Should a strong military be part of the Democratic Party Platform?

[Kosmos Mariner]

What are your opinions on this subject?


:dem:

[Walt Starr]

1. It's spelled out in the Constitution, first paragraph

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Kosmos Mariner]

3. common defense....

...does not neccessarily mean having a strong military...



:dem:

[arewethereyet]

5. OK I'll bite, is there any other way to provide for the common defense ?

clever negotiators will not stop the barbarians at the gate

[durutti]

11. It doesn't mean imperialism, either.

And that's what the current military is designed for.

[arewethereyet]

13. you need a damn sight more ground troops for that

its designed for fast powerful decisive action, not siege, not occupation

[IrateCitizen]

46. Fast, powerful, decisive action WITH A GLOBAL REACH

THAT is what our military is designed for. And that spirit is hardly in line with "providing for the common defense." Last time I saw that barbarians were knocking at our gates was during the War of 1812, to be quite honest. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was really the opening salvo of the last colonial war between two aspiring empires more than anything else.

As for the imperialism question, it's all about the NEW imperialism. It's about the threat of overwhelming military force, combined with covert black ops and proxy wars (see Central America, 1978-1990) to undermine regimes that are not to our "liking".

[Bucky]

17. The US military is certainly NOT designed for imperialism. (e.g., Iraq)

Read Wesley Clark's essay "America's Virtual Empire" in the November Washington Monthly. Our citizen soldiers are ill suited for the task at hand, pacifying a determined, patriotic foriegn populace. We can win the fights, but we're no damn good at conquering and subjecting people.

But you're right, a strong self defense has nothing to do with creating empires. Imperialism is a hell of a lot more dangerous than securing our borders.

[Kosmos Mariner]

19. Do you really think that the Department of Defense....

wants to be used for empire building?



:dem:

[Melodybe]

22. Unfortunately, we have no choice. Shrub already fucked this up.

No matter who takes office we can not simply remove our troops. The Iraqi's will be at the mercy of the warlords waiting in the wings. I wish for peace with all of my heart but fundy Muslims in those countries don't give a fuck about women or their rights. For that reason alone, I want some millitary there to protect them.

[DieboldMustDie]

30. Does providing for the common defense...

mean we have to spend more on our military than all the rest of the world combined?

[killbotfactory]

2. Of course, but...

We need to make a distinction between strong military and military industrial handouts for shit we don't need.

[AnAmerican]

10. Hear, hear

I find myself in total agreement with you. A strong military does not mean Pentagon waste and fat cat defense contractors siphoning monies that could be used better in other areas.

[Fixated]

4. .....

Strong military = not wasting billions on Cold War-era subs and overly expensive planes. If we spent the same amount of money usefully, we'd be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are now.

[arewethereyet]

7. having the best planes in the world is critical

and it's subs that are our first line of defense everywhere, you see they can't bee seen, they're underwater.

[Bucky]

21. I see you say I see they can't be seen. But can I say I see unseen things?

Sí?

[arewethereyet]

34. feel free

n/t

[Military Brat]

38. Bucky has been temporarily possessed by the devil Rumsfeld

Just kidding!

On the issue, yes, we need a strong military, but a lean and mean force, not a fat, bloated, budget-heavy, porky, play-favorites, reward the rich and screw the troops kind of military, as * would have it.

* has gotten us into such a royal effed-up mess, we must maintain a strong military to provide a defense against those who will attempt to wreak revenge for years to come. And while we're at it, let's make part of our platform that we'll treat the troops right instead of giving them bogus lip service.

[arewethereyet]

41. our treatment of enlisted (wo)men is deplorable

even I'll give up an F15 for a major uptick in pay for the troops.

I wish I could recall the particular level but you essentially have to serve five years before you cross the poverty line. and don't believe that they get 'free cloths'. they get ONE set and they have to launder all of it themselves.

If you heard it all you'd be sick.

[OldSoldier]

45. The Clothing Bag

According to Common Table of Allowances 50-900 (Clothing and Individual Equipment), dated 1990, this is a soldier's initial issue:

Males:

2 temperate-weather battledress coats
2 temperate-weather battledress pants
2 hot-weather battledress coats
2 hot-weather battledress pants
2 battledress caps
2 field jackets
2 pair combat boots
6 pair black wool socks (vets note: this replaces both the green wool sock and the black nylon sock)
6 brown t-shirts
6 brown briefs
2 thermal undergarment tops
2 thermal undergarment bottoms
2 white t-shirts
1 pair low-quarter shoes
1 dress coat, Army green AG-344
2 pair dress pants, Army green AG-344
2 dress shirts, short sleeve
2 dress shirts, long sleeve
1 necktie, black four-in-hand
2 garrison caps
2 belts
4 brown towels
2 brown washcloths
1 black belt buckle
1 brass belt buckle
2 brass insignia, "US"
1 brass insignia, branch of service
1 nameplate
1 duffel bag


Female soldiers receive the same issue with the exception of the dress uniform. The "Classic" uniform consists of the following components:

1 jacket
2 pair slacks
2 skirts
2 long-sleeve blouses
2 short-sleeve blouses
1 neck tab
1 purse

Female soldiers are required to supply their own pumps and foundation undergarments. They are reimbursed for this expense.

After the soldier graduates from Advanced Individual Training, his or her black beret is issued.

In addition, the soldier receives a clothing allowance once per year to replace worn-out and otherwise unserviceable basic issue items.

Typically, a soldier will augment this issue as follows:

1. More underwear.
2. Different socks. The Army says they have to be either green or black--there is no wearout date on the socks, and they used to be green. Clothing Sales stores all have cotton and cotton/poly blend socks that are the right length and color.
3. More BDU pants. You'll generally wear out two pairs of pants for every one worn-out shirt.
4. Troops who work in administrative positions, and who wear their dress uniforms to work (Class A uniform is with jacket; Class B is without. Most admin troops wear Class Bs.) will buy more dress shirts and pants, or blouses, slacks and/or skirts.
5. Better towels. The ones the Army issues are waterproof.

[bowens43]

6. It always has been but....

we could have massive cuts in the military budget and still have the most powerful military on earth. The problem with the military today is that it is no longer a defensive force, it is an offensive force. The military was established to protect America not to invade and conquer other nations.

[arewethereyet]

9. tell your congressmen to let the military close bases they don't need

that would save billions at no penalty to security.

but the locals say 'no no close that other one'. can't have it both ways.

[ACK]

8. More interesting question might be ...

WTF do we do about the military to reform it without further alienating the military that is absolutely in love irrational love with the Repuke party?

I propose that we go on a waste hunt and pledge not to close more bases because of it and put half the money found back into pay and benefits for military.

We know that there are contracts for materials and arms that just corporate scams.

How do we stop the waste in military spending without pissing off the common man and reinforcing the bullshit image that the Dems are weak pansycrats?

Cut the waste but give half the money gained by reforming the way the military spends its money back to the soldiers in the field.

That is my idea.

[arewethereyet]

12. I like the money part but the bases have to go

thats a boatload of money to be saved

[ACK]

23. Ok not being clear enough.. my fault

Listen you cannot go after both at the same time.

Going after the contract waste is something that can play as popular and put the military industrial complex on notice.

But, if you cut bases at the same time then all the military families in those areas get hyped up and the repukes can take advantage of it and turn a Dem victory into a defeat easy.

Biting off too much at once has killed more than one progressive policy.

[arewethereyet]

35. I understand your point

but its not the military families that care, its the non-military ones.

My point is that the military WANTS to close the bases and for very good reasons. Its just states who have been coopting off this gravy train that complain.

Defining and detecting waste is a lot harder than you think. The military industrial complex is pretty damn good at being, well, complex. Its a decade in studies, audits and the like before the first dollar of savings is realized.

We've already spent a gazillion dollars in studies etc to move forward immediately with the base closures.

But who are we kidding, neither will ever happen.

[ACK]

56. Oh I know its the non-military but remember Clinton...

Its pork belly spending. Its tough for some good congressmen. You are trying to appeal to rural voters and you have this worthless base in the boondocks of your district. The rest of your accomplishments go down the toilet if you don't fight congress when they try to close that puppy down.

I think military contract waste is an easier political target right off the bat.

Don't be so pessimistic Clinton got some closures.

[jmaier]

14. Yes but

A strong military isn't 1) always correlated with high budgets and 2) impossible to have without defining it's missions. A strategic rethink is probably in order.

"Republicans like weapons systems. Democrats like people." Wes Clark

[Kosmos Mariner]

16. Good quote!

:hi:


:dem:

[jokerman93]

15. Like it or not

We've made allot of enemies these past years. Unfortunately it's everyone's problem now.

We'll be hearing from all the people that have been scr**ed by patriotic corporate barons protecting the American way of life without our permission.

[jokerman93]

33. a little more about this...

I feel the US agressions have finally blown the powder keg and this fire is going to last for awhile. I wish it weren't true, but from now on, if we don't have a "show" of might, it will only be regarded as a vulnerability to many of our now very obvious enemies.

As far as national security/defence is concerned, Bush has launched a mutation of the classic arms race against much of the impoverished or underdeveloped Moslem world -- powered by Christ, crime, and gasoline. A bad thing. Not easily reined in.

[Donna Zen]

18. I didn't vote

because I was looking for a choice that said, "it doesn't matter."

The Democrats have always supported a strong defense. The ballooning military budget doesn't just happen by itself. We have been labeled "weak on defense" for two reasons. One, it keeps Dems voting for shit they know is stupid and wasteful because they are afraid of being labeled "weak on defense." Two, with the repugs owning all things military, they love keeping up the myth; it works great for them.

We are not weak on defense...plenty of Dems for military everytime. Therefore, it doesn't matter. Gore proposed more money for defense than bush and was still weak on defense.

One of the reasons, although not my first condition, I want Clark in office is to break the cycle. There is plenty of money to be drained out of the military budget, and he is the only person running who can do it. He has also said he would do it. Also, it is damn dangerous to have the military controlled by one party. I have posted this here before, but it bears repeating: we are two treaties away from the militarization of space. Four more years of the devil spawn, and those treaties will be gone. The junta has been plugging money into the military for just this purpose, and the man currently at the head of the JC believes in it.

[OneBlueSky]

20. a strong military, yes . . .

a military budget that surpasses all of the rest of the world combined, no . . . and no money for new nukes, space rays, or star wars "defense" systems . . . those alone could save us a bundle . . .

[kerryistheanswer]

24. No

Like the great Dennis Kucinich says, we should use the billions of extraneous dollars given to defense to fund many of the social programs we need.

Did you all read this week's Nation? over 31 million Americans are below poverty - the wage gap between college educated and high school has gone up significantly over the last 25 years.

We need to focus on redistributing wealth so the wealthiest nation elminates poverty and inequality once and for all!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Yes a strong military is necessary and should be part of the platform

Currently far too much of our miltary budget is not going to the United States military but to private militias that act on behalf of Americans in other nations. We are rewarding these companies for damaging our image in the world at the expense of our own military.

The less money privatised in the military effort and the more money spent on building US troops sensibly and rotating them, the less incentive there is to cause unrest. Private military corporations will always create a need to keep themselves in business.

[Kosmos Mariner]

27. Interesting point about corporate military support...

nt


:dem:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. I had an interesting radio call with Admiral Carroll from

The Center for Defense information before he died last year. He was a guest on Malloy. I asked him if the money going into private military corps was a concern and his answer was NOT yet...BUT as we rey on them more and more, it becomes more difficult to manage their budgets and make sure we are getting a good return on our investment.

I consider the Center for Defense Information to be a generally reliable source for defense info.

You may recall them from back in the 80's during the Reagan build up. They had a program on PBS called "America's Defense Monitor"

I think the problem with your poll is that we aren't defining what a strong defense is. No one is asking the question.

Is privatising our defense to industries that do business and sell products to coutries that later become a threat to us a good bang for our buck?

Btw..here's a link to CDI if you aren't already familiar:

http://www.cdi.org/

[KittyWampus]

43. I Would LOVE To Hear Clark Comment On This

In Iraq now, isn't there issues of basic supplies not getting to the troops because private concerns were responsible and failed to carry through?

Thought I read that somewheres...

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. yes.

Especially since the shrub is running his campaign on terrorism, the war, the unpatriotic democrats, ect.... it should be part of the platform to counter the shrub. KMCPO

[Kosmos Mariner]

28. Support a strong military.....

...only to get Dems back in the Whitehouse?



:dem:

[OhioStateProgressive]

31. I believe we should have lots of wooden planes, inflatable tanks

and let Hollywood make the rest of the world believe we can kill them in a single blow, and then we can go about our business as peaceful people

[IronLionZion]

32. It's strong now

it doesn't have to be made stronger.

[arewethereyet]

37. the only constant is change

but noone is talking about stronger. smarter perhaps, nimbler maybe.

weapons systems take a long time from drawing board to fruit. do you think China is sitting pat ?

[IrateCitizen]

51. China's main force is in NUMBERS

Their military expenditures are dwarfed by ours. We spend more money on our military than the next twenty five nations combined.

And that spending is full of fraud and waste. Just read the transcript from last week's NOW with Bill Moyers, and his interview with the Pentagon financial analyst who blew the whistle on all of the fraud and corruption.

Military spending is not about defense. It's about the Military-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL Complex. Military contractors get contracts, congressional reps get pork and contributions, generals get contractor executive slots upon retirement -- and the vast majority of American people lose out in the end.

[rucky]

36. "strong" is a code word for $$$ - I'd say "effective"

strong does not = the disgusting amounts of unaudited pork we hand to the Pentagon.

We need an effective military. Lean, precise, humane. Backed by good intelligence and even better diplomacy.

[Scott Lee]

39. Defensive, or OFFENSIVE military?

That is the conundrum we face.

[arewethereyet]

40. the best defense is a good offense

better still is a defense that strikes WHILE its blocking.

as in all things, balance is good.

[wuushew]

42. Really what was the last good war?

Its been a while

[Gringo]

44. Yes, but we could cut the defense budget by a third and still be as strong

There is SO much being wasted on fraud, waste and abuse, sweetheart contracts for overpiced and obsolete weaponry, stationing so many people around the world, and redundancy.

[Selwynn]

47. No, a JUST military should be part of our platform...

..and that would include tearing down a military designed for imperialism and building up a miltiary designed for defense and security rather than global domination.

[CWebster]

48. Yes, I think we should have a strong military and weak

human services, fucking socialist commies. We should leave our parents sick and without the means to survive, we should underpay teachers and not fund schools. We should cut the dole on the unemployed, lazy bums join the army. Can't get an education, join the army. Oooops, no handouts, you bums. We need a strong military to show the world where our priorities lie. As beacons of freedom and democracy we must lead the world and show others how it is done.

Butter or guns? We choose guns, we will show the world we are the biggest dick on the block and they will love us for it....or else.

[mmonk]

49. No

of course not :eyes: I don't want to win. We should stress a weak one.

[janx]

50. Is is not already? I don't understand the question. We have to

have a strong military.

That doesn't mean, however, that we should use it for imperialist purposes.

[Ksec]

52. you bet it should. as a deterrent, only as a last resort nt

[ozone_man]

53. Define strong.

Stronger than all other countries combined? I think we're about there, based on spending anyway. I vote no.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. NO! Dylan spelled it out in a song: "Masters of War"

Just what we need more and better weapons to kill people with. As if we didn't already have the strongest military in history.

So we feed the corporations in a never ending cycle of paying for destruction that makes us the enemy of everyone that requires us to spend even more to defend ourselves.

I'm saddened by this vote count. More what I'd expect over at freeperville.

[Ksec]

55. Now what I meant

wasnt meant to be a vote for a bigger military complex. I tend to believe we could have a strong military on about half of what the budget is now. The military corporations would be severely cut, the soldiers would get raises up to 20000 a year for starting salaries.

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. Yes, a strong military which defends the United States of America...

...not one that does the bidding of oil corporations or other governments (with the possible exception of UN coalition actions)

[Lars39]

58. But with even stronger diplomatic efforts and the strongest effort

to scale back on things that go boom, too.

[Terwilliger]

59. what kind of simplistic question is this? as opposed to what?

:shrug: