Why does Kerry not want to give Federal Aid to colleges that ban ROTC?

I saw that in his New Patriots deal or whatever but why does feel this way i think that is wrong cuase we live already in a way too militarized society.Your thoughts on this subject.
------------
-Mods i asked this question in the other thread but it was lost in there

Anyone who isn't backing The ABB Candidate Kerry 100% just needs to
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

.

no need to start another flame bait thread

From the rules:

"Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted."

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

Recruiting More Americans to the Military

The highest form of service is military service. America's military is having trouble recruiting and is increasingly relying on the reserves for active duty. John Kerry believes we must change that. The complicated missions we face and technologies we use depend on it. In a Kerry Administration, no university that receives federal aid will be allowed to ban the ROTC from their campus, except for religious reasons. And the ROTC scholarship program will be adequately funded so that students can attend the college of their choice. John Kerry will also make modernizing our GI benefits a top priority, because no program has been more successful increasing educational opportunities for veterans while also providing an incentive for the best and brightest to make a career out of military.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice

You may disagree with the answer, but that's the answer to your question.

first, let me say that i did not see your other thread about this ...

second, let me say that Kerry has many positions I don't like but I'm supporting him 100% ...

third, we keep getting questions about why did Kerry say this or why did Kerry do that or why didn't Kerry vote for this or that ... whether you like my answer or not, all of these issues come under the heading of pure pragmatism ...

it is not often sound strategy to stake out the less popular side on many issues ... Kerry, rightly or wrongly, clearly thinks it's important to be "tough on defense" and pro-military ... politically, this position makes sense ... it's exactly what bush is going to run on ... "bush, he's tough, he stood up to the terrorists, he never waivers, he supports our men and women in uniform, he won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" ...

so, when you're running against someone like that, you don't paint a target on your back on issues like ROTC ... i have no idea what Kerry really thinks on this issue ... for you to ask "why does Kerry not want" is absurd ... you, and I, have no idea what Kerry wants ... other than the fact that we both know he wants to win ...

so, if you seek purity in a candidate, then we disagree ... if you expect Kerry to be on your side on every issue, forget it ... but if you understand that you have to make compromises to get elected and that hopefully you have more faith in Kerry than in bush on the big issues, welcome aboard ...

I think the college should pick to have it and for a while many would not and congress really got up tight about it. Now high schools have to give address of the boys so the service can go after them. It was put into one of those educational bills. Does anyone think that this 'war' is worse than the cold war?

get risk getting their legs blown off to get an education. Typical DLC.

I think of my good buddy who joined the PA national guard to get money to go an inexpensive state school. I hope he's ok.

And my Sunday-school classmate who funded Dickinson through ROTC. He's in Iraq now. Those bastards dumped him out there in a village by himself and told him that he alone was the occupying force. Fortunately they sent some more guys out after a couple of days.

How sick it has all become.

On edit: of course the latter case decided to go military as a career after college, much to his mother's chagrin. I suppose one can't complain because he went there voluntarily. The former on the other hand is a class A goldbrick after my own heart. He was always squeezing every cent of benefits from the Guard, so much so that his Commanding officer told new people to go to him to make sure they were getting all that they should. He knew how to work the system. If he's over there then things are grim.

graduating as an officer than going in as a private, plus a lot of people look at it as a plus on a resume'.

It sounds like yet another scheme to increase non-defense spending.

Sounds dumb to me, but hey, I'm not in line with the DLC's goals of kinder, gentler imperialism.

"but why pass up another opportunity to attack Kerry?"

Thank you for your time.

*edit* Calling him an imperialist, though, is going there in spades.

 
 

And I agree with him. Serbia, anyone? Or how about Clinton going on Larry King and stabbing Howard Dean in the back? Hello?

Why play word games? If you believe that Kerry is going to implement an Imperialist agenda, doesn't that make him a de facto Imperialist?

 
 

How is saying that Kerry is a pragmatic politician, in touch with the mainstream, bashing him.

Opposing imperialism is considered about half a notch above pedophilia. Why would anyone want to cast such aspersions against Kerry?

You are continuing to post to amuse yourself with your biting satire and dazzling rhetoric.

Do you have any other hobbies? Like voting?

 
 

pretty, and bring them to me and I will fuss at them real good for lying to you.

that this won't be pretty? Jeez, I thought that was my job.

What does this have to do with equating mainstream politicians with Imperialists, again?

 
 

In how I am to read your post. Am I to read this as a cynical recommendation to the Democratic nominee, that he should embrace gentle Imperialism as a way to get elected? Since you claim this is a popular concept with the "voting class"?

Or as some attempt at satirical commentary?

And, what is more salient at this point in your DU posting career, what is the point of either? Because I am forced to intuit, since you refuse to answer directly, that you have no intention of participating in the Presidential election as a member of the "voting class"? If that is the case, why the interest in the process at all? Do you view us, the voting class, as some sort of source material for your self-amusement? Is it some form of performance art, intended to wake us from the slumber of our naive self-delusion to your world view, although no one can tell what that really is, other than "oppositional"? And what it would mean in any practical sense?

Whether you or I agree with the voting class has no bearing on whether Kerry beats bush.

Whether bush can count on your help to smear Kerry as an anti-imperialist radical leftist just might.

Once again, as you to refuse to answer any direct questions that might endanger your little self-created DU identity as DuctapeFatwa, the Mysterious and Unknowable Commentator on the Voting Class. Although it is becoming more transparent all the time.

I will leave this little conversation with the observation that I have never said anything along the lines of "..Kerry as an anti-imperialist radical leftist..". Not even close.

Maybe we are getting a little desperate? :hi:

 
 

Not your thoughts on other posters.

Kerry's position on this issue is in tune with the mainstream voters of both parties, who believe that the US is engaged in a war on terror, a very different kind of war, and to suggest that a Presidential candidate believes that any stone should be left unturned, or any sacrifice eschewed, to win the war on terror is not to do that candidate any favors.

Silly me. I thought the subject line meant something. I should have known better

:evilgrin:

exactly

... and I couldn't resist. ;-)

the subject is about banning ROTC and Fed aid to colleges, not imperialism. The rules say "Stay on topic. Don't jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue"

redqueen jumped into a discussion that she admits she doesn't know about, and then raises the issues of imperialism. This is against the rules

You need to read up on the new "compassionate" imperialism called "progressive internationalism". the full article is in PDF:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID=158&contentID=252144

Take a good, long read.

This is from John Kerry's own website...

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.” - John Kerry

makes all the difference, doesn't it?

I would respectfully point out that there are men, men who have the ear of this current President, who proudly call themeselves Neo-Imperialists in public, and argue for a New American Empire with a straight face. Their intentions are clear and presently being enacted.

I sincerely doubt that Kerry's intentions are the same as these men, regardless of the macho rhetoric, regardless even of his IWR vote, which I view as an act of political cowardice if anything. However, if you honestly believe this is the case, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 
 

makes denial so easy.

Did you REALLY read the article on Progressive Internationalism? Which Kerry refers to as part of his foreign policy. By the way, do you know who Rand Beers is? Or Richard Clarke? They are both advisors to Kerry. Have you ever heard of Plan Columbia? You ought to look into them before becoming such an avid Kerry supporter and apologist.

If you can't get Kerry's rhetoric to be in line (and you even believe he is a political coward) do you really believe that you'll ever be able to hold Kerry to task on anything? Look at Clinton...he only swayed rightwards after he got in office. Corporations control these politicians, not people.

You can ignore information presented to you about Kerry, and blindly follow him on gut feelings...but you are involved in ignoring warning signs, and that is irresponsible.

The big bold progressive internationlism is coming to get me!

uh, don't know where you get that from. Hardly. Be that as it may..

What I'm asking you is simply this: Do you believe that John Kerry, for all his faults and failings, will be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to go to war and occupy various countries based on some insane goal of New American Imperialism (however you define this) should he become President?

Is that what you get from this Progressive Internationalism article? That this is the "Kerry Plan"? Because I do not.

I'm no Kerry cheerleader, but let me tell you something: I will take my chances with John Kerry any fucking day of the week, over what we have in reality, right now with Bush. He is going to be our only alternative, and I don't foresee disaster if he wins. I do see disaster with Bush, here and now.

What always amazes me is, despite the legitimate criticism that many elected Democrats deserve, some on the left attempt to portray them as something akin to the second coming of Hitler, even while the ashes of whatever disaster and war the current Republican Administration is creating fall about our heads.

 
 

sounds so much nicer.

"progressive intervention"!!! Yikes

Like the PNAC-friendly founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, one Will Marshall, who signed on to both "post-war Iraq" letters that PNAC published.

A guy advising Kerry on foreign policy is friendly with PNAC. Does this bother you? Does it bother ANY Kerry supporter?

PPI is NOT "Kerry's own website", and the scariest thing I see is "a bold progressive internationalism"

O-o-o-o-h-h! Scary!

First:
I refer to the paper on "progressive internationalism" on the PPI site.

And then I note that:
Kerry REFERS TO progressive internationalism in his own foreign policy on his website.

What leads you to the certainty the phrase means the same thing in both places? The phrase "progressive internationalism" is a perfectly ordinary one, that might be coined spontaneously by scores of people casting about for a good sound to sprinkle into a speech. What evidence do you have that the title of the Progressive Policy Institute's paper is what Sen. Kerry's usage of those ordinary words coupled together means, and that his usage of them means that everything in that paper has been adopted by him as plan and platform?

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

justify a "simple criticism"? I thought a real criticism would be based on something we actually knew.

Silly me

How is it an attack to quote KERRY HIM SELF and then ask WHY he has a position? Seems like quoting Kerry is an attack on Kerry. Funny.

Here's the post you were asking about:

Who knows

Sounds dumb to me, but hey, I'm not in line with the DLC's goals of kinder, gentler imperialism

1) I don't see any Kerry quotes in there
2) Kerry didn't say he withold money from colleges
3) rq doesn't know what happened
4) but that doesn't matter. Kerry is still a DLC imperialist.

Silly me. That was a compliment

someone posts a quote from candidate x and is immediately set upon by a frenzied mob of xiacs demanding an end to this virulent x-bashing, accented by a handful of good cop xiacs who sweetly try to explain that x didn't really mean it and is just saying it to get elected.

For those who long for the heyday of the Benny Hill show, American politics can't be beat for taking the edge off the nostalgia.

We could have colleges required to have the ROTC program where people have the option of serving in the military and getting great benefits from it, not to mention free tuition for people who can't afford it.

OR

We could have college aged kids forced to serve in the military and getting fucked over by the Bush administration's wars and veterans' policies.

I like the first one better.

...what if Kerry becomes president and then decides to invade Vietnam again? Hypochondriacly speaking, have you democrats really thought out this possibility? Then he might impose the draft, selecting only the kids of those who voted for him. Could happen. I heard a rumor. Can't quote a serious source, but rumors twice repeated could be true, and besides, he is a " 'Nam vet," predisposed to violence. Maybe we should elect bush, just to be safe. What do you think?

The beginning of your post presents a good reason to be wary of Kerry (rhyme unintended). Then you go and act as though only an idiot would think that. The thing is that we don't KNOW what Kerry will do once president. He's pragmatic as hell, and both houses of Congress will continue to be Republican dominated (let's be realistic) even if he gets elected. Clinton capitulated on numerous issues like gay rights and welfare. Who's telling you Kerry won;t? By making all wariness of John Kerry seem like it's a vote for Bush you are, in fact, letting him take our votes and our support for granted. I won't stoop that low. If he wants my vote (and my money), he'll have to fight for it this year by not putting trade under the table (New Republic expects him to ditch the trade issue now that Edwards is no longer in the race) at the convention and selecting a tolerable VP candidate, and in 2008 he'll have to have shown some spine as president. Don't hand anyone your support on a silver platter.

...what Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, Dean, or anyone else would do for sure. We can use common sense. We can examine his record. We can take note of his war experience. Those are solid. But to say something like "based on Clinton..." is weak. Very weak. I'll remind you of two things: first, Kerry exposed the Iran-Contra scandal; and, two, your choice is between bush and Kerry. And please don't think that I would ever hand my support on a silver platter. Nor will I fall for the foolish things that many Kerry critics post on here.

The ROTC is often a substitute for a college education or a job, right to a fast track to the army and combat duty for the poor. Here, I am refering to them in High Schools, where they should be banned.

I'm not saying that having them there is the reason for the underlying problems that create this reality, but the military benefit's from the program recruiting the poor who have limited choices, and saves them from either limiting their military actions, or instituting a draft that might scoop up the children of the privileged and really cause a ruckus.

 
 

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

To say that Kerry's vision of American defense is akin to Nazism is more than a stretch- its a lie.

I think you are flat out wrong- the mods would give me a warning if I told you what I really think.

Doc

You compared him to Hitler. Not much of a stretch though, huh?

I dont believe that you were not trying to compare the two- it looks just like it to me.

So- what- are you saying that Kerry is NOT like Hitler- or are you saying he is? Your duplicity makes this confusing.

of our schools and society

A dishonest post and a faulty comparison?

In what way is Kerry like Hitler???- lets get this all out.

... or outright slander.

It's stuff like this that makes me embarassed at times to call myself a progressive, when people espousing baseless trash like this are trying to claim the word to represent THEIR views.

For the record, I'm an ROTC graduate who happened to come around to being against militarism, so I would take SERIOUS exception to attempts to portray ROTC students as "Nazis".

If that is not what you are saying, then be more specific? What exactly is your point? That Kerry reminds you of Hitler?

Vets in general, who have said things like Kerry said- are they like Hitler too?
Lets clear this up.

In fact, he is the president of his chapter.

I know he thinks service is one of the most important things too.

I guess this good Democrat who busts his but is a Nazi in your eyes too- right???

Lets clear this Nazi stuff up right now- support your comparison or admit that this is outrageous and offensive.

i kno they're rotc nazis...but ppl can choose to join and decline to join, right?

Probably a lot more active than the nuts calling good DEMS nazis.

why should kerry withhold our tax money from a college just because that school does not provide him with an impressionable captive audience?

is the anti gay discrimination policy that they and the rest of the military engage in. I would presume Kerry would end that though. After that I have no real problem given the voluntary nature of ROTC.

I am amazed as to how quickly Kerry about forgot one of the major issues during the Vietnam War.

Or them not being able to? I'm unfamiliar with the issue. Would you please expand on that?

at Yale for instance, which is an interesting irony since Kerry, Bush and Dean are Yalies near that time.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=17416

the one in the 1960's was VietNam.

"The highest form of service is military service. America's military is having trouble recruiting and is increasingly relying on the reserves for active duty. John Kerry believes we must change that. The complicated missions we face and technologies we use depend on it. In a Kerry Administration, no university that receives federal aid will be allowed to ban the ROTC from their campus, except for religious reasons..."

Kerry will NEVER get my vote.

I would think would be the priesthood in its ideal form, not the military.

or a medic in a war zone as opposed to the man with the rifle.

But then, I was a conscientious objector. What do I know?

But it won't keep me from voting for Kerry. This country is so infatuated with the military it's hard for me to imagine someone having a chance of getting elected who wasn't pro-military whether to a lesser or greater degree.

We were really counting on your vote. We thought it was "in the bag"

I don't get why you would want to exclude these people. Maybe the schools feel that they won't get 4 years out of them.

You enroll in the program while attending normal college classes -- the requirements when I was in ROTC were an additional 1-2 credit class each term, a 1.5 hour "leadership laboratory" in which the entire corps of cadets would meet once per week, and Physical Training (PT) three days per week from 7-8 AM.

Friday PT was ALWAYS the worst, after going out on Thursday nights!

We also had 1-2 weekends per term we would go on exercises.

There were some additional training requirements, but this is the basis of the program. Throughout the 4 years, you learn about basic tactics, soldier skills, and leadership techniques. Upon graduation, you receive a commission in the armed forces as an O-1 (in the Army, this makes you a 2nd Lieutenant). Depending on your request and the needs of the service, you can be placed on either active duty for a minimum of 4 years, or reserve duty for a minimum of 8 years.

All I've ever seen you do is attack them.

If that is your agenda for being here, why are you here?