Your argument depends on some assumptions not in evidence. Firstly, that this Aegis thing is as important as you say it is, that such is so clearly obvious that no reasonable man would ever think otherwise. Your argument further implies, but does not state, that Sen Kerry is aware of this, and deliberately chooses otherwise. After all, how could any reasonable man vote against a weapons system so clearly crucial and indispensable?
Unless, of course, it isn’t crucial and indispensable. I further think it unfortunate that you mention the Patriot missile with almost the same breath. I think we can all agree, without fear of contradiction, that the Patriot missile system has shown some clear deficiency, mostly in the aspect of not working for shit.
So, being unsophisticated in matters of international weaponry, I remain uncertain. I don’t doubt the sincerity of your convictions, Moto, but I am entitled to doubt their certainty. It remains entirely plausible that Sen Kerry simply didn’t think it was a good idea, and voted against it. Which is, of course, precisely what he is elected to do.
Too much of your case rests on the Aegis cruiser vote, and that is itself not all that cut and dried. Now, if he hadn’t, as noted above, voted in favor of most appropriations and had personally scuttled the entire Aegis project, you might have something.
Pardon me, elucidator, but it is you, not I, who has mentioned the Patriot missile. I haven’t mentioned that weapons system once in this thread.
I agree that the system has some problems, btw.
My criticism of Kerry were for wanting to cut Tomahawks, Phoenix missiles, Harrier jets, the Aegis program, and the totality of our fighter planes. Never once did I mention Patriot, and it is a misrepresentation of my position that I have.
Let’s assume something else about the Aegis system. That it was needed.
I think we can all agree that having sailors fight using 1962-era radars and computers is not appropriate. Yet that’s the system Aegis replaced.
Actually, I should say is replacing. There are still NTDS ships in the Navy, though they no longer have primary duties defending the carrier. I actually underwent a deployment on a Spruance-class destroyer, the Moosbrugger, in the mid-1990’s. She was an NTDS ship, though she’s decommissioned now.
Think about what computers were like in the 1960’s, compared to today. It is irresponsible to expect sailors to fight using this technology, considering that the threats these sailors face have continued to evolve.
So then if one were to peruse published opinions about the Aegis systems, one would find unanimous and universal opinion that the Aegis was entirely crucial and undeniably necessary? No dissenting voices to be heard? No contrary views? No one with any applicable expertise thinks otherwise?
So there is no possibility of an honest, supportable difference of opinion?
If so, that leaves us with the question of motivation. If, as you seem to imply, there is no chance that a reasonable man could form any other opinion, then we can rule out any “good faith” disagreement, no?
Or mightn’t it be a healthy skepticism as regards Pentagon procurement and defense industry procurers? Given that we have, here and there, certain minor discrepencies in bookeeping, the occassional mild exaggeration? For instance, the less-than-sterling effectiveness of… a certain anti-missile system. A less charitable person than myself might mistake “Terrain Camoflage and Obfuscation Systems” and “Light Reflection and Refraction Apparatus” for “smoke and mirrors”.
Well, elucidator, given what you’ve learned about the Aegis system, would you agree that it was needed? And what would your assessment be of the capabilities of these ships, in real terms and in relation to the capabilities of previous generations of Navy ships?
You’re expressing skepticism of my assessment without offering one of your own.
Ok, for the sake of this argument I’ll concede that Kerry’s ideas back in 1984 were terrible. But even Kerry has admitted this and said he has learned from his mistakes. I think it’d serve us well to have a Commander in Chief who is willing to learn from his mistakes. Unlike Bush, who seems to be incapable of admitting to any sort of error.
No, not really. The “height of the Cold War” you refer to was over in the Sixties. In 1984 it was already clear to many, apparently including Kerry but not, of course, the Reaganites, that the Soviet “menace” was a shell. Their capabilities for a massive war that we’d been told for decades meant a fundamental threat to the Western way of life just weren’t there. Their navy and air force were largely stuck on land due to lack of parts or trained personnel, their conscript army was getting pounded by Afghan tribesmen, there just wasn’t any way to cope with anything serious if it broke out. All they had left was nukes (which Bush refuses to get under control and away from terrorist theft, even today, despite the Nunn-Lugar provision, but that’s a different thread). Even Reagan had to resort to claiming “*if * there is a bear” in his own campaign commercials.
Soon enough, it became clear to even the Reaganite fantasists that the threat wasn’t there, and hadn’t been there for quite a long time. But meanwhile, some were slower than others to catch on, and used the traditional fear that the Cold War had engendered to justify huge spending increases (on the credit cards, at that) on stuff that wouldn’t have done any real good even if there were a massive war with the Soviets (recommissioning WW2 battleships?). That was the real world for years, many knew it, and eventually almost all knew it, certainly by 1992.
So what was the difference between 1984 and 1992? Only the number and fervor of the fantasists. In reality, not very much, certainly not enough to support your moral condemnations and praise. If you’re looking to find reasons to condemn a candidate whom you already know you won’t support based on his party affiliation, then go ahead and discuss if one more Aegis cruiser would have any effect at all on the real or predictable world. If you compare military capabilities with actual or reasonably predictable requirements instead, as I believe an intellectually honest person would, you’ll go in a very different direction - away from the big-ticket military-industrial-complex approach that Eisenhower warned against, and toward special ops, intelligence-based, and peacemaking and -keeping ground forces who actually interact with the locals.
No, friend, Kerry showed himself to be a realist while Cheney and Bush, and their supporters, indulged in fantasies. They’ve continued to show those approaches up to the present day. The Cold Warriors, bereft of a Cold War, have continued their mindset, looking for enemies to manufacture fear of so they can not only stay in power but simply stay functional mentally. Apparently you disagree, but I don’t think we can afford any more such fantasizing in our leadership.
Yeah, but via your own cite there were already 2 commissioned Tico’s and 11 more in the pipeline. The one that would have been cut was commissioned in '89 or '90. (Depending on which of the 3 cruisers budgeted for that year was cut.) Frankly, the more I look into this vis a vis the Aegis thing, the more I think that the poster was just some campaign stupidity and not a policy pronouncement. if 3 Aegis cruisers were budgeted in 1984 (at ~800million each) “cancelling” one of them doesn’t even halt the program for that year. And creates a gap of about a year between the commissioning of the Normandy and the Burke.
I’d love to dig around on some of the other weapon systems mentioned, and I might later, but I’m really just posting now to not think about the dreaded finals for a few minutes. :eek:
coffeecam, I agree with you, and I was looking forward to a final tally as to the original claims about the 1984 memo, and what remained after we had had our way with them. I also think his general concession about some ideas being ill-advised still does not explain or balance the full measure of the GOP claims about the memo. I think the author of the piece from which Blalron took the quote also repeated the misleading interpretations, such as describing Kerry’s intention of cutting the Tomahawk missile program generally, rather than the nuclear variant in particular.
I agree with Kerry, in general, however, when he described some of his ideas as ill-advised and some as prescient. I think this is probably pretty true for most people, at least most people with some intelligence.
Add to that the fact that you put “height of the Cold War” in quotes and attributed it to me. I made no such reference.
Again, what was that part about historical context and intellectual honesty?
Which is exactly why Cheney’s positions make sense, and Kerry’s do not, as Kerry himself admits.
And the existence and hostility of the USSR, East Germany, etc.
Come on, Elvis, even Kerry has admitted he was wrong. You might consider ending your defence of a position even your candidate has abandoned.
Again, your statements are at variance with the truth.
Cheney is the one who recommended reductions in conventional systems in 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union - exactly the opposite of what you accuse him.
Let’s see - your own cites, your own candidate, and the entire historical record conclusively disprove your position. And you accuse Cheney, Bush, “and their supporters”, of engaging in fantasies?
So? He’s entitled to. People of good faith can disagree in good faith - and it would help you immensely to acknowledge that.
C’mon - your posts have made no secret about the fall of the USSR being, IYHO, a step change from the coldest of the cold war to sudden freedom. That is a conceptual error, as I’ve tried unsuccessfully to make clear - the collapse was a gradual process over decades, well under way by 1984.
He’s a pol, who has the vested interests of the MIC, including many in Mass, to contend with. I’d be chary of claiming he meant exactly what he said on one date and not another. As for Cheney, apparently I still wasn’t clear - he was slower to catch on than the realists, not facing the new world’s existence until well after the end of the USSR made it inevitable.
Piffle. What counts are capabilities and plans. Those were not there. Clear?
Read again. I accused him of being slow on the uptake, continuing to indulge a fantasy view of the world far too long, certainly far later than Kerry as the dates you insist mean something show. All he’s changed is the name of his declared enemy country. Apparently he’s not the only one who’s slow on the uptake, either.
Under way? Certainly. Completed to the point of dismantling and cancelling weapons programs - not hardly. Nor inexorable.
And, since the suddenness or otherwise of the collapse of the Soviet Union has little or nothing to do with your false attribution of 1984 being “the height of the Cold War”, I will have to decline to allow you to tell me what I think elsewhere as well.
Interesting. On what basis do you decide when Kerry is not to be trusted in his public statements? He admits now that his position in 1984 was wrong. You continue to insist that it was right. Why do you believe him in 1984 and not in 1992 or 2003? Apart from the fact that his positions on defense are consistently inconsistent, when they are not so obviously wrong as to be seen as such by Kerry himself.
An assertion for which you have produced no evidence whatsoever, and which has been disproven by your apparent inability to distinguish one historic era from another.
Really? How interesting. You are claiming that the USSR did not exist in 1984, and that it lacked any nuclear or other military capacity, is that right?
And that Soviet expansionism didn’t exist either? So Afghanistan was never invaded? The USSR never forced a crackdown against the Solidarity movement in Poland? The Soviets never shot down any Korean airliners? None of that “counts”?
Hmm. Your grasp of history is more tenous than I thought. Pity.
There is a point on which men of good will can agree. Especially in this thread.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
President fell off bike today… Kerry told reporters in front of cameras, ‘Did the training wheels fall off?’… Reporters are debating whether to treat it is as on or off the record… Developing…
What, that Matt Drudge is so desperate to carry Bush’s water that he’s shamelessly trying to turn a smart-assed joke into a Shocking National Scandal Of Unprecedented Distaste? :dubious:
You might, if you wanted to be honest, note that the power you claim to have been afraid of was conventional, not nuclear. There was no real risk that either side, under MAD, would have used nukes. They only existed as threats. Please keep that clear.
The same way anyone else does aabout any pol - by comparison to the facts of the matter and to motivations for saying so. Your assertion that “he says he was wrong” is oversimplistic by far, and if that’s an attempt to simply score points, it’s backfiring on you. You’d do well to read and understand what he says and said. Would you care to discuss in similar depth why Cheney does not say he was wrong then and right now? Of course not.
Then go back and read again, more slowly this time if necessary. The fact that you don’t want to drink doesn’t mean you haven’t been led to the water.
This is beneath even the standards of discourse you’ve used elsewere in this thread. Reread for the word “capabilities”. *That * is what did not exist, not the country. You make me wonder why I even bother replying to you, until I see the masthead defining what we’re fighting here on this board.
Not successfully, no. That demonstrates, as already stated multiple times, the shortage of the very capability which you are attempting to argue your way around.
We don’t have the luxury of arming ourselves against windmills. We have to face the world as it is, not as we want it to be, not as we fear it to be. You have no right to be upset at anyone who refuses to share your fantasies. alaric, do you think that crack would really work against Kerry on net anyway? It does show something he’ll have to keep under control, and that is a level of disregard for Bush similar to what Gore showed. He has to focus on what Bush has done and would continue to do, not who he is - that follows.
