Here's why one should vote for Kerry...

IH8Orange

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2000
7,017
31
0
Trussville, AL, USA
jthomas666 said:
True enough. That's why I generally vote against the incumbent. When it started to look like bin Laden wasn't going to be captured anytime soon, then suddenly Hussein turned into Public Enemy #1.
The problem is like sending healthy people unprotected in to tend to sick people. The ones you send in get infected.

I believe that the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of all of them at once and send in total amateurs.

A lot of people think that you need experience to be a legislator. That's baloney. Most decently intelligent people can sit, listen to different sides of an issue, and make an accurate decision based on what they've heard. You've also got many experts that are available for consultation to explain finer details of bills.

I haven't seen a plethora of genius' in Washington. Most of them got there through nepotism or unlimited finances. Few of them are truly gems.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
REALtide said:
Last I heard , we still have troops digging through Afganistan looking for Bin Laden, so what's your point ?
Instead of increasing our efforts to find bin Laden (who did attack us), we invaded Iraq (because they might attack us).

Now, can I guarantee that if we had taken the troops we sent to Iraq and sent to to Afghanistan instead that we would have bagged bin Laden? Of course not.

But we would have substantially increased the chances of capturing him.
 

wisten

Hall of Fame
Apr 30, 2003
5,110
34
0
Gulf Shores, AL, USA
Sadly, these are valid points

Our political system is full of frustrating situations, all too many times, our representatives are more eager to keep their seats than act in the best interests or even act in accordance with their constituants.

Osama Bin Laden was (and is) a clear and present danger

Iraq was a clear and present danger

North Korea is clear and present danger

Libya was a clear and present danger

and so on.

Iraq was a good choice in that one threat arena had been severely diminished with the fall of the Taliban and the major disruption of Al Queada. You are absolutely correct in that Osama does continue to pose a threat to the United States. One could even go to say that with some of the alleged backing he has received, Saudi Arabia is a threat as well.

I do agree with the decision to topple Saddam, I was sorely disappointed when he was not removed from power during the first gulf war.

Our actions have neutralized three terror hotspots, albeit unrelated groups on the surface -- Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, and has hampered (mostly due to Irael's harassment of the Gaza strip) Palastine, struck fear into other states such as Sirya, Lebanon, and even Iran.

From the looks of the 9-11 report, the biggest failure was Osama's boys finding loopholes in our security, training, and standard operating procedure. We play by the rules, and they do not. We got hit hard and even now, we do not retaliate to our full capacity or abandon our rules that do expose weaknesses from time to time.

If we were to play hard-ball, and damn the global reprecussions, our response might be something like:

1) Nuclear "scorched earth" campaign in Afgan mountains

2) Suspension of all financial, military, and dimplomatic aid to any and all nations not providing 100% support and intel.

3) Occupation and declaration of Iraq as a Police State of the United States of America, and seizure of all assets, natural resources, and technology.

4) Declaration of War upon North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Syria.

5) Encourage Irael to use any means necessary to eliminate the Palestine problem.

6) Advise Cuba that they are being annexed and have 5 days to surrender or be destroyed.

7) and so on...

Obviously, such a course would be national suicide.
 

Bamalaw92

Banned
Dec 11, 2003
2,120
45
0
Montgomery
jthomas666 said:
1. Exactly when did Hussein demonstrate the ability to attack the US homeland? In two wars against the US, he never demonstrated the ability to defend his own homeland. (Do you suppose he's part French?)
Well let's see, he possessed weapons and technology to produce WMDs. He had known ties to terrorists including al qaeda and had indeed had sponsored terrorist attacks in the past. He had a stated goal of inflicting death and destruction on Americans in the US and abroad. Had begun plans for terrorist attacks in the US...but of course if he couldn't defeat us in battle he couldn't hurt us any other way right??

2. Someone who has attacked us is a greater threat than someone who might attack us. I do not understand why that is such a difficult concept.
Good thing FDR didn't have that opinion in WWII (or did the Germans REALLY bomb Pearl Harbor?). It is a nonsensical concept. Let me explain it this way. If a 100 lbs boy hits you, are you seriously arguing that he is a bigger threat than his 6'8" 345lbs brother waiting in the wings. The fact that someone attacks does NOT equate to being a bigger threat. That is faulty syllogistic logic.

What did Osama do when we attempted to run him down? He went into hiding, from where he continues to plot against us.
And your point? How many successful attacks has he committed against us?

What did Hussein do when we attempted to run him down? He went into hiding. Period. I don't recall him masterminding anything from his spider hole.
Nor do you have any proof that Bin Laden has masterminded anything against us. Again, what is your point?
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Bamalaw92 said:
Good thing FDR didn't have that opinion in WWII (or did the Germans REALLY bomb Pearl Harbor?).
We (along with Great Britain) declared war on Japan. Germany then declared war on us because of their alliance with Japan.

If a 100 lbs boy hits you, are you seriously arguing that he is a bigger threat than his 6'8" 345lbs brother waiting in the wings. The fact that someone attacks does NOT equate to being a bigger threat. That is faulty syllogistic logic.
Point taken. But 9/11 was hardly the act of a 98 pound weakling. And your analogy begs the question, was Hussein a 6'8" 345 brute, or just a small person casting a very large shadow?

Nor do you have any proof that Bin Laden has masterminded anything against us. Again, what is your point?
Gosh, didn't the department of Homeland Security state just a few weeks ago that intelligence suggests that Al Quaeda is planning another operation in the United States? I'm starting to wonder what your point is.
 

Bamalaw92

Banned
Dec 11, 2003
2,120
45
0
Montgomery
jthomas666 said:
We (along with Great Britain) declared war on Japan. Germany then declared war on us because of their alliance with Japan.
And Saddam had declared war on us prior to the liberation. The point being, Germany had not attacked us (or Japan GB for that matter). Are you saying that Germany was not as big a threat as Japan?


Point taken. But 9/11 was hardly the act of a 98 pound weakling. And your analogy begs the question, was Hussein a 6'8" 345 brute, or just a small person casting a very large shadow?
The analogy was to point out the fallacy in your argument, not to directly compare it to al qaeda and Iraq, but yes i do believe Iraq possessed much more money resources and infrastructure to carry out terrorist activities than al qaeda.



Gosh, didn't the department of Homeland Security state just a few weeks ago that intelligence suggests that Al Quaeda is planning another operation in the United States? I'm starting to wonder what your point is.
Ahhhhhhh so NOW you rely on intelligence sources! Convenient. One thing is certain now though (and for the record al qaeda does not equal Osama. It will continue after he is gone) Saddam Hussein and his regime will never sponsor terroism again against us or anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Really Big Bama Fan
Jthomas, since you obviously know more than Bush , why haven't you gone to Washington to help him out ?

Same thing frustrates me when people complain about a football coaches calls during a game " He shoulda.......". If you are so gifted at running a team (or a country , then why haven't you been given the job?


Iraq decided to be defiant at the wrong time and got hit.....thats all it amounts to. Same people complaining saying we shouldn't be there complained when GWB's dad didn't finish the job in 91.

You just have to ask yourself......who could do a better job than GWB....right now , nowbody could. As far as this Moore movie blaming 9-11 on Bush, yeah.....and John Kerry is the cause of the Holocaust....it's all his fault. Both statements are just plain stupid.
 

Mamacalled

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2000
6,786
22
157
58
Pelham, Al
Iraq Did Try To Obtain Uranium

Iraq did attempt to buy uranium and now that that has come to be fact, does it not change your mind any?
Also, we fought Japan and Germany at the same time. If our military is so weak and depleted that we can't hunt Osama and fight a small country like Iraq then we are in very bad shape. We shouldn't have to use our full resources to find Osama. That is one of the weakest arguments that I hear from the left. If it is true, then we better start pumping money into our military or kiss our butts good-by.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Bamalaw92 said:
And Saddam had declared war on us prior to the liberation. The point being, Germany had not attacked us (or Japan GB for that matter). Are you saying that Germany was not as big a threat as Japan?
The Germany analogy worked better in the first Gulf War, when Iraq was actually invading another country.

The analogy was to point out the fallacy in your argument, not to directly compare it to al qaeda and Iraq, but yes i do believe Iraq possessed much more money resources and infrastructure to carry out terrorist activities than al qaeda.
Interesting. That suggests the problem with your 100 lb weaking v the 345 defensive lineman. The 100 pound kid is a greater threat if he is willing to attack and the defensinve end is not. In the first Gulf War, the coalition had smashed his army, and appeared to be on the verge of heading for Bagdhad. When we invaded a second time, we did so with the express intent to removing him from power. At no time did he attack our forces with WMDs. I don't know about you, but if someone is coming after me with the plainly expressed intent of killing me, I'm going to be using everything I can get my hands on to defend myself. So, either he had none, was unable to use them, or was unwilling to use them.

One thing is certain now though (and for the record al qaeda does not equal Osama. It will continue after he is gone) Saddam Hussein and his regime will never sponsor terroism again against us or anyone.
True, Hussein will never sponsor terrorism again (which is a good thing). And if a policeman just decides to gun down a drug dealer who is standing on the corner doing nothing, that dealer will never sell drugs again (which is a good thing). That still doesn't mean the cop did the right thing.
 
Last edited:

Bamalaw92

Banned
Dec 11, 2003
2,120
45
0
Montgomery
jthomas666 said:
The Germany analogy worked better in the first Gulf War, when Iraq was actually invading another country.
Your sole point was that a person who attacks is a bigger threat than one who doesn't. In fact I will quote you: "Someone who has attacked us is a greater threat than someone who might attack us. I do not understand why that is such a difficult concept. " You keep missing the point.....Germany did not attack us....You now seek to morph this into other justifications such as the invasion of other countries (thus indirectly supporting my point). Germany occupied the Rhineland in 1936, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1936, Germany occupied Sudetenland in 1938, Czechoslovakia in 1939, Poland in 1939, Finland in 1939, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in 1940 and begin the Battle of Britain. Why did we wait? Out of curiosity, did you support the first war? Do you think Saddam was incapable of invading his neighbors or supporting terrorist activities such as palestinian suicide bombers?


Interesting. That suggests the problem with your 100 lb weaking v the 345 defensive lineman. The 100 pound kid is a greater threat if he is willing to attack and the defensinve end is not.
Therein ends your argument. The 345 lb brother IS WILLING TO ATTACK. Don't confuse willingness with ability.
In the first Gulf War, the coalition had smashed his army, and appeared to be on the verge of heading for Bagdhad. When we invaded a second time, we did so with the express intent to removing him from power. At no time did he attack our forces with WMDs. I don't know about you, but if someone is coming after me with the plainly expressed intent of killing me, I'm going to be using everything I can get my hands on to defend myself. So, either he had none, was unable to use them, or was unwilling to use them.
I am glad you recognize the second option of being unable to. He certainly had the willingness asa demonstrated by his public statements. In Saddams own words:
"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."
Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991
"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)
The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001
"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"[September 11 was] God's punishment." Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
"t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001

True, Hussein will never sponsor terrorism again (which is a good thing). And if a policeman just decides to gun down a drug dealer who is standing on the corner doing nothing, that dealer will never sell drugs again (which is a good thing). That still doesn't mean the cop did the right thing.
Bad analogy. Saddam was no drug dealer. He was a mass murderer. What if that drug dealer had murdered millions of people and was hold up behind his own army threatening to do more. Would you say we should try to talk to him or should we send a SWAT team in to haul his butt in to be tried for genocide?
 

bandersnatch45

1st Team
Apr 16, 2002
687
11
0
birmingham, al, usa
The analogy of the "drug dealer standing on the corner" does not stand up for several reasons. As was stated, Hussein was no "drug dealer", he was a mass murderer who did his murdering in Full Public View as we should all remember. A police officer who sees a person commit murder in full view is completely justified in shooting that person immediately. The DA will not even hesitate to sign off on the shooting as justified (at least here in 'Bama. In The People's Republic of New Jersey, who knows?). We (the United States, and sometimes the rest of the world) have been in the postion of the police officer and Hussein in the position of the murderer caught in the act. We had our gun drawn and were ordering Hussein to drop his weapon and surrender. He didn't and we ordered again. Repeatedly. Soon he had no fear of us and just did as he pleased. The gun was usless as we did not have the will to use it.

The situation continued until George W. Bush was elected and we were the victims of mass murder on 9/11. We now had a police officer with the will to use the gun to take down the murderers of the world if they didn't surrender.

In all the debate over whether we sould or shouldn't have invaded Iraq it is lost that GWB taking the fight to all of the world's murderers, before they become a direct threat to us and the rest of the world. This the long term goal of the War on Terroism: to take down All the murderers, be they free-lance killers like OBL or rulers of states like Hussein, the Ayatollah and Kim Jong-Il.

Leftists in America and Europe are aghast that GWB pulled the trigger and took down the bad guy rather than just continue to holler empty threats at him. Europe is frightened and humiliated. It is no wonder then that they wish to see Bush removed from office. Europe can not stop the murderer from coming to get them (they basically have no effective armed forces anymore), so the next best thing is to remove the man most responsible for pointing up their weakness.

So, why should GWB be given another term? He is the only one with the sand to actually carry through with the threat of deadly force in the face of deadly force. Kerry does not have it. Remember, an empty threat only emboldens your enemy. An officer should never threaten and then not carry through as soon the criminals will no longer fear him. If you were a terrorist who would you vote for? If you were a citizen helpless before an armed assailant and the only hope for your life was the officer with his gun, which officer would you prefer to be on the job, Bush or Kerry?
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Bamalaw--

I'm glad you acknowledge the option of being unable to attack as well.

Rather than bouncing around quotes the rest of the day, I'll try to pull some things together.

I did support the first Gulf War. Hussein had invaded one sovereign country, and appeared to be poised to inave another. Had we gone straight through to Bagdhad, I would have had no complaints.

The next decade sees basically, a policy of containment. He rattles his cage every now and then, tests the no-fly zone on occassion. By and large, though, he appears contained, his army, broken.

Jump forward to 2002.

We're in the process of hunting down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, like Hussein, had expressed a desire to attack the United States. Unlike Hussein, bin Laden had actually done so, repeatedly.

Instead of expanding our efforts to get bin Laden, we decided to also go after Hussein, because of what he *might* do with weapons that he *might* have.

Now, let's turn to Hussein's willingness to attack the United States. There is a difference between the desire to do something and the will to do something.

Hussein greatly desired to attack the United States, to prove his greatness. But he did not. He never used WMDs against us in either war. So he did not have them, he was unable to use them, or he was unwilling--that is, he had the ability, and the means, but lacked the will to accept the consequences of such an act.

We're pretty sure he had the ability and means in the first Gulf War. But he didn't use them. That leaves us with a lack of will. We made it pretty clear what the consequences would be: "If you don't use WMDs, you just might survive this."

In the second Gulf War, when we had the express purpose of removing him, he didn't use them. In such a situation, self-preservation at least suggests that he could find the will to use them. But he didn't. So either he didn't have them, or he lacked the ability to use them. And since we've heard so much about easy it is to loose poison gas, lack of ability seems an unlikely explanation. In any event, I do not believe that an immediate threat was present.

You've mentioned my amazing morphing arguments. My life would certainly be easier if perfectly formed arguments sprang from my head on demand. But they don't. The bulk of my posts are written very quickly, when I should be doing something else. The result is that some of my arguments aren't perfect. The reason I enjoy this sort of back and forth is that it allows me to refine my arguments. The exchanges with you are usually productive in that manner, and I thank you for that.

I don't view the evolution of my argument to be on a par with a politician flip-flop/backpedal, and I hope you don't, either.

Pax,
Jim
 

PeteTheYankee

BamaNation Citizen
Apr 21, 2004
51
1
0
43
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
www.peteholiday.com
...jumping in to a discussion that I'm not a part of...
jthomas666 said:
In the second Gulf War, when we had the express purpose of removing him, he didn't use them. In such a situation, self-preservation at least suggests that he could find the will to use them. But he didn't. So either he didn't have them, or he lacked the ability to use them. And since we've heard so much about easy it is to loose poison gas, lack of ability seems an unlikely explanation. In any event, I do not believe that an immediate threat was present.
Amazingly enough, Bush agreed that Saddam was NOT an immediate threat. He said so in his radio address and I think that is pretty well substantiated by the facts of the case both before the invasion, and in retrospect.

Unfortunately, we no long live in a world where it's prudent to allow those with the will to harm the United States to go unchecked if there's a strong possibility that, given time, they would attempt to do so directly or indirectly. Saddam's will to hurt the US is well documented, as is his aid of Palestinian terrorists. Combine that with the fact that he was able to elude the UN's arms inspectors (hindsight being what it is, there's no telling what sort of corruption went on THERE) for twelve years and it seems pretty clear, at least to me, that given the time, Saddam WOULD become an immediate threat. What concerns me more, however, is this hypothetical.

Saddam builds up a nice array of different "illegal" weapons -- chem, bio, dirty, nuke, whatever. He stockpiles them, keeps them in good working condition, and then starts paying off / aiding terrorists with plots against the US. When someone eventually follows the money trail and we get ready to invade Iraq, he's now got these stockpiles of weapons to use against our troops and mass casualties occur.

Even with the WMDs that have made their way to other countries, it still doesn't seem as though he'd have had enough to make any sort of significant dent, and it was probably more in his interests to just get rid of them, since public sentiment in the US could've easily turned almost completely against him if he had used them.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.
 

Bamalaw92

Banned
Dec 11, 2003
2,120
45
0
Montgomery
jthomas666 said:
Bamalaw--

I'm glad you acknowledge the option of being unable to attack as well.
I suspect, however, your explanation of why they were unable is VASTLY different from mine, but that is why God made us with differing opinions.

Rather than bouncing around quotes the rest of the day, I'll try to pull some things together.

I did support the first Gulf War. Hussein had invaded one sovereign country, and appeared to be poised to inave another. Had we gone straight through to Bagdhad, I would have had no complaints.
You and I are agreement on this.

The next decade sees basically, a policy of containment. He rattles his cage every now and then, tests the no-fly zone on occassion. By and large, though, he appears contained, his army, broken.
I believe he was doing more than "rattling his cage", including but not limited to mas murder and torture of his own people and seeking methods to repair and strengthen his broken but not defeated army. Had "containment" continued he would have continued to seek to strengthen himself until containment failed. It is naive to believe he was impotent.

Jump forward to 2002.

We're in the process of hunting down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, like Hussein, had expressed a desire to attack the United States. Unlike Hussein, bin Laden had actually done so, repeatedly.

Instead of expanding our efforts to get bin Laden, we decided to also go after Hussein, because of what he *might* do with weapons that he *might* have.
You assume that we cannot do both at the same time. This is an assumption a disagree with wholeheartedly. As another poster noticed, if our military was weakened that bad by the Clinton administration that we can no longer carry out maxium effort on at least two fronts then we really are in a world of trouble.

Now, let's turn to Hussein's willingness to attack the United States. There is a difference between the desire to do something and the will to do something.

Hussein greatly desired to attack the United States, to prove his greatness. But he did not. He never used WMDs against us in either war. So he did not have them, he was unable to use them, or he was unwilling--that is, he had the ability, and the means, but lacked the will to accept the consequences of such an act.

We're pretty sure he had the ability and means in the first Gulf War. But he didn't use them. That leaves us with a lack of will. We made it pretty clear what the consequences would be: "If you don't use WMDs, you just might survive this."
Let me address a few points. A. We know at one time he had them (both before and after gulf war I) because he indeed used them. (Scuds are WMDs). B. You assume in your argument that the only use for WMDs are in a theatre of battle. We know Saddam had extensive ties to terrorism, and stated his purpose and goal to attack Americans abroad. The only possible way for him to do so is through clandestine terrorism. C. Saddam was pragmatic. He knew use of WMDs openly in the theatre of battle would turn world (and Arab) opinion against him (as it did through his use of them against Iran and the Kurds). Clandestine use through terrorism was much more feasible. D. You discount the US and coalition forces success in disabling the ability to use them. Like I said, don't confuse will with ability.

In the second Gulf War, when we had the express purpose of removing him, he didn't use them. In such a situation, self-preservation at least suggests that he could find the will to use them. But he didn't. So either he didn't have them, or he lacked the ability to use them. And since we've heard so much about easy it is to loose poison gas, lack of ability seems an unlikely explanation.
You are being far too simplistic. Being the pragmatist that he was, and having denied the exisitence repeatedly as he had leading up to the war, it makes perfect sense that he would destroy or hide them (in say Syria) to sway world opinion in his favor. It is the "I told you so" defense. The thing that scares me the most is not knowing what happened to the known quantities that France, Germany, the UN, the Clinton Administration, and all others stated and still believe exist.
In any event, I do not believe that an immediate threat was present.
Nor do I, but it was never presented as an immediate threat. It was presented as one that should never become one.

You've mentioned my amazing morphing arguments.
For the record I only mentioned your morphing of one argument concerning who is a bigger threat into another regarding justifications for war. That happens when discussing issues.
My life would certainly be easier if perfectly formed arguments sprang from my head on demand. But they don't. The bulk of my posts are written very quickly, when I should be doing something else. The result is that some of my arguments aren't perfect. The reason I enjoy this sort of back and forth is that it allows me to refine my arguments. The exchanges with you are usually productive in that manner, and I thank you for that.
I understand, and thank you for the compliment. I applaud you for your ability to discuss rationally and present compelling arguments for your position. Unfortunately (for me), I argue for a living, so I have kind of gotten used to it. :D

I don't view the evolution of my argument to be on a par with a politician flip-flop/backpedal, and I hope you don't, either.
No I do not think you have flip-flopped at all. In fact I think you have been rather consistent. I was just ensuring that you were aware of what arguments my responses referred to. Sometimes it can be murky in a message Board situation like this. I enjoyed the debate.


Peace to you too.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,642
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Just a quick comment

Bamalaw92 said:
You assume that we cannot do both at the same time. This is an assumption a disagree with wholeheartedly. As another poster noticed, if our military was weakened that bad by the Clinton administration that we can no longer carry out maxium effort on at least two fronts then we really are in a world of trouble.
Then the evidence suggests that we are indeed in a world of hurt. At least one general's career ended because he stated that Afghanistan force was too small to get the job done. And the extensions and callups further demonstrate that we have issues regarding our land forces. I don't know what the state of or air and sea forces are.

But let's not lay all the blame on Clinton. The initiative to reduce the military from its last-throes-of-the-Cold War size was begun by Bush I, and was managed by then-SecDef Cheney. This was the so-called "Peace Dividend". Here's a New Yorker column that addresses that initiative, though only in passing. The column is more on Cheney and Halliburton. Fair warning.

That having been said, it is clear we need to expand the standing army. In the unlikely event that they ever put me in charge, I'd put Colin Powell in charge of a commission to analyze our force requirements and determine a plan to expand the military as necessary.

As an aside, it occurred to me that if I changed my name to "None of the Above" and got myself on the ballot, I could win in a landslide. :D
 

Bamalaw92

Banned
Dec 11, 2003
2,120
45
0
Montgomery
jthomas666 said:
Then the evidence suggests that we are indeed in a world of hurt. At least one general's career ended because he stated that Afghanistan force was too small to get the job done. And the extensions and callups further demonstrate that we have issues regarding our land forces. I don't know what the state of or air and sea forces are.
Well that again is a matter of opinion rather than fact, and one I disagree with. While I admittedly don't have the figures at my fingertips or the intricate knowledge of true military capabilities, I am good friends with the former commander of NATO forces in Bosnia (not Clarke) who has kept up with these matters. He disagrees. Because I trusted the Admiral with my life and those of friends and relatives, I tend to believe his opinion over the doom and gloomers.

But let's not lay all the blame on Clinton. The initiative to reduce the military from its last-throes-of-the-Cold War size was begun by Bush I, and was managed by then-SecDef Cheney. This was the so-called "Peace Dividend". Here's a New Yorker column that addresses that initiative, though only in passing. The column is more on Cheney and Halliburton. Fair warning.
Pardon me if I don't read the article - I will take your word on it. :D I didn't mean to imply that Clinton BEGAN the military reduction, but he certainly fostered it along tremendously.

That having been said, it is clear we need to expand the standing army. In the unlikely event that they ever put me in charge, I'd put Colin Powell in charge of a commission to analyze our force requirements and determine a plan to expand the military as necessary.
I would prefer Ret'd General Schwarzkoph or Ret'd Admiral Leighton Smith but the idea is a good one.

As an aside, it occurred to me that if I changed my name to "None of the Above" and got myself on the ballot, I could win in a landslide. :D
LOL you are probably right.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.