It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

whats up with democrats weakening military and security

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Astral City

Also it is Kerry NOT Bush who wants to send more troops to Iraq.

Clinton actually spent almost the same on defense as Bush has, see the reason it's so much less than Regan and Bush Sr spent is because we are not in an arms race with the Soviets anymore

~Astral


Kerry wants to send more troops?..Since when?...and second...Reagon ENDED the arms race...just in case you forgot...and the arms race was over by the time Sr. got into office...so your "point" isnt even there...doesnt exist..Clinton was horrible military wise...we were attack numerous times...he did nada...he had a shot to kill osama...he passed...he rode the good ending of Bush seniors tail and left the white house knee deep in sh@t...I dont care what you think you know...but no way in a cold hell could Bush have put our economy in this crap hole in under a years time...people forget budgets are PLANNED AHEAD FOR YEARS...hence clinton grabbing all the glory and Bush getting the sh@t end of the stick...




posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
ok i see some of you dont take what i said seriously,well i know im gettin the hell out of this country if kerry gets elected since some of you support the democrats lets see how the peacniks will handle a situation like 9/11

let me hint you in on how they would handle it : they would shoot millions worth of cruise missiles the ones you taxpayers paid for at empty abandoned camps, after this they would say the problem is sovled until we get hit agian the same thing would happen.

liberals have no back bone

republicans have the back bone to get things done
the right.

back in the cold war days kerry wanted to get rid of all our nuks and halt the modernization effort against he soviets "where would we be if he had his way in this time"

in the clinton years terrorist attacked our bases,embassies,ships and finaly the first trade center attack. his response was shooting cruise missiles at abandoned camps.

democrats are least likely to make war if any of this things happen. this is way the worlds bad guys boss liberals around and why terrorist gets their way.

democrats would try making peace with the terrorist punks " tell me how can you make peace with people that hate you want us dead"

republican is a real american wants to protect our freedoms and go after the punks who mess with us it takes just one of those things above to get them going.

democrat does their best to weaken the u.s.

republicans do ther best to beef up our power and defense looking out for us at the same time

i see some of you dont know what pdd-60 is i'll explain it to you: ten years ago if someone launched a nuke at us we shoot back on warning. what pdd-60 does is it PREVENTS US FROM LAUNCHING ON WARNING IT STATES THAT WE HAVE TO ABSORB THE STRIKE AND THEN SHOOT BACK ! SHOOT BACK WITH WHAT ROCKS ? WE WILL HAVE NO ABILITY TO SHOOT BACK BECAUSE AFTER THE STRIKE OUR MISSILE BASES WILL BE GONE BOMBERS WILL BE GONE AND NAVY HELPLESS WHY CANT THE NAVY RETALIATE ? THEY CANT BECAUSE CLINTON TOOK THEIR NUKES AWAY. THIS COUNTRY IS IN DANGER.

CLINTONS PDD-25 PUTS THE UN IN CONTROL OF OUR ARMY HA YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS ? IT MEANS OUR PRESIDENTS WONT BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE WORLDS STRONGEST MILITARY.

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU ELECT THOSE PEACENIK LIBERALS.

THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES OF LIBERALS WEAKENING THE U.S.

HOW MANY OF YOU GUYS WHO LOVED LIBERALS KNEW ABOUT THIS STUFF ?

IF KERRY HE WOULD DO HIS BEST TO WEAKEN THE COUNTRY'S MILITARY AND DEFENSES AND SNEAK MORE POLICIES LIKE CLINTONS PDD JUNK.

ONE MORE PROBLEM LIBERALS LIKE CLINTON GIVE TECHNOLOGY AWAY TO COUNTRIES THAT POSE A THREAT TO US. COUNTRIES LIKE CHINA HE GAVE THEM TECHNOLOGY TO BETTER THEIR NUCLEAR MISSILES BETTER DISTANCES AND EVERYTHING.

GET A WIFF OF THIS EVERYBODY HERE REMEMBERS HOW WE GAVE TAWIAN WAR TOYS WITH OUT LIP FROM CHINA NOW THAT CLINTON GAVE THEM TECHNOLOGY THEY THREATEN TO BLOW UP LA IF WE INTERFERE BETWEEN CHINA TAKING TAWAIN IN WAR.

THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT U.S. SUPPORTING TAWAIN WHEN CHINA IS TAKING IT BACK. ANSWER IS NO U.S. WILL NOT GET INVOVLED BECUASE OF THE FEAR OF CHINA BLOWING UP OUR CITIES.

clinton put the u.s. in bad shape liberals put the u.s. in bad shape period.

BUSH TOOK THE BURDEN OF CLEANING UP HIS MESS

the point is that i feel safer with a republican in power



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Ok, homework started - more to follow.

In Kerry’s first Senate campaign, he attacked President Reagan’s military spending and called for cuts of $50 billion in the Pentagon budget.

In 1991-92, he voted to cut more than $3 billion from the defence bill. In 1992 he backed cuts in the B2 stealth bomber programme, priced at $2 billion per aircraft. In 1995 and 1996, he voted against key defence bills. In total, Republican lobbyists list 13 weapons systems that they say Kerry opposed in the Senate, including some used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Times Online

At a nationally televised debate on January 29, Massachusetts senator John F. Kerry delivered the jaw-dropping assessment that the threat of terrorism had been "exaggerated" by the Bush administration. Terrorism, he asserted, was "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world — the very thing this [Bush] administration is worst at."

One might have thought it more than a tad daring for anyone to tell post-9/11 America that the jihadists who have killed thousands of us since 1993 are not so big a deal after all. It should have seemed even more startling coming from Senator Kerry, since he would lay the exaggerated problem in the lap of intelligence agencies whose funding he could not cut deeply enough as a lawmaker. But this is par for the course. After the Cold War, it was the need for intelligence itself that Senator Kerry thought was exaggerated. When the good senator uses that e-word, it's probably time to start buying insurance.
National Review

The Center for Security Policy has analyzed more than 75 votes over the past decade cast by Mr. Kerry and other senators. The Washington-based conservative think tank gave Mr. Kerry one of the lowest ratings of any senator.
In 1995, for instance, the group gave Mr. Kerry a rank of five out of a possible 100. In 1997, Mr. Kerry earned a zero from the Center for Security Policy, which identifies its goal as "promoting international peace through American strength."
Among the votes the group evaluated were nine Mr. Kerry cast against developing a missile-defense system envisioned to protect the United States from nuclear attack. Also noted are the six times in the past 10 years he voted to freeze or reduce defense spending. Mr. Kerry also cast two votes to loosen trade controls over "dual-use" technology such as U.S.-made high-speed computers that can also be used by enemies to build high-tech weaponry.
Washington Times

Senator John Kerry, D-MA, unwittingly tried to help a Chinese espionage agent and arms dealer in 1996 in return for campaign contributions for his Senate reelection campaign, according to congressional and other documents, interviews, and photographs.
Unwittingly???? yeah right!
MSNBC

Seems my homework is done for the night but I would like to remind everyone of the damage done by the last politician that took Chinese campaign money and the detrimental effect it is having on national security today - I sure don't want a repeat of that mess.

Yeah I'll have to agree with the thread starter that modern democrats have in the main been bad news for national security.

ah, gotta point out that the caps thing is a faux pau though - makes it hard to read! don't let em get to ya like that.

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by blacman2k6
This has been going on for a while and its not good for us, you may be thinking this military/security stuff dont matter and doesnt affect you. It affects you a great deal trust me on that.

One more thing DEMOCRATS SUCK ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND SECURITY.



[Edited on 31-5-2004 by blacman2k6]


Look at this post? I can't believe you guys are going back and forth about it. There are no facts, no references. Nothing about the Bush cuts to combat pay, his cuts to veteran benefits. Nothing about Kerry's voting record, how he wanted to pay for Iraq using Bush's tax cuts, instead of just not paying for it at all. Obviously, I don't like Bush, but there is nothing to support his claim that "DEMOCRATS SUCK ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND SECURITY. " Just let this thread die or move it to the Mud Pit. There are a lot of new people now, and I don't think we should reward baseless posts with responses. I don't think you should say "I THINK DEMOCRATS SUCK ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND SECURITY" Now discuss. That's Pit stuff.

EDIT: IMHO

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
pdd-60 is still there its going to hurt us one day im tellin guys democrats are tryin to destroy us



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I figure, if we're at peace whats the need on increase defense spending? I mean its common sense, if there are no wars; improve your domestic problems.

But since we're at war (thanks Mr. Bush) I guess we don't have that option.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I must take exception.........that is not pit stuff either......we just see to be having some nice folks that are format challenged...........It's a training problem...frustrating but still one of training.

Gentle, and challenging questions will begin to take effect in a few week of intensive intervension before the poster begins to see the light and responds to the change agent.

Have some faith. IT's long hard work but it is effective.





posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
The offer of the French wine still stands my friends.

The US cannot take on the whole world alone, and the rest of the planet isn't quite keen on your take on things if you haven't noticed.

Maybe this war can't be won with military might alone. No one in the militant Islamic circles seems too mad at countries like China, maybe there is something to learn from that cowboys.

The governments of Europe and Asia are much older and more experenced than the "neo-cons" or whatever you Americans want to call your super-conservitive branch.

And there is one glairing lie that I have so far read on here, the Cold War ended durring the administration of Bush Sr. NOT Regan, look up when the wall fell and the USSR broke up if you doubt.

Well bon soir Americans, I do warn you though, keep up your cowboy ways and you will see your empire shrivel and die, much like the "Wild West" did.

~Astral



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Why can't we take on the world alone? We have Nuclear Weapons, only Russia can oppose us, and I'm sure we could strike a deal, they get everything east of Germany and west of the International Date-Line or some crazy thing like that.

Point is, no one can truly challenge us except Russia but economically they are through.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Astral City
Gotta love the conservitaves hahaha they can spin lies and misinformation like no others!

Basically, bottom line Republicans, do your homework before you shoot your foot into your mouth.

~Astral


So, tell me shepperd wannabe, exactly which part that I said is misinformation or lies?....... You are basically just ranting your opinion without contributing any information or links to backup what you wrote.

BTW, I did post a link that has other links that corroborates all of what I said.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
GMN,
I really do not understand your post. I think you meant "I chalked it" not "I caulked it up", to cultural differences. Your signature says Florida. Your post says Rome - what is it?

As far as the rest of your post - it simply declines. What are you talking about?

I've looked at many of your other posts - they simply do not make sense for the most part. There is a reason for this! But that needs not to be posted!!


Common sense...........don't go south on me now.......I am tryingly challenged. Ill try to do better with it and not miss typing some of the words I mean to say.................

but the questions, it's to damned confusing to try to explain what I miss and what I ment that it will take more time then its worth and tou'll be to bed by the time I get it done............can you cut me some stylitic slack here?

I have every confidence you can figure it out.........sure is a task simpler the the Times crossword puzzle ......I can even do that one..........so thsi other thing should be a snap for you.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Now curme maybe you missed my post with some facts and links, but I have to ask can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and say this, I'm pretty new here as it goes but I can remember your your first posts and let me tell ya they were'nt much different - lay off the new guy he'll learn just like you did.

Quoting curme,
" I don't like Bush, but there is nothing to support his claim that "DEMOCRATS SUCK ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND SECURITY. " Just let this thread die or move it to the Mud Pit. There are a lot of new people now, and I don't think we should reward baseless posts with responses. I don't think you should say "I THINK DEMOCRATS SUCK ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND SECURITY" Now discuss. That's Pit stuff."

Its a legitimate post, maybe not well worded and partisan to the core but there are concerns about the democratic record of undermining U.S. national security in favor of campaign contributions as well as pandering for more votes from the left wing of the democratic party by voting for such things as nuclear freezes and weapon system cuts. It is an issue fairly on the table.

Now I'm not flaming you and don't intend this as such, just give the guy a break like others did for you.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
And reply to the same author, "maybe you should learn from that cowboys" what? hahahah God why must some people be so poorly informed.

China has a HUGE islamic problem in one of their provences (I forget which something like Xhiang) and they have been known to brutally quell these islamic acts of terrorism in China which is why it is pretty minimal.

The Islamic Fundamentalists hate everyone see my thread about "who Al Qaeda really is"...I'm sick of people thinking America is making the situation worse.

Your lack of action is what made a situation at all. America is cleaning up your mess, and I guarantee you, when my generation comes in power, we're going to demand retribution from you, retribution and payment. We've given a lot as a nation and my generation is not very forgiving or charitable.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
vote liberal and you might as well just disband the military.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Astral City

Maybe this war can't be won with military might alone. No one in the militant Islamic circles seems too mad at countries like China, maybe there is something to learn from that cowboys.
~Astral


HAHAHA.....appart from your offer of French wine this statement tells me you must be French..... You want the US to be more like CHINA?....lol....oh boy......oh, yeah I forgot....France did join China in showing their military might at the time of the "free elections in Taiwan..." When China stated they will not allow the independance of Taiwan....

Not only that but France seems to adapt and support radical Islam more and more..... First helping radical Islamics on the genocide in Rwanda against non-Muslim blacks, and the last thing one of your parliamentarians wanted to do was give nukes to Islamic extremist countries.....yeah...we can see the tendency of your country to want to help in oppression and genocide...

And you do warn us?....keep your warnings for some country that is as much of a wimp, as your beloved France..... Just as Coűteaux said in his statement in 2001 that France and some other European countries are collectively cowards lol

.........Paul Marie Couteax made a stunning statement......................"So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice."

Excerpted from.

www3.europarl.eu.int...




[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
www.newsmax.com.../3/24/190515

A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America’s Heart
Joel M. Skousen
March 25, 1999

In November 1997, President Clinton signed a top-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to abandon the time-honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning."
Ironically, this was done in the name of "increased deterrence." Every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background.

The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the heels of Clinton’s demand to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of the START II disarmament treaty. This pact has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma.

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn’t comply, since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Decision Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn’t be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads.

According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (November/December 1997 issue), "the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union."



www.newsmax.com...

How the Left Caused the 9-11 Attacks
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Editor's note: This is the first part of a series.
WASHINGTON – Blame the security breakdowns that led to Sept. 11 on the U.S. left, David Horowitz says in a powerful fact-filled pamphlet titled "How the Left Undermined America’s Security.”

Horowitz knows the left like the back of his hand. He was a "Red diaper baby” raised in a communist home. The 1960s "destructive generation” (his term) caused his ideological flip-flop, especially when it became clear to him that murder was not out of the question in achieving left-wing goals in the U.S. He is now a dedicated pro-American conservative.

His new booklet does contain a lot of chapter and verse about the trivialization and near obliteration of security during the Clinton era. However, it is not a "Clinton-bashing” polemic. Horowtiz says the blame belongs on the shoulders of the entire left-wing establishment. That means the politicians, the media, academia and all other powerful outlets controlled by the leftist establishment.

So let’s start with warnings ignored and opportunities missed.



www.uhuh.com...


THE CLINTON administration quietly made a significant change in U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in 1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. The new presidential decision directive (PDD), details of which were first reported in The Washington Post on December 7, operates from the premise that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era is deterrence. In a December 23 interview, Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, provided additional information about the PDD and clarified some misperceptions in the press with respect to the Clinton administration's policy on "launch on warning" and the use of nuclear weapons against a chemical or biological weapons attack.

*edit*
Do not post entire articles....2-4 paragraphs dealing with what you wish to present will suffice.


[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
If I was out of line, I apologize.

EDIT: Oops! I meant to press 'Preview' not 'Post'. Jsobecky is right, not about me and my posts, but that some people are new and are still getting the hang of ATS. I'm sorry to the poster if I sounded like a jerk. I shouldn't of went off, I should of handled it better.

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Don't be too hard on yourself.............its reasuring to know there are human being around............



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
its cool itz just a small disscussion people are supposed to go off, itz all good.

after all it iz mudpit rite


[Edited on 31-5-2004 by blacman2k6]



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by blacman2k6
its cool itz just a small disscussion people are supposed to go off, itz all good.

after all it iz mudpit rite


[Edited on 31-5-2004 by blacman2k6]


Whoa, I think one of the reasons you aren't taken seriously (aside from your curiously absent sitations in your posts early in this discussion) would be that you write like you probably speak.

That lends itself to you being young (most likely in highschool).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join