U.S. Military Support?

[David Hurlbert]

I know my comments may be considered a bit off the subject, but my comments do have to do with supporting our military. Furthermore, I know that many of you might not have a military background, but I am really having problems understanding all these pleas with al-Sadr for negotiations and talks! The solution here is simple.....very simple! I am thinking that these maneuvers for talks must be the works of the “new Iraqi government” trying to exercise their newfound authority, but has any of these leaders every heard of a thing called a siege --- Helloooooooo? You surround the place (outside small arms effective range); kill anyone that tries to leave without properly surrendering or anyone trying to enter this "death zone," and you WAIT. Trust me, it would not take long for al-Sadr’s big stomach to want food. Then you arrest all these idiots and put them on trial as enemy combatants and execute them! These “final call” pleas for the militants to disarm are ridiculous and not one American or Iraqi warrior should be killed in such an operation.

 

[yurry]

The problem with Kerry is the problem with ANY democrat. They love to make cuts to the military. Clinton did it, and so will Kerry because that's the agenda of his political party. Kerry might be more experienced in military service, but if you're in the military then voting Bush would be more in your interests for job security.

Now as far as Kerry vs Bush for Iraq, the War on Terror, etc ... well, Kerry has yet to suggest any new ideas in any detail, and based on his voting record in the Senate, he'd have done everything the same as Bush has so far.

Altough I am not an American and don't have the insight I have to disagree with this. It isn't about the party example - democratic presidents led the US through both world wars (Wilson, Roosvelt, Truman), also Kenedy was a democrat and he averted a nuclear war in the time of the Cuban Crisis. I can't imagine what would hapen if lets say Bush went in with guns blazing :rambo: :cowbdifferent periods, I know, but still ...)

And if you still think that only democratic presidents would pull out of a war it was Nixon who pulled out of Nam (but I must agree that the disaster came under Johnson)

Just some thughts tough :idea:

 

[godofthunder9010]

Yurry, some thoughs for you in response. The Democratic Party has consistently cut the military in every Presidency they've headed anytime recently. They also seem to have a terrible habit of getting the USA into wars caught with our pants down. Firstly, every presidency from Roosevelt back is a poor example to go on because of the US's Isolationist Policy toward the rest of the world.

Clinton never acted militarily until well after he should have, and never did it quite right. He cut US military strength in half, it was the military intelligence of HIS administration that is to blame for any lack of forknowledge of 9/11 or of Iraq.

Jimmy Carter had the dubious distinction of being President at America's lowest point, and nothing he ever did helped to change that feeling. He did little or nothing to improve the US's military strength, but consistently moved against steps to improve the military and its technology. (Regan quite rapidly changed that.)

Kennedy was challenged by the Soviets because they thought he was weak and would fold under pressure, but thankfully he was not the spineless leader they had hoped he would be. Kennedy was a decent president IMO. Bear in mind, Eisenhowewr was a man they didn't dare screw with.

Johnson dragged us into Vietnam and his administration screwed the whole thing up to the point that Nixon could not possibly have salvaged anything.

Truman was president for the end of WW2 and dropped the Atomic Bombs. The world has held that against us ever since. Even so, I agree with the reasoning for dropping them as justifiable. He also led us to a draw in the Korean Conflict, which does not equate to victory or defeat.

Nixon, as I mentioned, was unable to salvage a very good outcome from Vietnam, but he did as good anyone could have under the circumstances. Nixon then turns around and radically alters the dynamics of US forein policy by recognizing the Communist government of China and absolutely scared the crap out of the Soviet Union with the posibility of a US/China alliance possibility implied in the improved relations.

Eisenhower, as I said, was not a man that the Communist empire wanted to test with things like Cuba and missiles.

Regan built the US military was instramental in helping the Cold War end. He is not to be creditted with ending it, the Russian people did that. But he did put forth a strong USA and forced the situation that proved the inherent flaws in the Communist system. In short, his presidency hastened the collapse of the Iron Curtain and Communist Block. Without a show of strength on the part of the US, the hardline wackjobs of the Soviet Union would have never relinquished power nor allowed for a man like Gorbechev to institute policies of change. Why change when every indication shows them winning the Cold War?

Bush Sr was a logical continuation of that and his presidency see's the last of the collapse of the "invincible" Communist Empire in Europe. People recently criticize his not taking out Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, but a regime change in Iraq was never his goal in that conflict. The liberation of Kuwait was, and that was accomplished in MUCH less than a 1 year.

The rest of the world seems to love Democrats and hate Republicans for whatever reasons. That bias is quite evident in the attitudes of nearly every foreigner I've ever met and it really puzzles me. The best I can guess is that Republican presidents scare them.

 

[David Hurlbert]

godofthunder, very good points!

 

[yurry]

The rest of the world seems to love Democrats and hate Republicans for whatever reasons. That bias is quite evident in the attitudes of nearly every foreigner I've ever met and it really puzzles me. The best I can guess is that Republican presidents scare them.

I think that is becouse of the fact that Democrates actualy value other nations opinions while Republicans are all for the US of A.

And we could also say that the time of huge militaries staring at each other is over so a few cutbacs don't hurt. This is proved also by the fact that most if not all countries wich currently have a draft system are going for the small proffesional army.

I must say that I never liked Republicans (as can be seen from my posts ) as they keep sticking their noses where it is not needed. One of the situations was that the US has kindly advised my country that they might just veto our NATO membership if we don't support the Iraq affair. We luckily had by the time very strong international support elsewhere and this never came to be. But we did loose US military "support funding" very quickly, wich was also contributed by the fact that we didn't sign the International Court document for not giving Americans to that court. While with Clinton we had no problems at all and he was one of the most popular presidents in the world at that time in Slovenia.

 

[RnderSafe]

I think that is becouse of the fact that Democrates actualy value other nations opinions while Republicans are all for the US of A.

:lol:

And we could also say that the time of huge militaries staring at each other is over so a few cutbacs don't hurt. This is proved also by the fact that most if not all countries wich currently have a draft system are going for the small proffesional army.

Small militaries are not a wise choice for nations such as the US, UK, etc.

One of the situations was that the US has kindly advised my country that they might just veto our NATO membership if we don't support the Iraq affair. We luckily had by the time very strong international support elsewhere and this never came to be.

Please provide proof of this claim. I do not recall the US ever threatening to veto Slovenia's NATO membership. The US was one the largest, if not the largest supporter of Slovenia's membership into NATO. Slovenia itself did not seem very excited about becoming a NATO member to begin with, only acquiring 66.02% support. The US did mistake Slovenia as a part of the coalition for the war in Iraq - but did nothing but remove the country's name from the list when the error was realised.

But we did loose US military "support funding" very quickly, wich was also contributed by the fact that we didn't sign the International Court document for not giving Americans to that court.

Your country lost military funding soley on the reason that they would not sign an article 98 agreement. It has nothing to do with the Iraqi war, that much is spin. Also, you fail to mention that in Nov. 2003, those military assistance cuts were waived for your country. (Presidential Determination No. 2004-09)

While with Clinton we had no problems at all and he was one of the most popular presidents in the world at that time in Slovenia.

I have no doubt that he was. :?

 

[godofthunder9010]

But we did loose US military "support funding" very quickly, wich was also contributed by the fact that we didn't sign the International Court document for not giving Americans to that court. While with Clinton we had no problems at all and he was one of the most popular presidents in the world at that time in Slovenia.

It's always puzzled me that we end up in the role of "Funder of all things" across the globe.

I can respect you views on the matter and where you're coming from. You don't have to like Republican presidents but try to remember that this (or any other) bias can blind you from seeing the whole picture very well. I can agree that Democrat presidents of the United States have a softer approach to foreign affairs. It tends to make all the world more comfortable with the US around. Republicans have had a more bold approach, and from what I've seen, that approach has generally been more potent at effecting change in the world. It also tends to piss off other courntries. There are some decisions of the current Bush Administration that I disagree with, but I prefer the more bold approach personally.

But believe it or not, I'm not a staunch Republican. No, the Republican Party pisses me off in completely different areas, but that's all off-topic.

 

[yurry]

Please provide proof of this claim. I do not recall the US ever threatening to veto Slovenia's NATO membership. The US was one the largest, if not the largest supporter of Slovenia's membership into NATO. Slovenia itself did not seem very excited about becoming a NATO member to begin with, only acquiring 66.02% support. The US did mistake Slovenia as a part of the coalition for the war in Iraq - but did nothing but remove the country's name from the list when the error was realised.

About the veto it was in the news, i'll try to dig out something but you have to remembre that it was quite a while ago. And the percetege on the referendum was actualy much greater than expected as there was a HUGE anti-NATO campagin by some nuts people before the referendum. This was where the goverment REALY feared that it could fail in contrast to the EU referendum. And the goverement also spent BIG summs of money on the pro-NATO campaign but it was not that eficient.

 

[SLR owner]

I noticed that most of the pro-Kerry side here seems to be younger. Hopefully , too young to vote :lol: . As far as illustrating why NOT to vote for Kerry , one only needs to heed the message of the swiftvets. Kerry has stabbed our military in the back before , and has consistently voted against funding the military over his 20 year waste of taxpayer money. This is all a matter of record. My feeling is that Mr. Kerry is toast , and that his popularity will only decline in the polls from here , and I am not so sure that the DNC doesn't want it that way so as to pump up Hillary in '08.
I would rather commit hairy - cary than vote for Kerry!
One can easily forgive the youth of America(or this board) for embracing the liberal view , for it was Winston Churchill who once said " Anyone who is young and not liberal has no heart , and anyone who is older and not more conservative has no brain "

 

[RnderSafe]

About the veto it was in the news, i'll try to dig out.

Please do. I remember the situation fairly well, and I do not recall the United States ever making such threats towards your country. In fact, I did quite a long search the other day and came up with nothing. The US was very supportive, even when your country did not want to assist with the Iraqi war (they were assisting with OEF), with your NATO membership.