McCain speaks out against attack ads - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2004, 07:06 PM   #46
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 09:45 AM
I love your links, ThatGuy.
__________________

__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 07:44 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Excellent points.

I would also like to point out that Dick Cheney has supported numerous military cuts as well.
The only cuts that Cheney ever supported was when the military was changing its force structure upon on the end of the Cold War. This was in the 1990s when the Berlin wall had fallen, Germany was re-united, the Soviet Union had collapsed, and Soviet or I should say, former Soviet troops were being withdrawn from Europe. The US Army was no longer going to have as many Active Duty Divisions and so Cheney for example stopped the production of Apache Attack Helicopters because the divisions they would have been used to equip no would soon no longer be in service. At the time Cheney anounced stopping production on this and some other weapon systems, the Army and other services already had the right number of Apache's, M1 Tanks, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles needed to outfit their divisions.

By contrast, John Kerry nearly a decade earlier when many of these weapon systems were just entering production and the Army had either not received any or only a few, tried to block these weapon systems that have proven to be vitally important to the combat power and survivability of US soldiers on the battlefield. If John Kerry had is way back then, the US army would still be fighting with weapon systems from the 1950s and 1960s.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 07:51 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
Some information about Jerome R. Corsi, the co-author of Swift Boat Vet for Truth John E. O'Neill's book Unfit For Command.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010
Thanks for this. Good grief, did you read what he says about Catholics? Ouch. That's ugly. I respect anyone else's views as long as they respect mine. If they say stuff like this about Catholics and the Pope or whatever, I'll be pissed off big time. They'd better be careful. Catholics are 28% of the electorate and include huge numbers of voters in the swing states. This pisses me off.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 07:55 PM   #49
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 06:45 AM
STING, are you sure it's not because he voted against a single bill in 1990?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/k...ary-votes.html


If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 08:54 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 09:45 AM
In his 11 years in Congress, Cheney only passed two bills, so of course he has a distinguished record on military cuts.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 09:00 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:45 PM
DaveC,

I think most Americans respect Bush's service in the National Guard and so should everyone here. Most Americans support are electoral system and the election of George Bush as President in the year 2000. I think the funniest thing would be to see those that attack Bush on the 2000 election see Kerry become President under the same circumstances this year.

In regards to Iraq, the United States and other member states of the UN have spent the past 12 years doing everything they could to achieve the Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam without having to use military force to remove Saddam in order to achieve that goal. Verifiable disarmament is not some difficult task that Saddam was incable of and was accomplished in the 1990s by such countries as Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa. All achieved verifiable disarmament in under a year or two.

The United States and other member states of the UN has for years, used Sanctions, a Military Embargo, UN inspectors, selective use of military strikes, no-fly zones, as well as strong diplomacy through out the entire region. All of these efforts failed and Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the inspectors and barring them from the country should have been the last straw. Instead, we tried once again to resolve the outstanding problems in issues that the UN inspectors had with Saddam in November 1998 when they were forced to withdraw, but Saddam did nothing to help resolve the issues that existed in 1998 and amazingly claimed that they were no longer a problem or an issue.

Although Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD including 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, when inspectors came back in, in 2002, Saddam simply claimed that he had destroyed these stocks but was unwilling to show any evidence of the destruction and dismantlement of such stocks.

So in light of that fact, please tell me precisely what diplomatic and peaceful actions that could have been done to achieve Verifiable disarmament, in light of everything that had already been tried and failed over the past 12 years? Please be specific and list untried diplomatic efforts and or peaceful actions that would have achieved the goal and requirments of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions?


John Kerry is the one that has made his military service such a big issue by making it virtually his only qualification to be President. You would have to be living in Siberia not know that John Kerry 35 years ago served on a boat in Vietnam. Naturally, when one spotlights something to that degree, people are going to ask questions about it. As far as his length of service goes, 1 day in Vietnam is honorable, and 4 months, 12 months or 36 months is amazing. Everyone should salute John Kerry and his service in Vietnam. But what John Kerry plans to do as President is what is most important, and his Senate record over the past 20 years is the best indication of what he would be like as President. Just the same, people should be voting for George Bush based on his record as President and that alone.


The Weapon Systems that John Kerry campaigned against in 1984 were vital to this countries National Security and vital to the survivability of US military personal on the battlefield for the past 20 years including right now in Iraq. In 1984, the United States and NATO had the vital responsibility of protecting western Europe from a potential Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The Soviet Union itself had a total when mobilized of 206 Armored and Mechanized divisions with nearly 60,000 Main Battle Tanks and supporting armor Artillery and Aircraft. Having weapon systems such as the M1 Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Apache Helicopter and Patriot Missile were vital to United States and NATO forces in Europe that were numerically outnumbered and needed advanced weaponsystems in order to offset the Warsaw Pacts vast numerical advantage.

After the Cold War these weapon systems have played vital roles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and other military operations around the world. They have saved an unknowable number of lives, provided the military with a massive increase in combat power and mobility, resulting in swifter military victory's with drastically reduced cuasulties for both the United States, are Allies, civilians in the area and even the enemy itself by bringing about their surrender, do to the odds, , more swiftly.

Having a strong Military with the capability of ensuring National and Global security interest of the United States is the most important among all the priorities that the United States as a country has. The inability to do this as well as deter major war by potential foes, would make it impossible to address any of the other priorties the country has. In regards to the Persian Gulf, the planet as a whole heavily relies on it for energy. The siezure and or sabotage of such energy resources would plunge the entire planet into a crises it has never seen before. When Persian Gulf is stable and oil flows freely and is plentifal, the price of energy drops, and the person that benefits is the person on the bottom of the economic ladder because they are most effected by the cost of energy. Also, when the cost of energy drops, Oil companies are not the ones that benefit. So this idea that this war or the war in 1991 was for Mobile Oil etc is simply empty rhetoric.

On John Kerry's post-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s, I will admit that despite how revolting I find many of his views and idea's at that time, that it is far less relevant to his Senate Record and current idea's about how to lead the country as President. Even John Kerry has expressed displeasure with some of the things he said and did right after Vietnam.

On the issue of George Bush's foreign policy and whether he has alienated a large number of countries, could you please tell me which countries specifically you think George Bush has alienated?

I remind you that the majority of people in this country supported Operation Iraqi Freedom and 75% of Congress did as well. In addition, George Bush got the United Nations to pass another resolution authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations including the verifiable disarmament of all WMD. Resolution 1441 was passed by a 15-0 vote! Even Syria voted for it!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 09:27 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
STING, are you sure it's not because he voted against a single bill in 1990?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/k...ary-votes.html


If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
In John Kerry's campaign for the Senate in 1984, he campaigned on a platform that advocated cancelling a number of weapon systems to include the M1 Tank, M2 Bradley, Apache Attack Helicopter, and the Patriot Missile. The Boston Globe reported this but I do not have an internet link at the moment for that.

In 1984, these weapons had just entered production or were about to enter production and John Kerry wanted to stop it all right there.

By 1990, the Cold War was over and the United States was reducing its military force structure. Cheney stopped production of weapon systems because within a few years there would the divisions they were to be deployed to would not exist. The new military structure though would fully outfitted with all the military equipment that went into production in the Reagan years.

The massive difference with Kerry is, is if his proposed cuts had gone through in 1984, 6 years earlier, the military would have little or none of the key weapon systems it had been developing. By 1990 though, the military had enough of these weapon systems to outfit the new force structure that called for 12 Active Army Divisions as opposed to 18. Cheney simply cut the weapon systems that would have been used to equip the divisions that were going to be disbanded anyways.

The United States reduced its force structure when the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed because those events drastically changed the level of threat the country and the world faced.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 09:32 PM   #53
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 06:45 AM
So you're voting for Bush because Kerry voted against some defense programs 20 years ago? It seems he's changed his mind since then, anyway.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

How do you feel about Bush cutting pay and services for those in the military? Or is it more important to spend money on weapons than on people?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 09:47 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
So you're voting for Bush because Kerry voted against some defense programs 20 years ago? It seems he's changed his mind since then, anyway.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

How do you feel about Bush cutting pay and services for those in the military? Or is it more important to spend money on weapons than on people?
That is definitely not the only reason but it is a very important one. If Kerry had succeeded, are men and women fighting in Iraq today would not have these vital weapon systems. AS I explained before, these weapons were just entering production or about to enter in production around 1984, so that it why it is so significant.

Bush has not cut pay and services for people serving in the military. Bush has given the military its largest pay increase in history! It is true that certain types of pay may have been changed, but any change is offset by the historic increase in over all pay. Guess who my friends currently serving in Iraq are voting for?

George Bush has just proposed that largest defense budget in history in nominal terms(un-adjusted for inflation) of nearly 420 Billion dollars. The military needs lots of money for training, new weapons and pay, and there is not another candidate willing to spend more on the military than George Bush.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 09:59 PM   #55
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 06:45 AM
Fair enough. I'm sorry, I was basing my pay comments on old information about what the White House had planned to do, but then back off from. I had similar figures on VA spending and military housing, but that may be outdated as well.

Still you didn't address the issue of Kerry's military spending record since 1997. Too little too late for you?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-07-2004, 04:53 AM   #56
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
Some information about Jerome R. Corsi, the co-author of Swift Boat Vet for Truth John E. O'Neill's book Unfit For Command.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010
I think this needs to come to national attention. If this man is going to publish a book (that's already a #1 seller based on pre-orders) trying to basically ruin a man, we should have the right to know he's a bigotted, arrogant, nasty and petty nutjob who thinks all liberals are anti-American communists.

That link is downright scary. And people complain about Moore being biased.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-07-2004, 08:34 AM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:45 PM
I am seriously thinking of writing a letter to the local newspapers pointing out that this guy is bigoted against Catholics, Muslims, and Lord knows who else. Of course if they put him on the talk shows and he comes out with this in public he's toast. If they really want to blow 28% of the electorate.....they'd better be careful. Grrrr.......
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-07-2004, 09:17 AM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:45 AM
One of the old school "patriots", sadly there are too many nutcases with agendas in this world. Ive said it before and ill say it again, the public deserves intelligent debate - embracing lunatics will only perpetuate ignorance.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-07-2004, 03:39 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Okay, checked out that link...that guy...yeesh... ...

I know this was directed at a particular person on that site, but since it's a stereotype of all liberals...

Perfect Liberal -- lesbian,

Actually, I'm not (but I don't see why it would really matter either way).

self-absorbed,

I can think of a few conservatives that are self-absorbed, too...

hates America,

Quite the contrary-I love this country.

anxious to impose her values on everybody else.

Nope. Everyone's free to choose whether or not they want to agree with what I say. If they do, fine, if they don't, fine.

Also:

Quote:
Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"
Wow. Mature, logical response there .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 08-07-2004, 06:13 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:45 PM
This book thing really disgusts me. It's a mean-spirited, nasty, petty thing to do. It's unfortunate that some people have nothing better to do than spew hate and venom on someone famous. What an hole.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com