Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

John Kerry on Defense -- From SSGT Chambers to my Inbox

Mar 16, 2004 1:33PM PST

I hadn't seen this list printed until today.
.
So... send it to as many voters as you can!)

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988 He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16 He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade He voted to Kill the B-1 He voted to Kill the B-2 He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system He voted to Kill the FA-18 He voted to Kill the B-2 He voted to Kill the F117 In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by
800%!!! Is THIS a President YOU want?

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
more information here:
Mar 16, 2004 2:11PM PST
- Collapse -
NT Thanks for the links, Ian:)
Mar 17, 2004 1:01AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
I'm not a Kerry fan, but ...
Mar 17, 2004 10:32AM PST

We need more context to interpret those votes. Most lawmakers have been in positions where they voted against bills containing things they liked because the bills also contained things that the lawmaker found intolerable. I suspect that you could also compile a list of pro-military and pro-national security bills that Kerry DID vote for.

With that many votes it seems likely that there were some that represent a real reluctance to adequately fund the military and national security but it is not possible to know that for certain without more information.

- Collapse -
Re:I'm not a Kerry fan, but ...
Mar 17, 2004 2:03PM PST
Most lawmakers have been in positions where they voted against bills containing things they liked because the bills also contained things that the lawmaker found intolerable.

True enough. And when vote against spending one time and it passes anyway, another vote later against spending on something similair looks like opposes all spending, but may mean just trying to limit at some level.

That said, overall what I've read about his votes don't appeal to me.

I'll grant that between the breakup of USSR and the first Iraq war, anyone might have been tempted to vote to severely restrict military spending because it might look like there was no need for it.

Military money must be allowed for unknown abilities by unknowable future enemies. That means it's a hard line to walk between paranoid obsession on more, more, more and being unprepared and ill equiped when something happens.

I think the intelligence money and planning or lack of it would have to be considered jointly with the military planning, research, and funding.

And both have been roundly critized lately for not being ready or doing their job. How much of that is shortages of funds, how much mismanagement of funds available, and how much is just an naive (if feel good) belief that the cycle was broken may be impossible to determine.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Re:John Kerry on Defense -- From SSGT Chambers to my Inbox
Mar 17, 2004 12:44PM PST

Hi, Glenda.

The amount we spend on "defense" is obscene. Ten years after the end of the cold war, our "defense" budget was more than $100 billion larger than the 10 next largest defense budgets combined! The stas (from 2001, before the recent increases) are to be found here. In any rational society, Kerry could vote to slash defense spending by 75% and not reasonably be called "soft on defense," but America is not rational on this issue!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!


-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) anyone have a link converting that to % of GNP for those countries?
Mar 17, 2004 2:04PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: converting that to % of GNP for those countries -- Totally irrelevant
Mar 17, 2004 10:37PM PST

Hi, Roger.

That's a totally irrelevant issue. The key question is the absolute amount spent on the military and associated hardware. We spend too damn much! Part of the problem, of course, is that we're spending in part to replace money that should be being spent by other countries (notably Europe and Japan) and isn't. But don't you find it ironic that the richest nation in the world is budgeting money to provide American taxpayer-provided universal health care for Iraqis (as part of the reconstuction budget), and we aren't even providing that for our own citizens? Our priorities are completely out of whack, especially for what is supposedly a Christian nation.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I have to disagree some
Mar 17, 2004 11:16PM PST

Percentage of GNP vs absolute isn't totally irrelevant. Both are relevant. Bascially USSR lost the cold war because it couldn't afford it any longer.

After all, it percentage of income was irrelevant, the guy making $1,000,000 should pay the exact same tax as the guy making $10,000. Ok, not exact, but shows idea.

It would be relevant if you were talking about anything else. In fact, criticism of military spending often talk about how it's such a large part of the budget compared to whatever program the critic is advocating.

Ironic? well maybe, but priorities vary so much from person to person, it's a miracle any can be set at all for a nation. And every view has it's own contradictions and ironies in the things it advocates. And there is some differences, considering the shape Iraq is in right now, it may be necessary part of the restructuring. Now I certainly hope that is a temporary measure.

Interesting at least that you state we're spending money that should be partly replaced by other countries. We've provided the military for a lot of the world since WWII. But then, everyone else assumes we will, even while criticising us simitaneously for being arrogant in using it and for not using it somewhere else they would prefer.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com