Kerry's new TV ad

[blm]

Originally posted by dreamgirl
I just thought of discrimination right away when I heard that.

That's the problem these days, everyone wants to scream discrimination or racism about everything.

[Gods Son]

Just the opposite,The wealthy are given special treatment under Bushs tax credit.But Bush is Republican, so it can be expected. On a side note im middle class and ill vote Bush for president.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by Racer814
They're all just power tripping and all of them are corrupt....I'm a conservative and I believe in a strong military...as soon as a democrat gets into office, the first thing they do is cut the military...we simply cannot afford to be lax in that regard......I also think we should have the right to bear arms. another thing the dem's are trying to do away with...I have to vote republican on those issues alone even though I agree with some democrat views...

I thought that the US military did a fine job with the war planning and operational tactics in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. They just shouldn't be used as police or peacekeepers in nation building, as that is NOT their job. The only problem I saw was that the ground forces weren't granted enough troops and allowed to cut off access to northwest Pakistan to cut off escape routes of al Qaeda.

I am registered as an independent voter. I hold no loyalties to either the dems or GOP parties. That said, to state that the democrats will weaken the military is a misnomer cleverly woven years ago by the RNC around the Reagan era to gain support of the military vote and those workers associated with the defense industry, which was quite sizable at that time. The military had been downsized after the cold war starting with George Bush Sr. and continuing through the Clinton era but it was definitely NOT weakened. In fact, the level of training and proficiency of the armed services was increased considerably. It was downsized because of the immense overhead and waste of keeping open bases around the world with no major international imminent threat like the former Soviet Union was previously considered. To illustrate my earlier point, I have provided a quote for you:

"A Commander-In-Chief leads the military built by those who came before them. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...when that [first Persion Gulf] war ended, the first thing I did was place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan..." -Dick Cheney- August 2000, before he became the VP.

Again, the US forces performed brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq which certainly dispells the fallacy of democrats = a weak military. It is simply a scare tactic used by certain ideologues in government on a populace that is willing to trade off Constitutional rights for the specter of greater domestic security. I will leave you with this quote to think about:


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering- from the Nuremberg Trials

[Racer814]

that was a very insightful post primal.....however the fact is that defense spending has historically gone up under republican administrations.......and clinton did try to pass gun control legislation ....which I am STRONGLY against......I do agree we should get out of iraq as we should never try to control another nation...we have never been imperialists and shouldnt start now,but the bush administration didnt have to tell us we were under attack, all we had to do was look skyward.....I will vote for bush again....

[Primal Instinct]

[i](Some stuff snipped here for brevity) I do agree we should get out of iraq as we should never try to control another nation...we have never been imperialists and shouldnt start now,but the bush administration didnt have to tell us we were under attack, all we had to do was look skyward.....I will vote for bush again.... [/B]

We were under attack from al Qaeda not Iraq. Even the White House conceded that there were no links between Iraq and al Qaeda with regard to 9/11. Invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like punching your little brother because your big brother clobbered you. Going into Iraq was an opportunitistic thing and the current administration used 9/11 as the springboard for invasion of Iraq. We should have dedicated our military resources to finishing up in Afghanistan. Regardless, there were plans to go to war there (Iraq) before 9/11 and before G. W.Bush took office. This is evidenced by the fact that his closest ring of advisors and cabinet were calling for an invasion of Iraq when Clinton was President. There was a not so secret agenda for years. I offer this link

Notice the signatures at the bottom of the letter. Most of them are in Bush's administration in top level positions. This is an authentic letter and it explains the current agenda for Iraq and the preemptive strike mentality as long ago as 1998. I saw this thing coming a long time ago and just knew we would be embroiled in a war and subsequent nation building in Iraq, even though during the 2000 campaign Bush said he would not engage in such practices. Dick Cheney spearheaded the cabinet appointments and set the wheels in motion. Cheney and Rove are the ones who really call the shots in this Administration, not Bush. Everything is run by the political arm in the current Administration. Bush just goes where pointed, is all. That is what concerns me greatly. I don't think he has the fiber to stand up against Cheney in policy making decisions when the two have a fundamental disagreement.



ps.. I am *edit- NOT * opposed to a ban on assault weapons but I am opposed to a ban on gun ownership, such as pistols, shotguns and rifles. That inalienable right will never be stripped from US citizens, as it is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I'm not crazy about Kerry but he won't allow a gun ownership ban to happen. Besides, republicans still have the majority in both houses.

[Bouncer]

Vote Bush. Kerry will do nothing for the country. Bush gets things done, love him or hate him, he takes care of buisness.

[Racer814]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
We were under attack from al Qaeda not Iraq. Even the White House conceded that there were no links between Iraq and al Qaeda with regard to 9/11. Invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like punching your little brother because your big brother clobbered you. Going into Iraq was an opportunitistic thing and the current administration used 9/11 as the springboard for invasion of Iraq. We should have dedicated our military resources to finishing up in Afghanistan. Regardless, there were plans to go to war there (Iraq) before 9/11 and before G. W.Bush took office. This is evidenced by the fact that his closest ring of advisors and cabinet were calling for an invasion of Iraq when Clinton was President. There was a not so secret agenda for years. I offer this link

Notice the signatures at the bottom of the letter. Most of them are in Bush's administration in top level positions. This is an authentic letter and it explains the current agenda for Iraq and the preemptive strike mentality as long ago as 1998. I saw this thing coming a long time ago and just knew we would be embroiled in a war and subsequent nation building in Iraq, even though during the 2000 campaign Bush said he would not engage in such practices. Dick Cheney spearheaded the cabinet appointments and set the wheels in motion. Cheney and Rove are the ones who really call the shots in this Administration, not Bush. Everything is run by the political arm in the current Administration. Bush just goes where pointed, is all. That is what concerns me greatly. I don't think he has the fiber to stand up against Cheney in policy making decisions when the two have a fundamental disagreement.



ps.. I am *edit- NOT * opposed to a ban on assault weapons but I am opposed to a ban on gun ownership, such as pistols, shotguns and rifles. That inalienable right will never be stripped from US citizens, as it is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I'm not crazy about Kerry but he won't allow a gun ownership ban to happen. Besides, republicans still have the majority in both houses.

actually it was paul wolfowicz who wrote the doctrine on which we based most of our middle eastern policies....these were written back in the clinton administration but shelved until 9/11.....these policies call for pre- emptive strikes to thwart a growing threat by al queda.....and yes every president is just a figurehead to some degree:)

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by Racer814
actually it was paul wolfowicz who wrote the doctrine on which we based most of our middle eastern policies....these were written back in the clinton administration but shelved until 9/11.....these policies call for pre- emptive strikes to thwart a growing threat by al queda.....and yes every president is just a figurehead to some degree:)

Yes. Wolfowicz'z signature is on the letter along with other cabinet members. It's not just to counter threats from outside entities though, Racer. It's about the end of the cold war and there were no real emminent enemies available. The doctrine proposes to take advantage of this opportunity- using military force- to back up their geopolitical goals. In effect, a Pax Americana. These are the people that President Kennedy warned us about just before his assassination 40 years ago.

If we as a nation are in a constant state of war, we as citizens tend to sacrifice liberty for security. The authority of a government over its people lies in its powers to make war. This preemptive doctrine ensures that the US would in fact, be in a constant state of war. The goals of the Project for the New American Century are made clear right on their website. Don't be fooled, these people ARE currently in today's administration and are driving this preemption policy.

The problem with preemption is twofold:

1) Use of unilateral military actions to gain a geopolitical advantage over anyone who the US doesn't see eye to eye with will create even more ill feelings towards the US and rightly so. This is exactly what the cold war was about. We tried to stop the spread of communism led by the former Soviet Union while simultaneously trying to spread our policy of democracy. The problem is one of balance. Without checks or balances there is no way to gauge the actions of imperialism and colonization. In this respect, we have become what we so despised. Make no mistake, overthrowing governments and forcing political change upon its residents will cause great unrest and a feeling of occupation and being bullied by the US. This will cause people who have been victimized by our policies to gain a legitimate voice and eventually organization on some level to fight back.

2) The US is no longer the only kid on the block with nuclear, biological and chemical technologies. In fact, many world class scientists are educated right here in the US and return to their homelands to live and work. WMD are no longer the sole providence of the democratic nations of the world. All you need is enough money, a source of the weapon (or at least the technology to create one), and someone who wants to make money by supplying the aforementioned weapons/technology. The next big attack will probably be a hybrid biological strain of smallpox or something similar. This can easily be imported through infected illegal aliens (probably either Mexican or Chinese) and spread throughout the interior of the lower 48 states. The key would be to have a long enough incubation period to avoid immediate detection.

Dirty bombs are another easy way to hurt America. The former Soviet Union has numerous small, portable radiological material laying about, just waiting to be found. These were portable power generators which used Strontium 90 as a power source. They weigh between 200- 400 lbs each and can easily be transported by ship or some other vehicle into the US. A dirty bomb explosion would not be the same as a nuclear explosion but depending upon the power of the explosion and the prevailing winds, the radioactive debris would render an area of a few sqaure miles unfit for human habitation for years. New York city and Washington DC come immediately to mind. There could be a series of timed explosions throughout the nation in various points of commercial importance and it would absolutely cripple the economy not to mention cause great physical harm to the area residents. These are the options that groups or nations have to fight back against the US policy of regime change and unilateral military use of force to obtain certain geopolitical objectives. Think of it as a guerrilla style of fighting back.

If someone came into your house, took away your possessions, deposed your mother and father and installed their own authoritative figures, subjected you to extended occupation of your house, limited your freedom to live and work and associate freely, and used armed force to ensure complicity to their standards- wouldn't YOU want to fight back somehow? I would. I'd plan it out carefully and get them back. It would be a really big, decisive blow too, not just some small thing that would just piss them off worse. We are pissing off a lot of nations, even those who formerly with us. If it continues, we will find that it will come back to bite us hard. I hope things change soon. I'm done with this thread. Take care.

[Racer814]

you make some very valid points, however world policy is not always as simple as containing what goes on in our own borders......remember. we arent privy to the same information that our intelligence is and even then it is is sometimes muddy....often we do make mistakes in overseas policy.....mistakes too numerous to count.......the situation with the hatred in the muslim nations towards the US goes even farther than our meddling in their affairs.(muslim intolerance of christianity)..which we have to control to some extent due to oil.......make no mistake......it is about oil on our end...we wouldnt give a rats ass about those nations otherwise......we need to reduce our dependence on it..............later brother