How can we liberals appear stronger than conservatives on defense?

I think this issue kills us much more than any other, except maybe taxes. We seem weak to both moderates and conservatives in the area of supporting the troops and National Defense.

Yes, I know, Bush sent our troops to Iraq, and that neither helps defense nor the troops.

But conservatives still look on us as weak?

Stop protesting wars? Vote for every military bill?

What can we, or do we have to do to seem strong?

And then, what's left to defend?

of insanity. 5 years ago, we were the toast of the world because we had a President who used diplomacy to further our national interests. He also understood that the world is a better place when we value peace and properity for all nations. This administration, on the other hand, wants it all and uses our military to project a 'might makes right' agenda. I'm pretty confident that these people will destroy this country in their arrogance and stupidity.

We'll eventually pay for allowing ignorance and hubris to rule us.

They pick-up that DRAFT and they'll loose plenty! Plenty of people from various cultural backgrounds that I know personally are plenty disgusted that they voted for the Oaf. No... if we can make it to 2008, they'll never get back in - not in our lifetime again.

Don't buy into this stuff! They're hanging themselves left and right! And doing a might fine job of it, I might add.

that has gotten us to the point where we will have to spend the GDP of the entire world in order for us to "feel safe". Not a great scenario.

I think that would be a great way to frame the argument.

Ask them what other country on the face of the planet can lay claim to a record such as this......

SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.

IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed

NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Jap War.

KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA
1898-1900
Troops / Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.

GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops / Seized from Spain, still used as base.

MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA
1899
Troops / Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops / Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.

HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA
1906-09
Troops / Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA
1908
Troops / Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS
1911
Troops / U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA
1912
Troops / U.S. interests protected in Havana.

PANAMA
19l2
Troops / Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS
19l2
Troops / Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.

MEXICO
19l3
Naval / Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval / Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO
1914
Troops / Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against
nationalists.

HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA
1917-33
Troops / Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany

RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.

YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.

TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA
1925
Troops / Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA
1927-34
Troops / Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval / Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.

DETROIT
1943
Troops

Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval / Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.

KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against siege.

GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners

LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval / Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA
1958
Troops / Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat, Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA
1964
Troops / Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT
1967
Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES
1968
Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Emba-ssy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops / Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN
1984
Jets / Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets / Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.

YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.
(The first bombing began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack. The story continues).

Don't you know that the 300 Lakota indians massacred in S. Dakota was Clinton's fault?

Go get an edjumacation.

Thunderheart, good show. Ahhhhh, no wonder, Robert De Niro produced it... say no more.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767812182/002-4459311-4676060?v=glance

Tough but moving, Thunderheart is an unusual story about an arrogant FBI agent (Val Kilmer) who participates in a federal investigation of a murder on an Oglala Sioux reservation. Kilmer's character is part Sioux himself, a detail that leaves him cold as he sets about pushing his way through the community to find facts on the case. In time, however, he begins to feel an ethnic tug and grows increasingly sympathetic to the locals and hostile toward his fellow G-men, much to the dismay of his agency mentor (Sam Shepard). The script is based on real events that occurred on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975 in South Dakota (involving an armed standoff between Indian activists and the FBI, an event that prompted Thunderheart director Michael Apted to make a companion documentary, Incident at Oglala). The conclusion of Thunderheart feels like politically charged whimsy, but the real strength of the film is Kilmer's outstanding performance as a man in transformation. Apted's clear-eyed depiction of the Sioux's spiritual and cultural continuity with the past has none of the cloying romanticism of other films about Indians. Produced by Robert De Niro. --Tom Keogh --This text refers to the VHS Tape edition.

one of their own, who was standing up for their interests, and not the interests of the pricks he was working for. Great ending. Ooops, no I didn't ruin the movie... it is well worth renting to be sure.

Thanks for the reminder to watch it again!

In return for repealing Bush tax cuts, massively up wages, combat pay, benefits for soldiers. Since a lot of soldiers are there because of financial situations, it would be the same as a social welfare program. The Republicans would be put in the tough spot of breaking with the rich or the troops.

Also, maybe don't have Kerry as the nominee in 2008. His vote against the 87 billion, however justified, tainted him. It might be good to have some other military man though- Clark (who I don't particularly support myself) would be good, or anyone else with a war hero image that the media would play, not just the candidate.

Dems can support the troops with real help not cute yellow ribbons.

Welcome to DU

Chox Sa'ol!

after all, they are a joke, aren't they? :kick:

as long as we keep letting Bush and his cronies get by with anything and everything without impeaching him. The only snowball's chance in Hell we have at this point is to impeach him for war crimes. And there are plenty of pictures and stories of children bombed and orphaned by this war. As far as appearing strong to our military. Good luck. They are mostly republican and will always remain that way. I think it has something to do with the enlisted being helped by dems and the officers being pro republican and telling the enlisted what to think. At least that is what my aunt says and she is a veteran and a dem.

Look at what the idiot Party did to our Security.

ignorance=weak

I usually shout this while slamming the table with my fist in disgust. Then I ask how repukes can buy Chinese prisoner made goods in Wal Mart while we send our jobs and technology to the corrupt Chinese Dictators in Beijing.

That usually does away with any imaginings of weakness on my part. Neo-cons are such wimps. That's why very few of them have ever been to war.


Seating now available in the Smoking Section:
Politics, humor, death and the Devil - http://www.eDiablo.com

liberals are not weak on defense they spend more on the people in the military and the right buys overpriced 'toys' that do not work in real life.

also look into how much is spent on actual training in the past money for training was better under dems. The right talks but in real terms the left gets the job done.

at home. He could have scared the shit out of everyone if he had wanted to. I work for the Government and the agencies are begging for money to protect the borders, biological agents, explosives, etc. Since they did risk assessments in 2002. Still no money.

My point is -- he could have had a big push, slogan and all. 'DEFENSE AT HOME FIRST" commercials, print media, etc.
There isn't anyone who lives or works in a big city who wouldn't jump on that one. You could also point out how little had been done -- much more than Kerry did. I also think "WAR on CANCER" (or Alzheimers) would be good too. Just think how many people those two illnesses affect -- how many people you could help to save lives. $200+ billion in Iraq might have found a cure for one of them!

But if you say water under the bridge, you are right! But it's not too late for 2006! People will be very f'in sick of war by then !!!

The right will always trump us in being willing to spend endlessly on a bigger military. They will always trump us on being totally unified in a decision to fight for whatever whim their party conceives.

That said, our apparent weakness doesn't come from votes against the military or opposition to certain wars. Our real weakness comes from our lack of fight in the political arena. The Repugs are always on the attack. They never stop to apologize for errors and always shift blame for their fuckups. But, they fight as a team and relentlessly for what they want. Voters see that and they say, gee if they'll fight for that, they'll fight for our country too.

Democrats on the other hand fight in small groups and on most occassions against each other. There is never a shortage of Dems willing to "compromise" with the Repugs on any issue. We've got Zells and Holy Joes and Breauxs out the wazoo.

If the Democrats ever came together under a set of principles and vowed to fight as a team with no defections allowed, we'd win back much of the white male vote. Because for once, the Democrats would be seen as being willing to fight for something rather than compromise at every turn. I don't expect to live to see that day.

only made Democrats look weak. Not only do Dems look weak, they give off the aura of being intimitated 1/2 of the time. We need to grow collective balls quick.

The fact that pacifists make up a branch of the Democratic party doesn't help the "Weak Dem" perception either. Heck, 1/2 of those pacifists are still arguing as to whether Genocide was actually happening in Kosovo, yet not that many of them are crying about Darfur. Go figure.

As long as a portion of Dem party activists reject the notion that war can be a necessary evil at times, the masses will not trust us on this issue. They are scared that Dems will allow an attack and not do a damn thing about it. It's wrong, but it's what they do think. Possibly, General Clark could be the antidote to this democratic perception malady. But Democrats are pretty predictable and probably will go with a moderate southern or red state governor that has nada experience in National Security.

I'm one that doesn't think that the issue of War and National Security is going anywhere soon. The Repugs know that this is an advantage issue for them (probably the only one). With Bush in charge of the WH through the 2006 and 2008 elections, the defense issue will continue to be their main trump card.

But because we don't control the government, we don't control the budget.

Couldn't we demand the Bushes spend more in every area, except tax cuts, and then tell them to cut back 'excessive spending'.

We could say that we are in the middle of a war, and that everyone, including the rich, have to sacrifice certain luxuries, these being the tax cuts, to help the military.

Then, no matter what the Repubs propose, demand more.

They double the defense budget, demand that they triple it. But at the same time, demand they increase taxes, saying everyone must sacrifice to win the war.

What can the repubs do? Say 'no, the military has enough money.'

Then we can hammer home the point that they don't want equipment and better pay and benefits for our armed forces.

Say 'No, we won't increase taxes on the rich.'

Then we can say that they are selfish and unpatriotic because they aren't willing to sacrifice to give our troops more money.

Say 'Yes, we will'.

In the next election, Democrats can claim credit for the idea.

There is no way out. We'd corner the Repubs

...stopping the constant bending over for them whenever the repubs get a hard-on. The Democratic party has become plagued with those whose agenda's are one in the same with the repubs (think big business, big $$$), or those compromised by personal scandels and must whore themselves for political survival.

Dean is the most necessary first step in reclaiming our good name. All of the issues will fall onto willing ears when spoken with backbone & pride, neither of which we have seen nor heard from our leaders in several years.

I was able to persuade a few repubs to vote for Kerry by talking about the ecconomy, from a defense POV. How was the Soviet Union brought down?? Unless the repub is a hypnotized fundie, there are ways to get through to them, but it all begins with backbone & pride.

... and separating the intangible ("support the troops") from the tangible ("military-industrial-intelligence complex").

Unfortunately, too many Democrats (and let's not forget--some of the most hawkish people in modern history were Democrats--see "Scoop" Jackson, for example) have campaigns beholden to defense contractors, and virtually every Congressperson has defense jobs in his or her district which can be used against them if they begin to squawk about defense spending.

M'self, I think the very first thing Democrats need to do (but won't) is to bust the old myth that more spending on defense is directly equatable to more security. 9/11 should have informed everyone about that, but it hasn't sunk in.

In other words, what's the point of trying to appear stronger on an issue that is premised on a myth?

Now, that's not what the Democrats will do, but it's what needs to be done. Otherwise, the politicians' use of fear continues to feed the complex, the complex then feeds the ability for more conflict and war, which in turn feeds the politicians' capacity to instill yet more fear. It's a destructive, self-perpetuating cycle fueled by tax dollars and deficit spending.

What we have is a Department of Offense, not Defense. That's what Democrats should be addressing, but most are already too compromised to explain that effectively.

Given that reality, what should they be doing? For starters, as little as possible of the things that make the situation worse.

Try convincing them of that, though.

Cheers.

and goose-step down Madison Ave... But that won't be necessary. Bush will have so thoroughly fucked up our military that Hillary will look like a competent commander-in-chief in comparison.

I thought we could neutralize the security issue. It would be hard to infer that a former four star general wouldn't protect the country. I still think Clark would have won if he was the nominee. He could win the security issue and then Dems could emphasize their superiority on domestic issues.

Four stars, purple hearts, silver and bronze stars, congressional medal of honor... whatever.

We will not be allowed to "neutralize" the issue, even if they have to make stuff up. It is simply not going to happen.

Clark would not have won the election on this basis.

This election was about far more than propping up some guy with an "electable" resume. We gave that meme a spin, and it did not work.

If Clark was going to win it, it would have been on his strength of character and other issues where he could have taken a stronger stand in opposition to Bush. He might have been able to do that, but we will never know.

and I also know you dislike Clark. Let's leave this to another thread. You say that Clark would have not have won on this basis. None of us will know.

You say, "even if they have to make this stuff up." I hope you are not implying that Clark made up his awards.

You can be better on defense, but I doubt stronger.

Of course, I haven't heard of them using "the rack" at Gitmo.

Random and unprovoked executions perhaps?

of it, enough to make several thousands of men get a stiffy while their military industrial complex stocks soar.

Of course, I should have used the modifier "legitimate" on the term "reason".

...and it hasn't made us safer.

You want a safe and soveirgn nation? Make sure the "haves" of your country aren't thumbing their nose and stealing the resources of the "have nots" abroad. Refuse to do business with nations that don't respect human rights, and mean it. Cripple, fine and break-up if necessary corporations that get fat on the dole of the US taxpayer and then ship jobs overseas and do business with despots. Make Fair Trade a higher priority than Free Trade. Leverage innovation not only in crafting a stronger, smaller, more mobile military, but also creating improvements that minimize the factors that drive people to desperation (energy independence, a nation growing its own food, scientific multinational consortiums).

It's the safer, more secure, and LESS EXPENSIVE path. The conservative path is too damn expensive. It isn't sustainable, and it DOESN'T WORK.

Bush has a terrible record on virtually everything and has been a weak and incompetant president on virtually all issues, except effective propaganda and spin. They use Orwelian language and are successful at framing the issues to their advantage- even when their record is dismal.

Bush and his people had multiple pretty explicit warnings about 9/11 as has been now shown, and still allowed it to happen. And the public hasn't learned the full details about what really happened in 9/11 and the Bush Administrations role or failures in that regard.

The Bush foreign policy has been a major failure. The U.S. has less respect and esteme worldwide than ever before. As polls indicate.

The Bush economic policy has been a disaster, he's greatly increased the national debt to over $7.3 trillion, amounting to over $28,000 per person and a mortgage of over $110,000 for the average family of 4. With annual interest for a family on the debt of $5,000. And on top of that there is off books debt(cooking the books) and record trade deficit of over $600 billion. And the U.S. dollar declining and U.S. becoming progressively poorer, for all but the rich who are getting huge transfers of wealth from the middle and lower income groups though the Bush tax policy.

Also, the only problem with social security is thievery by the Bushes and Reagan. Bush this year stole $250 billion out of the social security trust fund, as he's done in past years. He used it to cover the cost of his wars and the huge tax breaks to the rich.
And the same is true for Bush I and Reagan who also borrowed huge sums from the SSTF to pay for doubling military spending while giving huge tax rebates to the rich. But this is just robbing the poor and middle class to reward the rich. And the current discrepiency between rich and poor is ever widening.

So Bush has been a total failure and extremely weak president in virtually all areas, except that his opponents don't understand how to deal with the propaganda, spin, and orwelian framing that the Media has accepted and perpetuate. But this can be remedied.

and telling the american people point by point how Bush's policies are actually making the country less secure and how the economic situation that Bush has created will destroy this country. You can't keep "securing the national defense" if the country is broke and other countries stop giving us billions per day.

But of course, the Democrats will just keep playing nice and using "Congressman" speak.

The way to BE strong in national defense requires:

* determining the threats this nation faces--in the current era, terrorism, North Korea, cocaine and opiate abuse, and the immense trade deficit with the Pacific Rim.

* next, prioritize those threats. I say the trade deficit is the most pressing, followed by terror, the hard-drug problem and finally North Korea. North Korea is the least of our problems because they can threaten our allies and our shipping but so far they can't touch our mainland.

* develop effective countermeasures to these threats. In the case of North Korea, an effective countermeasure package involves removing all the PNACers from positions of power, putting everyone in the Bush Administration in jail, and installing a president who isn't a warmonger. Once they know that we don't have a president who likes to unilaterally invade countries that don't pose a threat to us, we can probably get the DPRK to the bargaining table and maybe talk them out of their nukes. Trade will be most effectively dealt with by reestablishing a US manufacturing base. And so on and so forth. None of these things require massive armies. Terrorism will require a military force, but fighting terror effectively requires far more investigation than it does combat. I like the way the Europeans deal with terrorism: each country has a little army that does nothing but fight terrorism. The Brits have the SAS, Germany has GSG-9, the French have one but I don't remember the name. These highly-focused units have reduced terror to a very small problem. (When was the last time you heard of the Red Army Faction or the Baader-Meinhof Gang? But in the late seventies through the eighties, these terror cells were a very real threat to the security of the continent.) We have the 82nd Airborne Division, which is supposed to be able to do everything from fighting terror to setting up field latrines. They're jacks of all trades, very good in many but masters in none.

Drugs are a special problem. To us they're a national scourge and the death of the inner cities. But to a poppy farmer in Afghanistan, "narcotic" is his livelihood. The only way that farmer is going to stop growing narcotic is if we, the western world, find him something to do that makes him more money than growing narcotic. And that we have NOT come to terms with. We, the people who want this man to stop growing narcotic, are going to have to reach into our pockets and come up with enough money to create these people at least three industries--this to make sure that there will be something to fall back on during the low points in the business cycle for each industry. If we don't...surprise! The Afghanis still know how to grow narcotic!

The way to LOOK strong in national defense is to bankrupt the country by building a huge military, then start passing flags out.

This is a decades-old stereotype the rightwing has perpetuated and made into a strawman recently with outrageous vitriol.

General Clark is our best hope for breaking through this lie once and for all, imho.

On the upper right of the link. We either act like people in a Civilized Society and cooperate with others, or we turn the US into one gigantic gated community where we're afraid of our own shadows. We need to flip their definition of security into a global gang war.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/security.htm

As long as liberals continue to fail to have an ideology that mindlessly supports the mass murder of thousands of foreigners under the guise of "self defense", liberals will always look weaker. I'm sorry, but I just have no faith in the ignorant masses to be able to come to the conclusion that the magnitude for which we go to war so carelessly makes us and the world much less safe. People will always think more blood shed means more progress, and so the best we can do as liberals is to stop being intimidated by this agenda and just for once stand up to these atrocious wars. In more practical terms, standing together as an opposition party and supporting the troops benefits-wise will at least soften the blow.

throw weight is no longer the issue. what matters is more than military might.

national security envelopes trade and economic and human rights.

bill clinton understood this. but for american-style crony capitalism, there is not as much money to be made versus perpetually gearing up for war ... with east asia (or was that eurasia?).

"strong" on "defense" == acquiesce to any insane amount of money to spend on implementing the neocon agenda. We could "defend" ourselves for much, much less.

President.

Tell them that 9/11 is the undeniable reality of Republicans protecting America, from blocking Clinton/Gore domestic security measures, to Bush and Cheney ignoring scores of multiply-sourced, high-level warnings about the impending aircraft attack.

These are the things that aren't being said but that should be repeated by every Democrat that steps in front of a camera. Republicans won't agree, but then they only listen to what they want to hear. Others should be hearing it all the time. That's what we should do.

See www.democrats.org

A few highlights:

Just giving endless $$$$$ to the Pentagon is not a measure of supporting a strong defense ($600 toilet seats, no body armor).

Taking a long term approach - we must have a strong economy to defend ourselves (national debt a problem), we can't rely so much on foreign oil, etc., trade deficits also a problem for our security.

If everybody's whipped into "support our boys" hysteria, there's not much hope in fighting it, at least not nationally. But if it stinks like the billion-dollar-a-day boondoggle it really is, "smarter better" is ticket.

Kerry was on the right track when he changed course in September, because the national perception of the war had finally started turning with Abu Ghraib and the spike in casualties. Too bad it didn't last.

That and Tom Ridge's terror alerts, Cheney's sinister warnings, and all the other scary shit that mysteriously went away after the election was over.

We got to stop the military posturing, the fragile Earth can't take it anymore. Pentagon budget needs to be halved at least, for us to survive. Stealing from health-life giving programs to destroy creation. Military Madness.


In this era of "permanent war," the U.S. war machine bombards civilians in places like Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It also makes "war on the Earth," both at home and abroad. The U.S. Department of Defense is, in fact, the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste per year than the five largest U.S.chemical companies combined. Washington's Fairchild Air Force Base, the number one producer of hazardous waste among domestic military bases, generated over 13 million pounds of waste in 1997 (more than the weight of the Eiffel Tower's iron structure). Oklahoma's Tinker Air Force Base, the top toxic waste emitter, released over 600,000 pounds in the same year (the same amount of water would cover an entire football field about two inches deep).

Just about every U.S. military base and nuclear arms facility emits toxics into the environment. At many U.S. military target ranges, petroleum products and heavy metals used in bombs and bullets contaminate the soil and groundwater. And since the Pentagon operates its bases as "federal reservations," they are usually beyond the reach of local and state environmental regulations. Local and state authorities often do not find out the extent of the toxic contamination until after a base is closed down.

Active and abandoned military bases have released toxic pollution from Cape Cod to San Diego, Alaska to Hawaii. In June 2001, the Military Toxics Project and the Environmental Health Coalition released the report "Defend Our Health: A People's Report to Congress," detailing the Pentagon's war on the Earth in the United States and Puerto Rico. (See maps at .) The contaminants emitted from military bases include pesticides, solvents, petroleum, lead, mercury, and uranium. The health effects for the surrounding communities are devastating: miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, kidney disease, and cancer.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/15373/

to war... "just a little pin prick, you may feel a little sick" Pink Floyd

www.addictedtowar.com

"Addicted to War should be assigned reading in American schools because it tells the true history of this nation's culture of war. Because of this book, many young students will think twice before considering enlistment in the military. How different things might have been had my son had a chance to read it. However, it is not too late for thousands of young Americans."

But it is stuff like that that gives us the image of being weak.

So, I am kind of torn. Should we abandon stuff like this temporarily to gain power and then stop the wars, or should we continue to be true to our cause?

How can we be weak on defense when no one, not a single country has declared war on us, and yet, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars "defending" ourselves.

If the oil was primarily in the southeast, we'd be boming Nevada and New Mexico if they wouldn't get off it.

Making war is one thing, promoting justice and ending poverty/hunger is entirely another. One feeds into itself, while the other may eventually be able to fall into the background, having accomplished what wars cannot.

We need to get Dems into the office. My question is whether the ends justify the means in this case.

I agree that we should be feeding the hungry, eliminating poverty, giving every child an education, not a rifle.

But you and I both know that won't happen under a dem.

for its defense instead of fancy toys that go boom for overgrown little boys.

Well, maybe that's not the most diplomatic way to put it, but something along those lines...

On the whole, though, it will be a long, slow process to educate the public about the difference between prudently determining the nation's actual interests and pursuing mindless militarism.

and money. I think there's plenty of evidence that Bush is
WEAK on defense: cutting 9000 border patrols, not securing airports, ports of entry for ships, the NY Times just had an editorial on this.

Dems are the party of strong DEFENSE. Repubs are the party of wasteful aggression and OFFENSE>

Americans hate OFFENSE!!!!!!!!

UN Army for Africa.

too thin.

And building a UN Army would take too long, not to mention the extreme distrust of the average right-center moderate american.

out, insist on an MRI and then invade if they refuse and start with the ethnic cleansing. We know. So that should be something the UN gets better at. And Democrats can be a part of that.

and there is nothing anyone is doing about it :cry:

Oil in the Sudan too. I think that comes into play (when does it ever not?). Yes - we should be there. I read something the other day on the Sudan and I cannot remember what exactly.

We should be there.

The conservatives have completely convinced the American public of this lie. Of course they would, the lie works for them, but they could not get away with it if we didn't step in their traps.

First, both parties have willingly voted for wars of agression. War is a failure of diplomacy. Rule: international law trumps diplomacy, diplomacy trumps use of force. Humans may be miles away from ending the insane practice of war, but there are things that can be done to limit the assholes who want them.

But that is another thread:

Aside from electoral, the republicans need to keep sticking the label of "weak on defense" on the Democrats because it stops opposition to all things that smack of weapons. This label, this lie, keeps well-meaning Democrats who might call for more reasonable spending and accountability of Pentagon budgets, in line.

Democrats DO vote for every damn defense budget without question. (I should qualify that as "most" but the number who challenge the status quo is so few as to be negligable.)

Democrats are not weak on defense if it means are they willing to give the Pentagon free reign and all the money that can be asked for. Also, this is a function of where those weapons makers and bases are located. Again, a subject for another thread.

I do/did support Clark. Not because I am all that hip on the military--I married a CO for Christ's sake--but because we need to break through this lie. Clark is very liberal, and very smart, and multi-dementional in his interests and knowledge. If you want to do something about both the lie of being weak on defense, and the wasted money at the Pentagon, it is going to take a general. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. You are not going to find another general, the Democratic insiders were real shits about this one, and you certainly are not going to find a liberal one.

I was shocked when some posters at DU said terrible things about the military that just fueled the rightwing's fires. Hey, labeling the Dems is working great for the defense contractors and the rightwing. I will not participate, I will not help them one little bit.

And one other thing: the republicans owning the military with the Dems getting no credit at all for their heinous votes, is a very dangerous situation. One party should not control the military.

Because it is a myth built on a set of false images, it will take a counter image to negate the issue. That is why Kerry had to do that over-kill military convention. (MHO) To try to break through, but the Swiftees undid the whole damn thing, and here, I will hold back with my opinion on why they got away with it.

Dems own all other issues except security and defense. Oh_and God. But, I'm not too worried about that, it can be countered with the correct language.

I saw Clark as a once in a life-time miracle for the Dems. The greatest plus was he said that the military budget could be cut and was filled with pork. In his words, it is a "make-want" budget. He could do it.

Surprising or not, the Democrats went ballistic at the thought of having a military person among their ranks. Partly, because they were supporting another candidate and needed an excuse, but also because there is a segment of the party who do hate the military and that includes everyone and thing. So on these very boards, he has been called every name one can imagine.

The logic of all of this escapes me. Your labeled weak on defense, it keeps Dems from voting against Pentagon pork, and you're losing elections, so the plan becomes to hate the military.

BTW, if Hillary runs I doubt that Clark will run. Unlike elected officials who can run for the presidency without giving up their paycheck, Clark must give up every job he has. He is not poor, but he is by no means ultra-rich. That's not what 35 years of service does for the ol bank account. Hillary will be the 800 lb gorilla, and giving up your job to fight a losing cause is just crazy.

We need to be a 'full-service" party. Stand up for our progressive values here at home and stand strong, but that isn't enough to win.

We must also so stand for experienced, enlightened leadership in our nominee for leader of the free world. That's just a fact of life in the times we live in.

Standing up strong for our progressive values here at home is critical, but it won't be enough to win.

The Republicans have learned how to play their game well, and they know how to defeat any strong progressive domestic agenda we put forward, if that is all we put forward.

and generic that voters won't see how it distinguishes a Democrat from a Republican.

"Experience"? "Enlightened"? Well, the latter might not describe Bush individually, but those things certainly don't distinguish Democrats from Republicans.

You have to give people a reason to vote for you, and you have to make sure that people understand what the difference between Republicans and Democratic values are, and "full service" doesn't really do that. It just describes personality traits that many Republicans and Democrats share (it describes Tom Ridge and John McCain).

Perversely, a strict interpretation also EXCLUDEs great Democrats who dont' have military service, like Jennifer Granholm and Ruth Ann Minner without good reason (do you really think either of those women wouldn't be capable of leading America in the right direction?).

In any event, whatever "full service" connotes, those things are certainly not qualities that either party disavows, which makes it incredibly weak as tool for distinguising one party from the other.

Democrats need to articulate progressive values that distinguish the Democrats from Republicans so that people have a clear chocie about what they're voting for. Without that, don't expect to win elections.

"Democrats need to articulate progressive values that distinguish the Democrats from Republicans so that people have a clear chocie about what they're voting for. Without that, don't expect to win elections."

Full service, in my understandiing, means strong on national security/foreign affairs with a strong progressive agenda that distinguishes us from Republicans.

"Full service party" isn't meant to be a winning campaign slogan, just a starting point for thinking about what we need to do to win.

As I said, merely distinguishing us from Republicans on domestic progressive issues isn't enough.

Why must "we" form our stand on what "they" consider of us!?!? This makes no sense to me, sorry. So, "conservatives still look on us as weak?" I mean, the point is - "Who Cares!?!"

It's as if we can not form ourselves, and that's just ridiculous! What we do is exactly the same thing the Democrat party has always done. Be there to pick-up the pieces for "the people!"

Jobs, Unions, Representing 99 percent of Americans that don't have what the elite have. After this bunch, I foresee another 34+ years of Democratic control!

People said the same thing about Bush's first term.

It's the masses of voters. and yeah, that matters, because voters and what they think of Democrats will affect how they vote.

Look, 9/11 happened, why-ever is not even the issue.

Being strong on defense has been fed to the voters as being important, and so it is. Not only has it been repeated over and over again, but they have proof positive (the missing towers, the dead bodies, and the fear that it all instilled in many around the country) that the U.S. has real enemies out there.

So denial won't help us back into power.

We are unable to "define ourselves" because we are fighting against both the corporate media and the Republicans....and they have already defined us. Our only answer now is to take the issue of defense totally off the table, and then we can define ourselves to voters.

Voters are elementary and will vote based on what the media tells them is important. Defense and National Security are now important to voters, and until we do the obvious of taking it off the table entirely, it will stay on that table and be used by the GOP whenever they need it. Like someone said, it is their trump card.

As long as the "weak on defense" meme is in the air, voters won't hear shit of what we have to say.

It's like a hungry crying baby. We have to feed the baby, to stop the crying. Once fed, you'll be able to play with the baby. It's really that simple.

was Abraham Lincoln.