldiers).
Protect U.S. economic interests (i.e. energy interests and important raw materials suppliers to the U.S. gov’ment)
Protect allied economic interests (i.e. energy interests and important raw materials suppliers to ally)
Protect private U.S. economic interests (i.e. large scale private corporate holdings and assets)
Uphold the autonomy of other nations (i.e. defend weaker nations against aggressors).
World stabilization.
Would the posters in this thread please indicate their political affiliation, the items they feel ARE part of the current U.S. goals as well as what SHOULD they be?
