Non-American viewpoints on Election - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

charlesesl · 10-18-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Yessir, the US and China never got into it, not when the PLA invaded Korea, nor when they supplied massive logistical support to the Vietnamese. I have friends that are still alive that killed Chinese Communists in a real-live shooting war. No history of conflict there...

The chinese were so concerned about obtaining missile technology to allow them to construct inter-continental ballistic missiles because....we were too far from them to use intra-continental ballistic missiles for their nukes?

Please read real history instead of taking them for your brainwasher GI friend who pride himself for killing a fellow human being.
Last time I check US invaded Korea and Vietnam first. And given the location of the 2 countries, China has way more right than US.

charlesesl · 10-18-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Then why is the chinese military being told that their ultimate enemy is in fact the US, and that they need to be prepared? Why is the PLAN building a blue-water navy?

China has never stated any statments which have shown agression against US during the last decade.
Meanwhile, bush is calling China a competative oppenot.

charlesesl · 10-18-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I recall the incident.

The plane was FORCED to land at the air-base.

It had been flying in international air-space.

So yes, it is China's fault.

I guess china sent some suecide poilet to crash US SPY plane so that it will land in chinse military base.
Last time I checked, the plane was bad damnaged to land in chinese military base without chinese concent.

Btw, was it also china's fault to built their ambessy on a location that will soon be bombed by the US.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlesesl

Please read real history instead of taking them for your brainwasher GI friend who pride himself for killing a fellow human being.
Last time I check US invaded Korea and Vietnam first. And given the location of the 2 countries, China has way more right than US.

Uh huh, Comrade. Yessir, the US of A was a Capitalist Aggressor in Korea, all right, that's why we were there under the UN flag.

I bet you support freeing Tibet, eh?

daswig · 10-18-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlesesl

I guess china sent some suecide poilet to crash US SPY plane so that it will land in chinse military base.
Last time I checked, the plane was bad damnaged to land in chinese military base without chinese concent.

Btw, was it also china's fault to built their ambessy on a location that will soon be bombed by the US.

Uh huh. A chinese pilot, flying a very nimble, very fast jet fighter aircraft, was unable to avoid ramming a lumbering, very slow propeller-driven transport aircraft. RIIIIGHT.

The chinese either buy or steal their technology. This is just another example of it.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlesesl

China has never stated any statments which have shown agression against US during the last decade.
Meanwhile, bush is calling China a competative oppenot. {sic}

Then why is China building that blue-water navy?

/hopes we give many nukes to Taiwan...

james t kirk · 10-18-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefictionweliv

I believe now the French may have crossed the line of future assistance however before if it was them we would have come to their aid. I think them not supporting our decision was a great slap in the face to the many living vetrans who prevented them from speaking German. Oh right....we got a statue, yeah, well I guess we can call it even.

So when does the statuate of limitations on French gratitude expire? I mean, the Americans / British / Canadians landed in 1944. As far as I am aware, only the US constantly whines about the French somehow owing the them (the US) for all eternity.

I think that even if the Germans hadn't been kicked out in 1944, they would be gone by now and the French would still be the French, speaking French. Only difference is that they wouldn't have to put up with the tired old refrain, "we saved your ass twice".

james t kirk · 10-18-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

As an outsider, I will also refocus the original intent of this thread:

When I watch Bush speak, I see an unintelligent warmonger who can't coordinate an organized thought. I don't like the fact that many people here are supporting a president who is constructing economic as well as cultural walls around your great country... Before you know it, you'll be all alone... If that's what you want, so be it... But don't think that globalization will stop just because America isn't involved.

When I see Kerry speak, I see someone who wants to rebuild bridges burned by the Bush administration, improve america's foreign policy, rebuild your floundering economy, hell... fucking make healthcare more available to everyone! That's something most Canadians take for granted. I see an educated man who is extremely well spoken.

I take pride in the fact that when I travel abroad, I can wear a Canadian flag with pride... Hell, many American travellers sew Canadian flags on their bags simply to be better received in the country where they travel to. The world exists outside of your borders, I hope that Kerry gets elected so that you can realize it.

Very well put

daswig · 10-18-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I think that even if the Germans hadn't been kicked out in 1944, they would be gone by now and the French would still be the French, speaking French.

And you base this upon.....???

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Then why is China building that blue-water navy?

/hopes we give many nukes to Taiwan...

You speak doom and gloom about the specter of Chinese aggression and then advocate an action almost guaranteed to spark said aggression. How does arming Taiwan with nukes make any sense? I know of no one who advocates that position .

Some may fear the Chinese and secretly wish for a confrontation with them, but the foreign policy of our nation demonstrates that our own leaders support engagement over saber rattling. Of course China is a potential threat but the hard-edged ideological battles of the cold war are over. Capitalism won and the Chinese are just jockeying for position. They have more to gain from playing along then they would by returning to the aggressive past, as can be seen by their succesful emergence in the global economic order.

This is not to say that I condone the human rights abuses of China or think that we should soft-peddle them on such issues. There are always right ways and wrong ways to apporach a situation. I think that most reasonable people understand that direct military confrontation with China is most definitley the wrong way.

host · 10-18-2004, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Neutone, so you're saying that OBL recruited his people, trained them, planned 9/11, and executed it all between the time Bush took office and when it happened?

The democrats gutted, and I mean GUTTED, our military. It's barely a fraction of what it was when Clinton took office. Why don't we have more troops on the ground in Iraq? Because the Democrats took the military from being able to deal with two brush wars and the Soviet Union invading Europe simultaneously to being unable to deal with one brush war effectively.

OBL's animosity towards America FAR predates Dubya's taking office. And Clinton taught the Terrorists that the SAFEST thing they could do was to attack American targets by treating their attacks as a law enforcement matter.

There are two main lines of thought in foreign policy now. There's the "walk softly but carry a big stick" approach, and there's the "If we surrender now, they will not attack us anymore, maybe" approach. The Big Stick approach is far more effective.

Trillions for defense, not one goddamned penny for tribute.

daswig, there is no way to tell if you post nonsense, or if there are facts in
your posts, since you seldom post links to sources of the facts in your posts.
I can find no irrefutable facts to back your statement that "democrats
gutted the military. In fact, I find the opposite is the factual case:

Quote:

Clinton's Strong Defense Legacy
Michael O'Hanlon
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2003

Summary: Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton presided over a disastrous downsizing of the U.S. military. But this claim is wrong. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon maintained high levels of readiness and enacted a bold military modernization program that bore fruit in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Michael O'Hanlon is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has written several books on U.S. foreign policy, including Defense Policy Choices for the Bush Administration and Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea, which he co-authored with Mike Mochizuki.

Of Related Interest

Topics:
National Security and Defense

Attitude Adjustment
By Alfred R. Barr
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2004

Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet
James Mann. New York: Viking, 2004.

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
Richard A. Clarke. New York: Free Press, 2004.

"Misunderestimating" Terrorism
By Alan B. Krueger and David D. Laitin
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2004

The Neglected Home Front
By Stephen E. Flynn
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2004

What Went Wrong in Iraq
By Larry Diamond
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2004

MAJOR MISUNDERSTANDING

The notion that President Bill Clinton was a poor steward of the armed forces has become so commonly accepted that it is now often taken for granted -- among moderates and independents as well as Republicans such as George W. Bush, who made the charge in the first place. The Clinton administration, so the thinking goes, presided over an excessive downsizing of the U.S. military, seriously weakening the magnificent fighting machine built by Ronald Reagan and honed by George H.W. Bush. It frittered away American power and left the country an object of derision to its enemies, tempting them to misbehave.

This assessment, however, is wrong. The Clinton administration's use of force (or lack thereof) may be controversial, but the Clinton Pentagon oversaw the most successful defense drawdown in U.S. history -- cutting military personnel by 15 percent more than the previous administration had planned while retaining a high state of readiness and a strong global deterrence posture. It enacted a prescient modernization program. And the military it helped produce achieved impressive successes in Bosnia and Kosovo and, more significant, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these victories were primarily due to the remarkable dedication and skill of U.S. troops, credit is also owed to Clinton's defense policy.

The Clinton defense team did not, however, do a good job of managing military morale, taking too long to figure out how to distribute a demanding workload fairly and sustainably across a smaller force. As a consequence, U.S. troops became overworked and demoralized, and many left the military or considered doing so. Although many of these problems were largely repaired by the end of the decade, they undoubtedly detract from Clinton's military achievements. But they do not justify the overwhelmingly negative assessment of his defense record.

EQUIPPED FOR A NEW ENEMY

Advocates of military transformation, the current rage in defense policy circles, do not think that the Clinton administration went far enough in modernizing and reshaping the military. But this assessment is unfair. Although Clinton spent only half of what Reagan did on procurement, this was partly because much of the military's antiquated weaponry had already been replaced during the Reagan buildup. Moreover, the Clinton Pentagon made good use of the scarce funds it had, purchasing key battlefield technologies and improving behind-the-scenes preparedness.

The technological superstars of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns included not only F-16 fighter jets, Abrams tanks, and Bradley fighting vehicles -- built largely under Reagan -- but unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), missile defense systems, satellite-guided weapons, and improved rapid-targeting and radar technology, developed chiefly during the Clinton years. The Predator UAV, for example, which was used to monitor key targets in Afghanistan and to attack fleeing terrorists, began as an experimental program in 1994. Global Hawk, a larger and higher-altitude UAV, was developed around the same time.

The Clinton years also saw the development of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile defense system, a huge improvement over the primitive Patriot system that performed so poorly in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82612/michael-o-hanlon/clinton-s-strong-defense-legacy.html">http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82612/michael-o-hanlon/clinton-s-strong-defense-legacy.html</a>

And.....from factcheck.org

Quote:

.........Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.........<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article209.html">Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.</a>
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article147.html">Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately</a>
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article153.html">Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's</a>

This is attributed by factcheck.org to Bush's father's 1992 State of the Union address, 12 months before Clinton took office:

Quote:

But by 1992 even President Bush (the current incumbent's father) was calling for cancellation of the B-2 and promising to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was no secret -- Bush did that in his 1992 State of the Union address. But (Zell) Miller left out that little detail.<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article252.html">Zell Miller's Attack on Kerry: A Little Out Of Date</a>

Your criticism of Clinton's strategy and results in fighting terrorists is equally
lacking in accuracy. Here are links that contain facts of Clinton effectiveness
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/hersh_080404_republicans_sabotaged.htm">Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts</a>
Please alert me when you are ready to carry on a fact based discourse
concerning the points you raised in your post.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17702-2001Oct6&notFound=true">Conservatives Sound Refrain: It's Clinton's Fault</a>

daswig · 10-18-2004, 07:12 PM

Did you even read what you quoted? From your quote:

Quote:

The Clinton administration's use of force (or lack thereof) may be controversial, but the Clinton Pentagon oversaw the most successful defense drawdown in U.S. history -- cutting military personnel by 15 percent more than the previous administration had planned while retaining a high state of readiness and a strong global deterrence posture.

What does that mean? It means that Bush I cut the military to the bone to take the so-called "peace dividend", and then Clinton took it 15% FURTHER. Your links prove my point FOR me. Yeah, we've got a high state of readiness, which is why we're scrambling for troops in Iraq. Damn, those 15% of the armed forces personnel would have sure come in handy about a year ago...but they'd already been cut.

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Did you even read what you quoted? From your quote:

What does that mean? It means that Bush I cut the military to the bone to take the so-called "peace dividend", and then Clinton took it 15% FURTHER. Your links prove my point FOR me. Yeah, we've got a high state of readiness, which is why we're scrambling for troops in Iraq. Damn, those 15% of the armed forces personnel would have sure come in handy about a year ago...but they'd already been cut.

That's funny, I seem to remember that the Bush administration has lobbied for a smaller, more strategic force of elite soldiers....it's almost as if they hadn't planned for a long occupation of Iraq. Of course, it will always be easier to blame everything on the last administration that you opposed.

james t kirk · 10-19-2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

And you base this upon.....???

The history of the Status Quo.

KMA-628 · 10-19-2004, 04:31 PM

And the Americans write back......

Responses back to the Guardian - For and against the letter writing campaign.

zap · 10-20-2004, 09:47 AM

as a non american perhaps i can addmy 2 cents worth. I think a nation a large as the US that has become heavily involved in world politics needs an exceptional leader. I am sorry but Bush does not seem to me to be intelligent and forward thinking enough to keep "all the balls" in the air for the greater good of your country.
I was amazed at the florida debacle last time around, if that had happenned in an african state there would have been many comments from an administration.
Also Bush`s ignoring the Kyoto agreement will come back to haunt him.

Lebell · 10-20-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

I guess china sent some suecide poilet to crash US SPY plane so that it will land in chinse military base.
Last time I checked, the plane was bad damnaged to land in chinese military base without chinese concent.

Btw, was it also china's fault to built their ambessy on a location that will soon be bombed by the US.

Quote:

Please read real history instead of taking them for your brainwasher GI friend who pride himself for killing a fellow human being.
Last time I check US invaded Korea and Vietnam first. And given the location of the 2 countries, China has way more right than US.

Quote:

Uh huh, Comrade. Yessir, the US of A was a Capitalist Aggressor in Korea, all right, that's why we were there under the UN flag.

I bet you support freeing Tibet, eh?

These are the types of posts that get people into trouble in TFP Politics.

Thread closed and 24 hour ban issued to charlesesl and daswig.

10-19-2004, 04:31 PM	#95 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	And the Americans write back...... Responses back to the Guardian - For and against the letter writing campaign.

10-20-2004, 09:47 AM	#96 (permalink)
zap Upright	as a non american perhaps i can addmy 2 cents worth. I think a nation a large as the US that has become heavily involved in world politics needs an exceptional leader. I am sorry but Bush does not seem to me to be intelligent and forward thinking enough to keep "all the balls" in the air for the greater good of your country. I was amazed at the florida debacle last time around, if that had happenned in an african state there would have been many comments from an administration. Also Bush`s ignoring the Kyoto agreement will come back to haunt him.