Kucinich, change your attitude on US defense/military

[Deja Q]

Otherwise I am for you 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent. :D

The American people WILL vote for Bush if you look as if you're neglecting the issue.

And thanks to Dickless Shrubbypants*, US defense will be an issue for years to come. People hate us now more than ever. :-(

"Dickless Shrubbypants" - not only does this describe W's presidency (no Dick Cheney visits, ever, he's always in hiding) - and it also suggests that Shrub has no penis.

[Proletariat]

1. What do you mean? Dennis is the truest truey true Democrat!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

7. Sorry to offend you!

But I've already said my peace in a different response (#6) and you're ignoring me so you'll never read this. Oh well. Make all the assumptions you want, it'll do you no good in the end. (look where it got me? Being innovative about my ignorance got my put on 50,000 peoples' ignore lists and being called a troll... :-( )

Unless you mean the chap who posted response #1 (I suppose it could be seen as sarcasm and you might have read more of his posts to figure out who he does or does not support), but I've seen posters who'll reply to the original post via a response to a response...

[TahitiNut]

11. You didn't.

I can only take offense; it cannot be given. No, even provocative posts can be worth reading. Totally vacuous pot-shots, however, are a total waste of my bandwidth. I've never before found someone posting quite so uniformly worthlessly. :shrug: Live and learn, I guess.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Instead of snide remarks about DK, tell us about Clark.

You win no points for him with the attitude you've shown here.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. He doesn't need to change a thing

Do you suppose Kucinich is "weak" on defense? I don't.

I just think he doesn't have a stomach for murdering tens of thousands of innocents. I am completely behind Kucinich's platform r.e. defense.

[Deja Q]

9. I'll look forward to any upcoming speeches he makes (the point of my post)

He's got to be careful though. Some people might misconstrue his beliefs as something that's untrue. My own post up there was a perfect example of this. He's going to have to be very cagey on how he promotes his ideals to the American people, especially if he becomes the nominated candidate.

Being quite the leftie, the pukes will be harsher on him than they ever were on Wellstone.

And, quite frankly, Kucnich is the one candidate I respect the most. As I recall, amongst other things, he wants to get rid of NAFTA, thank God!!!

I liked Dean until I heard he's pro-NAFTA, one of the worst treaties ever devised in the 90s - though much like trickle-down of the 80s, did we all really know what effects NAFTA would have at the time?... it even has provisions allowing the US to take Canada's energy reserves in case of an emergency (loosely construed)... I'd read that bit in "The Nation"'s web site a few weeks ago, I lost the link. :-( So I found another: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/52531.php Sad, really, I must be a real evil anti-America traitor for supporting the Canadian viewpoint on this... :eyes: But that's the gist of it.

I do disagree with him slightly on Iraq. Bush* made the mess (and out of personal desire and not national interest, which is surely grounds for impeachment!), it would be wrong for the US to just dump out of the country, let the situation become even more amok, and leave the mess to somebody else to clean up. That's like a toddler spilling milk in a fit of pique, with mommy coming to clean it up and not even punishing the errant child.

Okay, the UN should take over and find a way to punish the US and its idiot leader*, but the US should in no way exit Iraq completely. The troops are needed to maintain even a semblance of control... as if the US troops did anything during the looting, not guarding the nuclear facilities while zealously guarding all them oil wells :eyes:, and so on... ugh, Bush and his army buddies are sheer irresponsible idiots!

[DemBones DemBones]

4. What would you have him change? His plan to cut WASTEFUL

Pentagon spending? His demand for Pentagon audits and accountability?

His promise to put more money into pay for the military and benefits for veterans?

His call to stop funding unneeded military toys, such as the "missile defense shield," which serve primarily as cash cows for the defense industry? Do the American people want to see more of their tax dollars go to the Carlyle Group? Or might they prefer them to go to better pay for our troops, better funding for education, and into other projects that would benefit all the people rather than a few fat cats?

Dennis Kucinich is not a pacifist. He realizes that there are times when a country must go to war and he has stated that he would have no problems ordering troops into combat if it became necessary. He also realizes that many wars have been fought for reasons that had nothing to do with the nation's defense. He realizes that with good diplomatic policy, with the US being part of the world community -- rather than a country bent on running away from treaties it has signed rather than carry out the cooperative acts called for in those treaties, rather than a country calling it justifiable to carry out preemptive strikes to facilitate global hegemony -- war is far less likely.

A "leader" dressing up in a flight suit to appear before cheering sailors is a photo op. A leader working to better our relations with other countries while simultaneously providing better pay and benefits for our military defenders is the way to build a strong defense and defuse threats from abroad.

[Deja Q]

6. Ah, finally an answer worth reading!

(but it's nice to know I'm now being ignored by one or two who decided to respond, but I'll figure out their logic later...)

I obviously have a hidden motive for my post, but some around here took me as being a troll, how charming... (of course, my motives could be equated to the folks in the "screwing for virginity" activist group... but that's beside the point.)

It's good to know some people around here actually post facts rather than accuse everybody else of being trolls and such. Very mature, I thank and respect you for your A+ response.

[TahitiNut]

8. Some think that if we were to spend only as much on our military ...

... as the next 10-15 highest spending nations combined, that'd make us "soft on defense." Since were now spending more on our military than the next 25 nations combined, I fail to see the 'logic.'

[TroubleMan]

10. You really don't know what you're talking about

I was in the military- the Marines for 8 years.

Kucinich's ideas would only strenghten the military and make it more effecient. Not only that the troops would be happier, because a man like Kucinich knows that it's the guys who hold the guns who are important, not the big government contractors who take the money that should be going to military pay raises and better housing.

I knew many E-5's and below who were married with kids and had to get food stamps, even though the px had great prices on food. Military pay and housing sucks for enlisted, and these "big defense" politicians just make the quality of life worse for the troops. These politicians are not pro-military; they are pro-military contractors (the ones who line their pockets).