U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2010, 09:18 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,520,720 times
Reputation: 347

Advertisements

Tea Partiers think the hockey Mom came out of the blue from nowhere?


The NeoCONS needn't worry, Sarah Palin was vetted by PNAC for Mccain's VP pick

William Kristol Eyeing Role As Palin PNAC Puppetmaster? -- Daily Intel

WonkRoom » PNAC: Palin’s Pentagon In Waiting?

Sarah Palin's top advisor outed as PNAC ("New Pearl Harbor") director - Los Angeles LA County Libertarian | Examiner.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2010, 09:48 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,699,474 times
Reputation: 3691
The PNAC or Project for a New American Century, is all but washed up and its membership scattered to places like the AEI and other similar think tanks. Funny you mention William Kristol as he recommended that his fellow PNAC buds hedge their bets in the past election and support Hillary Clinton, in fact they even wrote a gush piece of high praise and adulation for her. In 2004, William Kristol also said on live TV (and I still have the VHS recording of it) during the DNC that, "Neoconservatives should embrace their liberal roots".

Its no wonder the Neoconservatives can so easily move between contemporary parties, as most Neoconservatives were born out of disgruntled liberals and former Trotskyist. Unlike their god father, Leo Strauss who took on a decided Platonist view, the reincarnation of second generation Neoconservatives had nothing against domestic social programs and in fact encouraged many of their co-opted social conservative soldiers to embrace big government on "their" social issues.

As to Palin, I suspect we will see her popularity diminish greatly after these elections as establishment GOP isn't too thrilled about her siphoning off seats to what Kristol recently called, "An air of isolationist" among Tea Party candidates. The establishment GOP simply won't stand for their rank and file to take on a Ron Paulian view of foreign policy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 09:45 PM
 
Location: exit 0
5,075 posts, read 3,829,729 times
Reputation: 6703
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
The PNAC or Project for a New American Century, is all but washed up and its membership scattered to places like the AEI and other similar think tanks. Funny you mention William Kristol as he recommended that his fellow PNAC buds hedge their bets in the past election and support Hillary Clinton, in fact they even wrote a gush piece of high praise and adulation for her. In 2004, William Kristol also said on live TV (and I still have the VHS recording of it) during the DNC that, "Neoconservatives should embrace their liberal roots".

Its no wonder the Neoconservatives can so easily move between contemporary parties, as most Neoconservatives were born out of disgruntled liberals and former Trotskyist. Unlike their god father, Leo Strauss who took on a decided Platonist view, the reincarnation of second generation Neoconservatives had nothing against domestic social programs and in fact encouraged many of their co-opted social conservative soldiers to embrace big government on "their" social issues.

As to Palin, I suspect we will see her popularity diminish greatly after these elections as establishment GOP isn't too thrilled about her siphoning off seats to what Kristol recently called, "An air of isolationist" among Tea Party candidates. The establishment GOP simply won't stand for their rank and file to take on a Ron Paulian view of foreign policy.
Hush now, Tn. You make too much sense.
__________________
"I have decided to stick with love... Hate is too great a burden to bear." ~Martin Luther King Jr.
Terms of Service
Copyright Info
Frequently Asked Questions
]Do NOT reply to moderator posts that are in RED.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 10:04 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,699,474 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibginnie View Post
Hush now, Tn. You make too much sense.
Ginnie, I should mail you a vhs copy of the CSPAN debate I had with Max Boot back in like 2002-2003 on the PNAC. After making my argument, Max stated on air that the PNAC was non-existent and was conjured fantasy. To which the moderator then, while live on air, posted their website and noted Max Boot as one of its signatories. Few things tasted so sweet.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2010, 03:41 PM
 
6,021 posts, read 5,627,029 times
Reputation: 1871
Ya know Tn, I'm curious to know whether even the raging party people can grasp the fact that if we don't at least reallocate that massive, bloated military budget to at least support a domestic manufacturing sector for our soldier boys, our military will be the tea baggees for the likes of communist China and other foreign powers.

So much for freedom and liberty.

"We're now begging Russia for helicopters for the war in Afghanistan. No embarrassment. We shot down Russian helicopters with stinger missiles to win Charlie Wilson's war. The War Production Act of 1950 requires the President to move to ensure the nation's production and supply of necessary equipment and materiel for our security. President Kennedy used it to save the textile industry. President Obama should have immediately upon taking office used it to ensure the nation's supply of helicopters rather than calling on Russia. In fact, we've off-shored our security. Defending the United States now depends upon the favor of foreign nations. Millions of jobs could be created if the 1950 Act was enforced."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2010, 01:34 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
37,628 posts, read 24,701,543 times
Reputation: 11995
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
One of the primary themes of the Tea Party folks is deficit spending, in fact government spending in general. a national debt nearing 100 percent of gross domestic product and a deficit of 10 percent of GDP. As to the cause of the deficit that could precipitate a run on the dollar, double-digit inflation, even a default, the Tea Party and GOP also agree — federal spending that consumes 25 percent of GDP. Both are also on the same page in their opposition to closing the deficit with new or higher taxes.[1] Not to mention the interest on the debt that must be paid or risk default, so the money has to come from somewhere.

There are two major sources of where this money is to be found, one being in social services, VA benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, education, Social Security and all the traditional areas where Democrats support. The other place to look for some cash is our military apparatus and costs to defend our empire.

Now here is where we will see just how principled the Tea Party movement really is.


If Obama makes good on his pledge of full withdrawal of the 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, will the Tea Party and Republican right oppose that withdrawal and join the War Party in demanding that we retain an army in Iraq indefinitely?

If Obama refuses to go to war against Iran, a war that would send oil prices soaring, close the Persian Gulf and be a disaster for the global economy, will the Tea Party join the War Party in denouncing Obama for not launching a third war in the Near East?

If Obama begins his promised withdrawal from Afghanistan next July, will Tea Party Republicans join the War Party and the generals in accusing Obama of inviting an American defeat? The neoconservaitves are nervous the Tea Party may not sign up to soldier on for the empire. Writing in The Washington Post, Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly of AEI have sniffed out the unmistakable scent of "isolationism" among Tea Party favorites. [1]

I rather enjoyed that the American Conservative agrees with me that there is a distinction between national defense and defense of the empire. I mean we are still defending Europe from an enemy that collapsed 20 years ago. Even President Eisenhower told John F. Kennedy to bring the troops home from Europe and surely Eisenhower wasn't a closet isolationist.

The United States is now in its thirteenth straight year of uninterrupted growth in the defense budget, an unprecedented rise in spending that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has rightly termed a “gusher.” Yet even though we no longer face an enemy that is economically or technically on par with the US as was the former Soviet Union, we are still looking to fund massive top tier weapons systems that have little logical sense in todays environment.

Take the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) a 13.2 billion dollar project for an amphibious assault vehicle. proponents suggest that since it allows Marines to be staged further off shore it adds to security and thus an added dimension to the Marines arsenal. Of course the United States hasn't engaged in any wide scale amphibious assault since the Korean War, nor does it take in account that modern anti-ship missiles have much greater range so thus offsetting the benefits of its range. This also doesn't include numerous design and systems failures during testing as well as an expected cost overrun of 168%!

We won't even bother discussing the 11 new 13.8 billion a piece aircraft carries the Navy wants, let alone the pet projects of the Airforce, Marines and Army.

What more pragmatic Presidents and national security experts have in the past noted was that national security is also heavily dependent upon our economic security. So what happens when our lust for high ticket, bloated, delayed and cost overran projects begins to have diminishing returns? Will we end up like the former Soviet Union, buying aircraft carriers while the people wait in bread lines?

For me, this is an issue which will define how principled the Tea Party movement is, or whether it is just another bought and paid for rage campaign.



(permission to reprint extended excerpt granted if provided the following link)
[1]Pat Buchanan The American Conservative » Tea Party vs. War Party


I realize the left has utter contempt for our service members and view them as uncivilized, intellectually inferior boobs who couldn't handle working at McDonald's so they enlisted in the military. For them, gutting defense is always appealing. But I simply have too much respect for these brave young patriots to fail to give them the very best equipment, training and support possible. See, it isn't about being defeated by lesser military powers around the globe. It's about saving the lives of the young men and women who stand between us and the people who would destroy us and threaten our way of life.

As for the obsolete amphibious assault, critics have been heralding the end of ship to shore operations since WW2. But we still rely upon it because it still works better than anything else. I remember hearing about all these new missiles that were going to make the marine corps obsolete thirty years ago when I served. However, if you're right and I'm wrong, shouldn't we double-down on counter measures for the sake of the sailors and marines who face our enemies for us?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2010, 03:06 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,699,474 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
I realize the left has utter contempt for our service members and view them as uncivilized, intellectually inferior boobs who couldn't handle working at McDonald's so they enlisted in the military. For them, gutting defense is always appealing. But I simply have too much respect for these brave young patriots to fail to give them the very best equipment, training and support possible. See, it isn't about being defeated by lesser military powers around the globe. It's about saving the lives of the young men and women who stand between us and the people who would destroy us and threaten our way of life.

As for the obsolete amphibious assault, critics have been heralding the end of ship to shore operations since WW2. But we still rely upon it because it still works better than anything else. I remember hearing about all these new missiles that were going to make the marine corps obsolete thirty years ago when I served. However, if you're right and I'm wrong, shouldn't we double-down on counter measures for the sake of the sailors and marines who face our enemies for us?
Saving the lives of brave young men and women, how quaint. Try not sending them into an unnecessary war in the first place.

However for many pro-war advocates, war is a great thing as long as they aren't the ones risking their own lives.

Truth is, many Americans are gutless cowards who quake in fear at even the most unreasonable delusional fantasies of contrived threat. To those threats that actually do exist, they will gladly roll over on their yellow bellies and sign every right and freedom away as long as Uncle Sam offers someone else's child a vehicle to the front.

There are certainly dangers in this world, but to those who wish for the demise of America, they have no real means, to those that have the means, there is no real desire. The constant overstatement of danger and threat has turned a nation of 300 million into blubbering fearful children.

There was a time not too long ago when America was actually a confident and tough nation, but today I would equate it to a middle aged balding fat man with a box of viagra and a convertible corvette cruising college bars and threatening rivals with litigation.

As to the basic question of the OP, will the Tea Party join with the War Party, I say no, because they already have. So one can only conclude that the bulk of the Tea Party isn't as concerned with government spending as they are with replacing our current war President with an even bigger war monger they can support from behind their keyboards.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2010, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
37,628 posts, read 24,701,543 times
Reputation: 11995
"Saving the lives of brave young men and women, how quaint. Try not sending them into an unnecessary war in the first place."


OK, what about our service members who will be required to fight the next "necessary" war?

With what shall we equip them?

I say the best money can buy.

Raise taxes, lower spending in other areas, do whatever it takes because there is no excuse for placing our finest young people in more danger than absolutely necessary as they defend the rest of us.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2010, 08:29 PM
 
1,263 posts, read 2,270,458 times
Reputation: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"Saving the lives of brave young men and women, how quaint. Try not sending them into an unnecessary war in the first place."


OK, what about our service members who will be required to fight the next "necessary" war?

With what shall we equip them?

I say the best money can buy.

Raise taxes, lower spending in other areas, do whatever it takes because there is no excuse for placing our finest young people in more danger than absolutely necessary as they defend the rest of us.
mo,
You just don't get it.
In this OP's view, there is no such thing as a necessary war. It's a Paulist (as the OP would describe it) isolationist take on the US and its role in the world. Everything is "interventionist". America's joining with the allies in WWII was "interventionist".

Any response to this OP should be prefaced on an understanding of this position.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2010, 08:37 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,699,474 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"Saving the lives of brave young men and women, how quaint. Try not sending them into an unnecessary war in the first place."


OK, what about our service members who will be required to fight the next "necessary" war?

With what shall we equip them?

I say the best money can buy.

Raise taxes, lower spending in other areas, do whatever it takes because there is no excuse for placing our finest young people in more danger than absolutely necessary as they defend the rest of us.
As I've pointed out many times before, the United States has a military apparatus that is as large as the next 15 of the worlds largest nations combined, so if we are spending this much, deploying this many pieces of armament and have this many personnel engaged and cannot even displace a relatively small number of Afghan insurgents, then do we double this number?

As the original piece by Buchanan pointed out, we have to first define what we are defending. Is it simply our national defense or is it defense of our empire? After all, I'm all in favor of giving our troops the best equipment man can devise and in numbers ample to have every single soldier equipped with this best gear in defense of America, its people and its land.

Problem is we are defending Europe from an enemy that collapsed 20 years ago. We are stationed in every corner of the globe, upon every wave in the sea and out into the reaches of space itself and at some point you will have to decide, are we defending the nation or are we defending the world by defending out interests that are spread out around the globe? After all when you are deployed to nearly every point on the globe then your "defense of interests" become our ships, planes, bases and personnel that are adjacent to places which are in near perpetual conflict, such as the Middle East. One plane gets shot down, one ship gets attacked and it is "America under attack" that is reported in the news and this just isn't rational.

America has become obsessed with this notion that perfect security exist and that if we spend enough that we can achieve a state of pure safety and this is pure fantasy. I'm certainly not suggesting that we gut our military, but at the same time military spending is absolutely a place that must be looked at with serious consideration. Yet before we can even look at military spending we must first look at how we pursuit our foreign policy which dictates what we must spend in the first place.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:58 PM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top