Best response to charge that progressives are weak on defense?

[yurbud]

Besides the DLC one of pandering to big defense contractors by proposing MORE spending and wars or some New Age touchy-feely bullshit?

Where is the muscular argument for not spending gazillions on the military and invading Third World countries at the behest of oil companies, sweatshops, or plantation owners?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[wallwriter]

1. The only thing in the defense department

that this war has strengthened is Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock.

What is it about...sapping the military's strength by poorly equpiing them in a war undertaken based on lies that makes the Republicans strong on defense.

[Vincardog]

2. Use their argument against them

He governs best who governs least. If you are against BIG GOVERNMENT
you have to be against the waist fraud and corruption in the military industrial complex. Or give up you can not reason with fascists.

[shoelace414]

3. I use this link

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

* The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s.
* The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.


has all that money made us safer? what have we got out of that "investment"?

[yurbud]

6. good one. who's the photo of?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[shoelace414]

13. Christine (Moose) McGlade from You Can't Do That On Television

(80's Nickelodeon show)

[sintax]

17. Excellent link- Also Worlds Worst Polluter

The actual Military Budget is Apprx. $800 Billion/year when appropriations, black budgets etc. are tabulated.

[wli]

29. not safer, but Halliburton's a lot richer (hence so is Cheney)

[jackster]

4. what about pointing out that there are more liberals

in the public eye who have served their country in the military than there are conservatives.

Go to http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

[MindPilot]

5. How about "911 happened on BUSH'S watch?" eom

[arcane1]

7. my response: "prove it" n/t

[yurbud]

8. they would point to various dems who voted against defense spending bills

the harder thing is making a positive argument for spending less.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[arcane1]

9. lower defense spending = lower taxes

and repubes LOVE lower taxes! :silly:

[yurbud]

12. peace dividend--remember that quaint idea after cold war?

that could be a winner, if combined with an explanation of another approach to foreign policy.

The problem is, many dems won't explain the foreign policy alternative, don't piss people off by trying to steal their stuff, because the people who benefit from it will literally kill them.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[geckosfeet]

10. Strong defense capability is smart. Avoiding conflict is smarter.

Creating economic stability, reducing dependence and competition for limited resources and energy are all excellent ways to reduce the need and likelihood for military actions. None of them presupposes reducing military capability.

[emdee]

11. Clinton's actions worked - Saddam had no WMD. n/t

n/t

[BootinUp]

14. Well if you are debating someone who claims

progressives are weak on defense, and then say that defense spending should be slashed below historical levels, you are not going to sway the other guy.

[yurbud]

16. our defense spending is based on a cold war foe who was our equal

roughly at least, in tech and numbers.

Why do we need Cold War level spending to fight Third World terrorists who have no combat aircraft, ships, or satellites?

How did aircraft carriers help us on 9/11? or B-52s?

If you buy the whole war on terror bullshit, you have to ask if we have the military for that and we don't. Going after terrorist requires intel and special forces, not big ticket toys.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[BootinUp]

19. I agree with this to a point

But why try to win both arguments at the same time?

I think spending can be reduced under the right leadership without losing anything important.

We do need a strong military to keep emerging threats in line, even just as threat like someone pointed out above already. And don't forget that nuclear weapons are in many more countries than just Russia, and the club is only going to grow.

As far as the threat from terrorists, I agree completely.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. With a question. "How's the massive defense budget working so far?"

We have, undoubtedly, the worlds most expenisive military. After 9/11, we sought a military solution to "terrorism". We have spent 100's of Billions of dollars "rooting out" terrorism all over the world. Yet, in Afghanistan is controlled by warlords/druglords with only Kabul under government control. Iraq is quickly deteriorating into civil war and is in a state of chaos with American soldiers being killed/maimed at an increasing rate.

The military option should be the very last one used. As it is now, our mighty, bloated, military is doing the equivalent of swatting mosquitoes with a bowling ball.

[yurbud]

26. china has a fraction of our military budget, but not attacked or invaded

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Old and In the Way]

18. We had the strongest military in my lifetime under Clinton.

Why? Because he used it prudently and for specific, well defined and accepted purposes. He was a master at diplomacy. He furthered our national interests without having to unleash the sword. Clinton never lost a military person he put into combat in his 8 years, yet we were a far stronger nation when he left office than when he came into office.

Contrast that to Dimson who has done the opposite. He squandered the Treasury and goodwill that Clinton had built in 8 years. His delusions of heroicism to compensate for a failed life predisposed him to unleash the sword instead of applying diplomcacy. Come to find out, he can't handle the sword either. He's exposed the core of our military to a no-win, low grade attrition, hurt recruitment, and severely damaged our international image and credibility. His fiscal policies have drained our Treasury for his war of folly and war profiteering....he may have relegated us to 2nd class world citizens for the rest of our natural lifetimes.

Explain again to me how Democrats are weak on defense? From my perspective, the Republicans have broken our defense.

[BootinUp]

20. Not that I am bashing anyone

but I think we did lose some soldiers under Clinton in Somalia in the early 90's.

And for whatever reasons, there probably was more tension between the military and the Clinton admin than there should have been.

Still I agree, you are not doing badly to use Clinton as a comparison to dubya.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

24. We did lose several service members.

But that was because Ol' Pappy Bush sent them in right before he stepped down, saddling Clinton with a mess in Somalia with little or no military support. The troops there were under-protected, ill-prepared, and had no exit strategy when Pappy Bush sent them in. (Sound familiar?)

(My opinion is that Bush did this intentionally to burden Clinton from the beginning. It's also the reason that Clinton's admin had the entire strike plan to take out the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan put on hold until * got into office. They handed the * admin the plans, said "everyone's on board: UK, France, Interpol, Germany, and a lot others. This should be your priority." He didn't want to do what *'s father did: saddle the next President with a war right out the gate.)

Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies details the meeting where Clinton says "No more of this." He turned to Clarke and said something like "I don't want any more of our boys killed over there. Take care of it." It's a good read.

[meow2u3]

21. "Weak on defense" is GOP code

It really means, "not inclined to shoot first and ask questions later."

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

22. "Clinton's military sure did great in Afghanistan, didn't they?"

Then bring up Cheney's comments that the military's strength is based on the previous administration's actions.

If you're lucky, they'll respond like Paul Wolfowitz said to Al Franken when Franken said the above quote.

[geek tragedy]

23. Progressives were right to support the effort in Afghanistan AND

were right in opposing the war in Iraq.

Can't do better than 100%.

Also, the pacifist wing of the Democratic party has zero political power.

[Tactical Progressive]

25. 9/11 would have never happened under Clinton or Gore

Republicans are cowards who talk tough. They invade places like Grenada and countries like Iraq who have had their military decimated. Like all bullies, they stay far away from anyone who can hit back, even if they're smaller. They have to be ALOT smaller.

Republicans never fight a fair fight, and they certainly never fight the good fight. If you want prancing poser bullies as representative of America's strength, then vote Republican. You'll get that every time. If you want decent, honest strength then you'll vote Democratic.

Don't let them put you on the defensive. Republicans let America get attacked in 2001. They ignored America's security when high-level experts from everywhere were telling them we were going to be attacked. They left this country wide open. That's an historical fact. Make them answer for it. They are the national security failures and the only right they have to talk about protecting America is to say I'm sorry for failing to do so.

[MattSWin]

27. You can argue that the Bush administration....

Is spending money like crazy on cruise missiles, high tech weaponry, jets, etc. which is a bit unnecessary given the fact we aren't fighting conventional state enemies but terrorist cells.

We're spending trillions on Cold war type weapons and cutting military personnel and intelligence.

[sandnsea]

28. S.M.A.R.T. Security

Crafted by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), the Nobel Prize winning national organization of health care professionals, SMART Security provides a way for citizens and organizations to take a direct role in building genuine security for our county and the world

http://www.oregonpeaceworks.org/site/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=988&Itemid=82