southsider2k5 Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Should the military have a bank check to spend whatever they feel is necessary? As opposed to a money order Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 As opposed to a money order I changed it, thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Should the military have a blank check to spend whatever they feel is necessary? No they shouldn't and I've never said they should. But giving the military less money would inevitably lead to not having the same resources, no? I'm sure a cut in welfare benefits, environmental funding, social security benefits, etc. does not get the same "Should they have their own bank account?" question from you. Kerry votes to cut defense spending: Should the military have a blank check? Bush wants to cut education spending: My God, will we ever be rid of this Satanic madman!? But seeing as this thread originally began as a discussion of which candidate is better suited to protecting the United States from her enemies, I'd choose the one that is for increasing defense spending over the one that has historically been for cutting defense spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 No they shouldn't and I've never said they should. But giving the military less money would inevitably lead to not having the same resources, no? I'm sure a cut in welfare benefits, environmental funding, social security benefits, etc. does not get the same "Should they have their own bank account?" question from you. Kerry votes to cut defense spending: Should the military have a blank check? Bush wants to cut education spending: My God, will we ever be rid of this Satanic madman!? But seeing as this thread originally began as a discussion of which candidate is better suited to protecting the United States from her enemies, I'd choose the one that is for increasing defense spending over the one that has historically been for cutting defense spending. Isn't it up to our elected leaders to decide how our tax dollars are spent? You are correct, cutting social programs and the left cries "your starving babies and old people. Cut the military and the right cries "we're defenseless". We cannot give any area of the government a blank check. Do you believe that every single expenditure the military asks for should be funded and at whatever level they ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Isn't it up to our elected leaders to decide how our tax dollars are spent? You are correct, cutting social programs and the left cries "your starving babies and old people. Cut the military and the right cries "we're defenseless". We cannot give any area of the government a blank check. Do you believe that every single expenditure the military asks for should be funded and at whatever level they ask? No, I don't. I'm sure when a budget is proposed it is based on specific things, i.e. OK 10 new Apache helicopters at $10,000,000 a pop leads to a $X billion budget. I can only assume that Kerry's votes cutting funding was because he felt they were spending too much. Maybe he felt we didn't need so many spies or analysts or maybe he didn't feel we needed to spend $500 for pencil sharpeners, but at any rate, he felt that branch was getting too much money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 No, I don't. I'm sure when a budget is proposed it is based on specific things, i.e. OK 10 new Apache helicopters at $10,000,000 a pop leads to a $X billion budget. I can only assume that Kerry's votes cutting funding was because he felt they were spending too much. Maybe he felt we didn't need so many spies or analysts or maybe he didn't feel we needed to spend $500 for pencil sharpeners, but at any rate, he felt that branch was getting too much money. Sometimes it is stuff like this By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Marine Corps grounded all eight of its high-tech MV-22 Osprey aircraft Tuesday following a fiery crash in North Carolina that killed four Marines - including the service's most experienced Osprey pilot. The accident raised new doubts about the future of the tilt-rotor plane. Defense Secretary William Cohen, a supporter of the $40 billion Osprey program, planned to appoint a panel of outside experts to review Osprey performance, cost and safety issues, Cohen spokesman Kenneth Bacon said. Gen. James L. Jones, the Marine Corps commandant, asked for an indefinite delay in a Navy Department decision on whether to move the Osprey into full-scale production, Bacon said. That decision had been expected this month and the Marines had hoped to assemble their first squadron of Ospreys next year. The crash Monday night in a forested area near Jacksonville, N.C., was the second fatal Osprey accident this year. Three bodies had been recovered from the burnt wreckage; one had yet to be retrieved Tuesday. Three of the people killed in Osprey accidents were from here. That hit home. I respect a leader who will vote his concious. I never believed Reagan's assertion that we would have a "peace dividend" to spend when the Soviet Empire was gone. Some people tried to limit defense spending after the USSR fell and they have been criticized ever sense. I do not believe if we had double the budget that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I keep reading there was too much chatter, too much information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 unlike the Clinton administration which protected the homeland from terrorism Did he protect us or was he fortunate to not have anything happen on his watch? Oh wait WTC 1993 KOBHAR Towers 1996 Embassy bombings 1998 USS Cole 2000 While all this was going on he slashed the budgets of the CIA and slapped all sorts of new restrictions on their activity, dismantled 8 full active Army Divisions and god knows what damage he did to the rest of the military. Yeah, his record of protecting the homeland is nothing less than stellar. Try again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Did he protect us or was he fortunate to not have anything happen on his watch? Oh wait WTC 1993 KOBHAR Towers 1996 Embassy bombings 1998 USS Cole 2000 While all this was going on he slashed the budgets of the CIA and slapped all sorts of new restrictions on their activity, dismantled 8 full active Army Divisions and god knows what damage he did to the rest of the military. Yeah, his record of protecting the homeland is nothing less than stellar. Try again And where was the American people? Where was the rush to buy American flags? Where were the people singing God Bless America? Where were the signs? Where was the outpouring of indignation? Where were all the Senators and Congressmen demanding action? No, the action they wanted was more info on Monica. Maybe if Clinton could have controlled his penis, and the GOP could have decided to watch what was happening instead of holding impeachment hearings, we would have done something. I blame the Clinton and Monica mess for this. It distracted everyone from these acts of terrorism. The Dems, the GOP, the American people. I do not think you can blame one political party and not the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 And where was the American people? Where was the rush to buy American flags? Where were the people singing God Bless America? Where were the signs? Where was the outpouring of indignation? Where were all the Senators and Congressmen demanding action? No, the action they wanted was more info on Monica. Maybe if Clinton could have controlled his penis, and the GOP could have decided to watch what was happening instead of holding impeachment hearings, we would have done something. I blame the Clinton and Monica mess for this. It distracted everyone from these acts of terrorism. The Dems, the GOP, the American people. I do not think you can blame one political party and not the other. So it was the GOP's fault? Clinton mothballs the military and hamstrings the CIA and tells Sudan to bug off when they offered to hand us Bin Laden back in 1996 allowing the threat from Islamic terrorism to grow and it was the GOP's fault? Do you even believe what you say sometimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 So it was the GOP's fault? Clinton mothballs the military and hamstrings the CIA and tells Sudan to bug off when they offered to hand us Bin Laden back in 1996 allowing the threat from Islamic terrorism to grow and it was the GOP's fault? Do you even believe what you say sometimes? Nuke, We have to demand leaders who will work together. It was EVERYONES fauilt. Was the GOP just sitting there with their thumbs up their ass? I voted for two GOP senators to go to Washington and work. What the hell were they doing? If they were not going to do anything then why the hell did they run? I thought they had a hand in the budget process. Since only the Dems were responsible for this did the GOP at least get the hell out of the way if they didn't want to help; or did they actively try and make Cinton look bad? I can't believe you do not think our elected representatives have any responsibility in this. Mothballs the military? You guys were just sitting around reading Playboy? What the hell was the military doing? Do they stop working when a Democrat is elected. I thought they had some pride. Instead it was "Nope, we can't do anything, he cut our budget 5% and won't fund any new stuff so we are defenseless and cannot do a damn thing." Any soldier, any CIA agent, any FBI agent who will stop doing their jobs if Kerry is elected should be tried for treason. Using your logic the Dems should not be blamed for anything that happens while Bush is President? All the lawyers and all the Presidents men could not find a LEGAL reason to hold him. Too bad some people actually believe in our constitution. Do you think Clinton did not want to make a major arrest and divert some of the attention from the Impeachment hearings? How many people should we arrest now because they might commit a crime in 5 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Nuke, We have to demand leaders who will work together. It was EVERYONES fauilt. Was the GOP just sitting there with their thumbs up their ass? I voted for two GOP senators to go to Washington and work. What the hell were they doing? If they were not going to do anything then why the hell did they run? I thought they had a hand in the budget process. Since only the Dems were responsible for this did the GOP at least get the hell out of the way if they didn't want to help; or did they actively try and make Cinton look bad? I can't believe you do not think our elected representatives have any responsibility in this. Mothballs the military? You guys were just sitting around reading Playboy? What the hell was the military doing? Do they stop working when a Democrat is elected. I thought they had some pride. Instead it was "Nope, we can't do anything, he cut our budget 5% and won't fund any new stuff so we are defenseless and cannot do a damn thing." Any soldier, any CIA agent, any FBI agent who will stop doing their jobs if Kerry is elected should be tried for treason. Using your logic the Dems should not be blamed for anything that happens while Bush is President? All the lawyers and all the Presidents men could not find a LEGAL reason to hold him. Too bad some people actually believe in our constitution. Do you think Clinton did not want to make a major arrest and divert some of the attention from the Impeachment hearings? How many people should we arrest now because they might commit a crime in 5 years? Yea, and if Kerry is elected, we will have 3.5 years of how everything was Bush's fault, and the media will push and push and push this thought so as to keep their boy in the White House for 8 full years. But in today's scenario, everything that happened in GWB's White House started the DAY HE TOOK OFFICE. Hypcritical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Yea, and if Kerry is elected, we will have 3.5 years of how everything was Bush's fault, and the media will push and push and push this thought so as to keep their boy in the White House for 8 full years. But in today's scenario, everything that happened in GWB's White House started the DAY HE TOOK OFFICE. Hypcritical? I don't remember the GOP claiming we needed Carter in the White House to help release the hostages. I think it is a mistake to allow our elected leaders to pass the buck to the other party. There are too many politicians willing to take credit for everything and none of the blame. We have to hold every elected official responsible. Did the GOP campaign on a platform of "well Clinton is the President and there isn't anything we can do? Bush was only in office for 9 months prior to 9/11. Did he need Clinton to stay and read the reports to him? 9/11 was not the first attack on US soil, hell it wasn't the first attack on the WTC. Where were all our leaders? Where was the US people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I don't remember the GOP claiming we needed Carter in the White House to help release the hostages. I think it is a mistake to allow our elected leaders to pass the buck to the other party. There are too many politicians willing to take credit for everything and none of the blame. We have to hold every elected official responsible. Did the GOP campaign on a platform of "well Clinton is the President and there isn't anything we can do? Bush was only in office for 9 months prior to 9/11. Did he need Clinton to stay and read the reports to him? 9/11 was not the first attack on US soil, hell it wasn't the first attack on the WTC. Where were all our leaders? Where was the US people? But the mainstream media sure as hell likes to make it a huge ass story every time some Dem wants to talk about BUSH not doing enough against terrorism before 9/11. That's my point. They are all guilty... but the media likes to tell us all the crap that Bush has done wrong, and by NOT bringing up past failures, the psyche of the people will slowly be turned into it's all Bush's fault. And I think that's unfair. But that's our media today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 But the mainstream media sure as hell likes to make it a huge ass story every time some Dem wants to talk about BUSH not doing enough against terrorism before 9/11. That's my point. They are all guilty... but the media likes to tell us all the crap that Bush has done wrong, and by NOT bringing up past failures, the psyche of the people will slowly be turned into it's all Bush's fault. And I think that's unfair. But that's our media today. Hence the popularity of fox news and talk radio. People are tired of the left wing slant to the "mainstream media" these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Hence the popularity of fox news and talk radio. People are tired of the left wing slant to the "mainstream media" these days. It's popular, but most mainstream America don't listen or watch those - it's the big three networks, newpapers, and CNN that are most of the news today - at least the majority of Americans think so. And therefore, they get that BUSH SUCKS slant most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Mothballs the military? You guys were just sitting around reading Playboy? What the hell was the military doing? Do they stop working when a Democrat is elected. I thought they had some pride. Instead it was "Nope, we can't do anything, he cut our budget 5% and won't fund any new stuff so we are defenseless and cannot do a damn thing." Any soldier, any CIA agent, any FBI agent who will stop doing their jobs if Kerry is elected should be tried for treason. I'm sorry, but where is this coming from? I have never once heard of a soldier or officer refusing to do anything. The military does what the Commander-In-Chief wants it to do. Had the military gone on strike during the Clinton years and I didn't realize it? Has a strike been threatened if Kerry wins the election? If not, lets jump off the treason bridge when we come to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I'm sorry, but where is this coming from? I have never once heard of a soldier or officer refusing to do anything. The military does what the Commander-In-Chief wants it to do. Had the military gone on strike during the Clinton years and I didn't realize it? Has a strike been threatened if Kerry wins the election? If not, lets jump off the treason bridge when we come to it. This was in response to Nuke_Cleveland So it was the GOP's fault? Clinton mothballs the military and hamstrings the CIA and tells Sudan to bug off when they offered to hand us Bin Laden back in 1996 allowing the threat from Islamic terrorism to grow and it was the GOP's fault? Do you even believe what you say sometimes? So we agree that the military was not mothballed and the CIA continued to do it's job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 This was in response to Nuke_Cleveland So we agree that the military was not mothballed and the CIA continued to do it's job. Maybe I wasn't too clear. I did mention the fact that he sliced off 8 full divisions, and I dont know how many Air Force combat wings. Did he shut us down.......no. Did he weaken us......hell yes and that's why we dont have enough soldiers to carry out our missions in the war on terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Here's a pro-Kerry poster I can live with.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Maybe I wasn't too clear. I did mention the fact that he sliced off 8 full divisions, and I dont know how many Air Force combat wings. Did he shut us down.......no. Did he weaken us......hell yes and that's why we dont have enough soldiers to carry out our missions in the war on terrorism. Did we have enough men to fight WW1? Did we have enough men to fight WW2? Did we have enough men to fight Korea? Did we have enough men to fight Viet Nam? No. We had to add men after the war broke out. What should our staffing be? Do we have the correct staffing now or is Bush weakening us. How big of a tax increase will the American public support to hire more military in times of peace? What if the Chinese come at us in 2007, do we have enough staffing? Last year our budget was just at 2 Trillion dollars. Why don't we ask the military how much they want, give it to them, and then use the rest for the CIA, FBI, Social Security, etc.? ANything less than giving them 100% of what they want is weakening America and by golly we do not want that. I fondly recall the Reagan years when he promised us a peace dividend. All those savings on the military after the cold war ended. All the savings in personnel by going to high tech, and unmanned weapons. I guess those didn't pan out also. We can never have enough military might in times of war. We can never afford to pay for them in times of peace. Although maybe cutting military pay 25% so we can hire more people is the answer. It would make our military competively priced with other militaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.