stuckincincy Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 From GA to Washington State. Interesting. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aploca...ine%20Transfers
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Well Bush does have Georgia wrapped up, so why not try to win Washington by creating some military support jobs before the election. I just hope that in the next 4 years we won't be again saying, 'Remember the Maine'.
stuckincincy Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 (edited) So everything, even matters of your defense, is political? This is one more reason why I am in favor of a political dissolution of the Union. Your nation can defend itself, and we eventually will negotiate with your conquerors... And I hope you can build a life around lettuce, grapes, and apples. You sure as h*ll won't have any gasoline, wheat, beef, coal, corn, wood, pork, cotton, concrete and so on as provided by us rubes. Edited September 16, 2004 by stuckincincy
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 So everything, even matters of your defense, is political? This is one more reason why I am in favor of a political dissolution of the Union. Your nation can defend itself, and we eventually will negotiate with your conquerors... 33942[/snapback] Pipecleaners and BB guns for everyone!
stuckincincy Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Pipecleaners and BB guns for everyone! 33955[/snapback] Sorry - a clever chap could bend a pipecleaner so it looks like a pistol grip - can't have THAT. But back to the topic - moving of nuclear assets to the Pacific area...
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 So everything, even matters of your defense, is political? No, but our defense is often used as a political tool. One needs only look at all the porkbarrel defense projects that get approved. The building of ships in Mississippi in Trent Lott's district that were not needed by the Navy, and the fights that go on over the recommendations of the Base Closing commission come to mind. It would not be a stretch to think that assets being moved to a state that's in play from one that's not has political considerations in mind.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 No, but our defense is often used as a political tool. One needs only look at all the porkbarrel defense projects that get approved. The building of ships in Mississippi in Trent Lott's district that were not needed by the Navy, and the fights that go on over the recommendations of the Base Closing commission come to mind. It would not be a stretch to think that assets being moved to a state that's in play from one that's not has political considerations in mind. 34085[/snapback] Real surprise that you cited a Republican example.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Real surprise that you cited a Republican example. 34094[/snapback] What other example was he supposed to use? Democrats never use defense for political gain. Gays in the military and "Don't ask, don't tell" were vital to our national security interests...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 No, but our defense is often used as a political tool. One needs only look at all the porkbarrel defense projects that get approved. The building of ships in Mississippi in Trent Lott's district that were not needed by the Navy, and the fights that go on over the recommendations of the Base Closing commission come to mind. It would not be a stretch to think that assets being moved to a state that's in play from one that's not has political considerations in mind. 34085[/snapback] Yes, I agree with you... Republicans USE the miltary to fatten up their defense contractor pals in projects like the Star Wars system as an example, give the military less of a pay raise, and screw the veterans out of their benefits. The Democrats at least gave us much more of a pay raise when they controlled the White House! AND.................. Concurrent reciept is a major issue. HOWARD DEAN, more liberal than Kerry and most certainly Bush, said he would sign concurrent reciept legislation ON THE SPOT. Kerry says he would consider it, and yet ODDLY ENOUGH there is Bush.... where does HIS interest lie on this subject?? OBVIOUSLY not with veterans, that is for sure. What a crock.
blzrul Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 It may be because Fort Lewis is about to ship everyone the hell out of here.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 A prime example, 2005 budget to Congress: One of the biggest boondoggles is the $9.2 billion proposed for the National Missile Defense Agency, the revived version of the Reagan-era “Star Wars” program. This represents a 20 percent rise for a program that repeatedly failed to prove any practical success in destroying incoming missiles. The first 10 interceptors are to be operating this fall in Alaska and California, a schedule determined purely by electoral considerations, since the new weapons system has never to date intercepted anything. I HATE that Star Wars crap... what a waste of money.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 The Democrats at least gave us much more of a pay raise when they controlled the White House! Except you're full of stevestojan. Annual Military Pay Chart There is a cap on military pay raises of ECI MINUS .05%, unless Congress specifically authorizes more money.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 You missed all of my other points! Next time, I'll bring them up one at a time so they will each get proper recognition. All I hear is how Republicans are pro-military, and that's why I brought up the pay issue. HORSE HOCKEY! They aren't pro-military; they are pro-big business, i.e. defense contractors, and they use that as a campaign tool for the weak-minded. It's nice to know that we need to close all of these bases, while at the same time we are giving away billions of dollars to a project that is a failure, and serves no legitimate purpose. Have we not learned ANYTHING from the War on Terror? All ANYONE needs is unconventional methods of attacking us, and America is at risk.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 You missed all of my other points! Next time, I'll bring them up one at a time so they will each get proper recognition. All I hear is how Republicans are pro-military, and that's why I brought up the pay issue. HORSE HOCKEY! They aren't pro-military; they are pro-big business, i.e. defense contractors, and they use that as a campaign tool for the weak-minded. It's nice to know that we need to close all of these bases, while at the same time we are giving away billions of dollars to a project that is a failure, and serves no legitimate purpose. Have we not learned ANYTHING from the War on Terror? All ANYONE needs is unconventional methods of attacking us, and America is at risk. 34321[/snapback] NEWS FLASH: BOTH parties are full of crap. Virtually every argument made against one can be made against the other. People are apparently too stupid to know they are being lied to. The Pentagon "lost" a trillion dollars during the Clinton Administration, yet people still trumpet them as "fiscally responsible." Whatever. I didn't bother with any of the other "points" because that one was so absolutely ludicrous.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 NEWS FLASH: BOTH parties are full of crap. Virtually every argument made against one can be made against the other. People are apparently too stupid to know they are being lied to. I didn't bother with any of the other "points" because that one was so absolutely ludicrous. 34329[/snapback] OK, OK... I know that already! It's my ire talking!
/dev/null Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 umm. wasn't the Maine sunk like a hundred years ago? I seem to recall there was some little war over it... http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 A prime example, 2005 budget to Congress: One of the biggest boondoggles is the $9.2 billion proposed for the National Missile Defense Agency, the revived version of the Reagan-era “Star Wars” program. This represents a 20 percent rise for a program that repeatedly failed to prove any practical success in destroying incoming missiles. The first 10 interceptors are to be operating this fall in Alaska and California, a schedule determined purely by electoral considerations, since the new weapons system has never to date intercepted anything. I HATE that Star Wars crap... what a waste of money. 34207[/snapback] Well, actually...if you look at where the ABMs are placed, and then trace the great circle routes on a globe that a ballistic missile would take from North Korea to the continental US, you just might gain some insight into not only the administration's North Korea policy, but even their policy in regards to the war on terror. For what it's worth, I think the ABM system as it stands now is well worth pursuing and over-criticized by its critics...but nonetheless, not fully tested as an integrated system and not something that should be considered a full-up production weapons system. I also have strong questions/slight disagreements about some of the underlying national security policies that dictate its deployment. But there's far more to it than election year politicking.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Actually, the real reason the ships are going to Washington State is because Ahmad Chalabi and his nephew said there were WMD there.
Alaska Darin Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Actually, the real reason the ships are going to Washington State is because Ahmad Chalabi and his nephew said there were WMD there. 34433[/snapback] I fully expect Dan Rather to report that in the not too distant future.
blzrul Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Actually, the real reason the ships are going to Washington State is because Ahmad Chalabi and his nephew said there were WMD there. 34433[/snapback] You jackass. Now I'm gonna get my backyard tore up. ha
Recommended Posts