If Howard Dean does support STAR WARS....

[Kosmos Mariner]

as a part of his defense platform, how will this affect your support of his candidacy?



:dem:

[Kosmos Mariner]

1. kick

:kick:

[cyclezealot]

2. Massive boondoggle

I like Kucinich because of his modest 15% cut in defense spending.
Dean favors Star Wars..Except maybe modest research- that seals it.He will not get my vote.. Please, No basis to this..?
This is one of the biggest boondoggles as to why a 15% defense cut is badly needed. Just corporate welfare and a feather-bedding contract at that.

[Rose Siding]

5. How do you know he supports it?

Do you have a link or did the question asked in this post make you believe he supports the Raygun/Bush program?

Actually, he favors research and NOT the deployment of the unworkable system as it stands.

[wtmusic]

3. What is Star Wars? Can you even define it?

[Don Claybrook]

4. Cross-post: Star Wars is a Horrible Idea, but I'm voting Dean

I posted this in the other thread, but it fits here too:

From a Dean Supporter: Star Wars is a Terrible Idea

There, I said it. I hope to find that Howard Dean does not support any of this lunacy. However, even if he does, I will still be voting for him. I haven’t found a single candidate who represents all of my viewpoints. Kucinich comes closest, and Dean comes closer than anyone with a shot at winning. Again, I’m not going to agree with every plank of my candidate’s platform. Moreover, anyone who completely agrees with their candidate’s issues is either lying or a sheep.

There’s this tendency here to attack others’ candidates thusly: “Your candidate (supports/doesn’t support/said) such-and-such. He was quoted on December 34th, 1857 as saying (insert purportedly inflammatory quote here). What do you say for your guy now? How do you propose to defend him?”

My answer: I don’t have to defend my candidate against every damned attack made against him. If you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. I’ll keep myself educated on the various candidates, I’ll look for trends, and I’ll look for deal-killers. Then I’ll make composite scores of each of the candidates. And guess what? Dean has no deal-killers and he comes out ahead in the calculus of those candidates who actually have a chance of getting the nomination.

Further, when Dean is elected, I’ll be one of those people constantly advocating for him to push further to the left. If he’s pushing missile defense, I’ll be writing to him to let him know what a terrible idea it is. But don’t insult my intelligence by assuming you can attack the guy on one stance that may or may not be accurate and expect to sway my vote. I don’t expect to make asinine appeals for you to drop your candidate in hopes that it will sway you.

Thank you.

[wtmusic]

6. So a space-based missile defense of North Korean nukes is a bad idea?

Please explain why.

[Kool Kitty]

12. Why?

Because it hasn't performed well at all in tests, all have been failures, and the amount of money for just the tests alone have been astronomical.

[Patriot_Spear]

21. Nothing personal- but you just proved you have no knowledge of this topic

I suggest you read the Brooking's Institute report on SDI before asking any uninformed questions.

[wtmusic]

31. And you have proved that you have knoweledge of my knowledge

I suggest you respond to my question instead of arrogantly referring me to a third source.

If you don't have a response, maybe you need to do the reading...

[Patriot_Spear]

51. I don't have a whole semester to educate you...

Which is about how much time it would take to bring you up to speed on SDI. and I can't gift you 6 years of military experience.

I'm not trying to flame, I just don't have time for this.

[Don Claybrook]

26. Yes, it's a terrible idea

The militarization of space is a terrible idea. Here on earth, you can put a missile silo here, an airfield there, and an army base over there. They stay in a relatively fixed position inside sovereign territory.

Objects above the earth orbit. They go round and round in circles above the earth. They go over lots of different sovereign territories every 90 minutes or so. To place weapons in space would be a bullying tactic and a threat to humanity. To place weapons in space would be considered quite hostile by most countries over which those weapons orbit. This is what I expect from the Bush Administration. This is not what I want from Howard Dean.

Again, he still has my vote, and I still need to do some reading on what his actual stance is, but I'm foursquare against space-based weaponry.

Thank you.

[wtmusic]

29. Weapons systems would rely on satellites in geostationary orbits

that stay in a fixed position relative to the earth's surface.

Not an issue.

[Patriot_Spear]

30. SDI is sheer lunacy...

Rail guns, missiles, lasers? There are so many ways to defeat such a program it's not even funny.

[wtmusic]

32. There are so many ways to defeat a missile?

You are way out on thin ice PS. 'Star Wars' as a generic term incorporates hundreds if not thousands of different technologies.

To take a blanket position that we shouldn't pursue ANY weapons in space is just ignorant.

[Patriot_Spear]

35. You've got it reveresed- there are so many way to defeat an ABM System

I studied the issues quite a bit- I feel like I'm fairly well versed on the problems of Effective ABM technology.

[wtmusic]

43. Yes there are many ways to defeat an ABM system

but those defective systems are in use right now, all over the world.

[Don Claybrook]

33. They'll be 23,000 miles up?

If they're in geosynchronous orbits, they'll have to be a long, long way up.

If they're closer to earth and wish to stay stationary relative to the earth, they'll have to burn a lot of fuel 24/7, and I don't see how that's sustainable.

Either way, they'll have a long range deep into others' sovereign territory.

I just think it's wrong. And I support Howard Dean. And it's beginning to sound like he was slandered on this one in the first place.

Thanks.

[Patriot_Spear]

36. And depending on Trajectory, velocity and delivery method...

...with a flight time of minutes. Remember the admiral from the movie, Hunt for red October? 'The goddan thing is made to start a war!'

[wtmusic]

41. LOL well if he's slandered the point is moot anyway

I hear you on the sovereign territory issue--it's a legitimate concern. But I think his refusal to rule it out is a good one, that doesn't necessarily indicate support.

[Cha]

11. Dean Does Not "support star wars", Don!

That's the Good news! The bad news is these lies are gonna keep coming!

[Don Claybrook]

28. I do need to read up on this

And I hope you're right, that Dean doesn't support this.

Nonetheless, there will be issues where I don't agree with Dean, whether this becomes one or not. My main point is that, whichever candidate we support, we needn't become robot-freeper-automatons about our support. There's such a thing as nuance, shades of gray. This is what separates us from the lower life-forms, like slugs and the GOP. :) For anyone to claim their candidate is perfect is ridiculous on its face, no matter who their candidate is.

That said, Howard Dean scores better in this radical leftist's book than any of the other candidates who stand a chance of winning the nomination, and I'll be happy to vote for him.

Finally, yeah, I agree the lies will keep coming. I just wish they'd come from the right-wing instead of from my fellow Democrats.

Thanks for your reply.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Don Claybrook]

25. I did alert your personal attack

I did nothing to deserve that crap from you.

What's more, you're dead wrong and obviously aren't qualified to understand my principles.

I ask you in return, who is your candidate, and do you support EVERY stance that candidate takes on EVERY issue? I don't believe you do, because, you see, I extend more credit to you than you do to me. I personally don't think you're that shallow and one-dimensional, but I will await your answer and let you clarify.

You really should be ashamed of yourself for attacking someone who did nothing to deserve your wrath. It's my sincere hope that by the time I've retired, I will have worked through my anger issues enough not to snipe at like-minded liberals in order to try to leverage myself above those people in an attempt at making others think I'm witty or intelligent.

Thank you.

[KaraokeKarlton]

7. The Star Wars thing is a lie folks

See the thread I just started about it for the truth.

[LuminousX]

8. Howard Dean DOESN'T support Star Wars

and will redirect money slated for NMD to Homeland Security and to nonproliferation efforts (the best defense against a missile is to make sure one never gets built).

He will most likely continue the core research, though, as it is foolish to not explore the technology of being able to take out a missile in flight.

[Cha]

9. Dean Does Not Support Freakin'

Star WArs..

Dean opposes "Star Wars"

Military/Foreign Policy: Dean has called Bush's policy of renewed nuclear weapons development "insane" and opposes every significant component of "Star Wars" missile defense, declaring that any missile defense programs he would support will at least remain in compliance with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Dean also supports (with provisions, in some cases) the comprehensive nuclear test ban, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Biological Warfare Convention Protocol and the International Criminal Court (a website for the United Nations Association of the United States lists Dean as an "outspoken supporter" of the ICC). Dean supports signing the 1997 Landmine Treaty and believes that a similar treaty should be used to ban cluster bombs."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16592

This is taken from "Duder's" post on another thread! Thank you, Duder! Dude! :D

[Walt Starr]

10. Poop

:hurts:

[Cha]

13. Chuckle!

:D

[Patriot_Spear]

14. More anti-Dean nonsense...

Any reasonalbe person who keeps up with Defense issues knows 'Star Wars'/SDI/Whatever is a pipe dream and a fools errand.

The idea of persuing such a boon-doggle is a guarentee of escalation and eventual war.

[salin]

15. This is a misrepresentation. Dean Does NOT "Support Star Wars"

geez one person misrepresents an article and we need 20 threads on it all intended to be divisive.

read the article that was alluded to but NOT linked in that thread (until FAR down)...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mildems11dec11,1,3077064.story

He is against bush's moves on starwars.

He supports "missle defense" - continuing the landbased approach of Clinton (remember - clinton cut out star wars - so by definition this approach is NOT STARWARS).

The controversial part is that he did not support an international ban on the use of space for military technology (claiming that the ban was too broad - and with the advancement of technology - including use of satelites, that it might put the US at a disadvantage in the future). THIS is worth discussing - THIS IS AN ISSUE... BUT it is not the same as SUPPORT FOR STARWARS.

At least get the issue and question correct, rather than lifting someone elses intentnional use of propoganda and perpetuating it. WE are doing far too much of this against too many of our candidates.

Bad enough when DUers take existing slanted/distorted propoganda against candidates that exists elsewhere and perpetuates it here (ala Clark is a war criminal... Kerry is BFEE... etc.)

It is WORSE when someone at du - creates propoganda... which is likely to be picked up else where (already now repeated in this thread) - so now DU becomes a source of anti-democratic false propoganda. THis is an alltime new low.

[salin]

27. more to the point... this is PROPOGANDA and it is disturbing

read the above post - and the LA Times article... then - there is a legitimate question to ask - about the space ban - ask it. But don't perpetuate this propoganda linking Dean to StarWars. It is false.

[AP]

37. I resent the implication that I intentionally misled or spread propaganda.

I used Political Wire's headline. I ADDED the question marks. I wanted this discussed. If Political Wire is RW propaganda, I'm certainly wasn't aware of that fact. It's a legitimate issue to discuss.

[salin]

40. I let your thread

its misrepresentation of the LA TIMES Piece - stand for itself. If you want to correct the misleading linking of Starwars to Dean... then do so - HERE on THIS THREAD which is a result of the misinformation from that thread. Otherwise it seems to read as... "success!"

[salin]

42. Except of course... the item it linked to

never connects Dean to Starwars. Only the title does... that you linked... and framed as a given. What - you didn't read the article ...? You took the source citing another source and just linked it without reading what it said? Because if you had read it - you would have known that the article says the opposite. Therein... the propoganda!

[AP]

47. I addressed this in one of the other two threads. Please respnd there.

[Patriot_Spear]

45. AP has an Agenda against Dean- here's the proof. NOT a Personal Attack

AP is entitled to his opinion- everyone else is entitled to the truth on AP's position.

[AP]

46. Why don't you post the link so that people can read the context?

[Patriot_Spear]

48. It's right on the grapahic- you're anti-Dean. Please quit being deceptive

They're YOUR words.

[AP]

53. Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?

You don't want people to see the context, and, as radqueen noted in the other thread, this doesn't even say what you think it says.

I said that Dean says things over and over again which deserve scrutiny, and I was getting criticized for providing the scrutiny.

I was saying don't blame the messenger of the critique. Blame Dean for saying things that demand criticism.

Sorry if that doesn't work into your little McCarthyite fantasy about what's going on here, but those are the facts.

But I'm sure you'll respond to this post with some McCarthyistic subject line which continues to deceive people about what was going on in that thread.

[Patriot_Spear]

54. Stamp your foot and pretend moral outrage- they are still your own words.

I guess you regret making it clear how biased you are. It certainly does injure your credibility.

[AP]

55. Yes, just as I predicted in my previous post -- a misleading subject line

and an unsupported claim in your message, to boot, all while not addressing the issues I raised.

How does it injure my credibility that you saved some screen shot to wave in my face months later, that you wont provide people the link so that they can see to what I was responding, and that you won't even engage in a discussion of what that message was about.

Did you respond to radqueen's assesment of what you're trying to do here?

[Patriot_Spear]

56. You refuse to acknowledge your own words- hardly my fault.

Peace. I'm done here.

[AP]

58. Not only do I acknowledge those words, I acknowledge the words you wont...

show by refusing to post the link.

Furthermore, I support those words with further details about what I meant by them for the critically-impaired, which you also refuse to acknowledge.

You say you're out of here, but I'll give you this advice anyway: if you're just going to keep posting subject lines that sloganeer and avoid substance, I'll go toe to toe with you.

But at some point you're going to have to deal with facts.

[Rose Siding]

16. Dean on military spending and missile defense:

Redirect military spending rather than reduce defense budget
On military spending, Dean has rightfully aroused anger and skepticism from progressives with his claims that he will not reduce military spending. It appears, however, that these statements are a political dodge of sorts to avoid media characterizations of Dean as the "antiwar candidate" and "weak on national security." Dean has told audiences that he would not reduce military spending but rather "redirect" it toward the development and implementation of renewable energy technology (an issue he ties to defense), homeland security measures to fund local first responders, inspect container ships and protect nuclear sites (a move that Alexander Cockburn himself recently called on Bush to make), and the purchase of old nuclear materials in Russia.
Source: Nico Pitney, CommonDreams.org, "Progressive Case for Dean" Aug 11, 2003

Shift $1B per year from missile defense to threat reduction
A Dean administration would be guided by the notion that Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and related programs with are a more urgent priority than National Missile Defense and would transfer $1 billion per year from the over $8 billion ballistic missile defense budget to CTR and related programs. As President, Howard Dean will increase our intelligence, police and military special forces capabilities abroad to thwart and disrupt terrorist operations.
Source: Campaign website, DeanForAmerica.com Jul 2, 2003

Focus Pentagon budget on military personnel's needs
I do not favor decreasing the Pentagon budget, but do support restructuring the way money is spent to ensure the most effective use of taxpayers' dollars possible. I am deeply committed to maintaining a high quality professional force established during the Clinton years. I also believe much more must be done to provide for the well-being of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen and their families.
Source: Campaign website, DeanForAmerica.com, "DOD Budget" Jul 2, 2003

Focus war budget on protecting vital infrastructure
We must stop shortchanging homeland defense. We need a war budget here at home, with a much more substantial investment in helping Russia to safeguard nuclear materials.
Source: DeanForAmerica.com campaign website, "National Security" Jun 17, 2003

http://www.issues2002.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Homeland_Security.htm#3

This is from Dean's page on the "On The Issues" site

http://www.issues2002.org/Howard_Dean_VoteMatch.htm

I suspected that he'd use the military budget for energy research but hadn't seen it written before. I had the same thought when I heard him speak of int'l Aids treatment funding as "nat'l securtity". I'd dearly LOVE to see that in the defense budget.

[AWD]

17. This is clearly a push poll.....

....as you KNOW he doesn't support Star Wars.

It's beneath you.

[Patriot_Spear]

18. New Poll: Has Dean Stopped Beating his Wife?

The current poll has all the moral validity of my fake poll: nill.

[retyred]

20. dean beats his wife?

have a link?


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Patriot_Spear]

22. ABD strikes again... n/t

[Rose Siding]

23. Doncha want a link for the original post question?

[Patriot_Spear]

24. You mean the LA Times piece? Read it. Otherwise send it.

n/t

[Rose Siding]

34. huh?

I was responding to a poster that hadn't asked for any substantiation of the premise in the question in the orig post but then seemed jokingly willing to see a link on something negative about Dean.

"Read it. Otherwise send it", means what? :shrug:

[Patriot_Spear]

38. I meant if you had another source I'd read it. n/t

[goodhue]

39. Voter Guide on Foreign Policy

Here is a good comparison chart by peace action.

http://www.peace-action.org/2004/vg8x11.pdf

The web site http://www.peace-action.org/2004/
has the Q & A that backs up the chart.

Here is Dean position on missile defense as they characterize it . .

http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Dean.html

4. Do you support the development of national missile defense? UNCLEAR

“A Dean administration would be guided by the notion that Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and related programs are a more urgent priority than National Missile Defense and would transfer $1 billion per year from the over $8 billion ballistic missile defense budget to CTR and related programs.”

Source: Dean for America campaign website


You may now return to previously scheduled flame fest.

[goodhue]

44. wow

I hope my post didn't inadvertently kill the flame fest. But I see variants of the same issue flaming up other posts so all is not lost.

[AP]

49. What is CTR?

?

[RPG-7]

52. Cooperative Threat Reduction

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ctr/

[killbotfactory]

50. As long as he doesn't like Jar Jar Binks...

Dean ain't no idealogue, and he'll examine each issue on it's own merits. You won't always agree with him. That's just the way it is.

[Eloriel]

57. Is this a push poll?

Sure seems like it to me.

And I'm sorry, but I really have a problem with the kinds of posts that push inaccuracies and help develop and spread new memes, whether it's on behalf of another candidate or the RNC.

I didn't vote.

[Kosmos Mariner]

59. RNC?? Please....

This a legitimate question asking if important issues like supporting Star Wars would change your backing of a candidate. If Dean supports such a system, would you still support him? Quit being hypersensitive.

:eyes:

[David__77]

60. Work to make nuclear weapons irrelevant.

If space-based defense systems can be COOPERATIVELY developed by the nuclear powers for the defense of all the nuclear powers and others, I think it would be a good thing. We absolutely must neutralize the nuclear threat, and I think a good platform on space-based defense and a program to develop new technology toward this end would be a good thing.