Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    The M1 entered service in 1980. That would be under Reagan, and the program itself started in 1972; continuing your predecessor's program when it was literally the only game in town is not 'pro-defense'. So did the AH-64, M270 MLRS, and M109 Paladin. He also decided an already-obsolete bomber and cruise missiles would be sufficient for a nuclear war with the Soviets. (Hint: Would not have been) and managed to paint himself into a corner by pinning the public deterrent debate on the B2 years before it even flew, let alone became operational (that happened in 1997 :p). He also publically stated that US troops would be withdrawn from South Korea, furthering a global view that the US was withdrawing on itself, which probably encouraged the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Dude just didn't know what he was doing.

    I agree that Vietnam did impact the Dems, but not nearly to the extent you're saying it did, and also pretty negatively.
  2. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Well apparently Obama isn't arrogant enough on the world stage for the likes of Romney or Cheney, or seemingly most Republican voters. It's not possible for Obama to be "just as warlike as Republicans" and "soft on defense" at the same time.
    Last edited by Alpha-Red, Sep 18, 2012
  3. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Uhhh.............. Reagan wasn't sworn in as prez until January of '81.

    Carter may have not known what he was doing but he wasn't some peace,love, anti-war hippie.

    He only became that later. :p
    Last edited by ShaneP, Sep 18, 2012
  4. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    How true. It would be interesting to see the results had Carter actually administered while he was President, what he became later in life. The same could be true of Goldwater. Back in 1964, right in the thick of things, Goldwater was an extremist. The more moderated Goldwater of his later years probably would have been one of the best Presidents, or at least would have been exactly what the country needed at the time.Certainly, a Goldwater administration wouldn't have gotten involved in Vietnam in the first place. Although the Vietnam War probably would have been replaced by a NATO vs Warsaw Pact skirmish in Western/Eastern Europe, but at least that would have spread the joy around.

    What is being described here is one of the great dodges of US politics. Democratic Presidents have always been just as "warlike" as Republican Presidents, although the democratic ones always come off as skittish and uncertain with use of force, so they get a "soft on the military" label. Republican Presidents always seem to be more comfortable with use of force, so they always get a "warmonger" label. In all cases, the results are same in difference to what the perception is. The ideal combination would be somewhere in the middle, but since elections are won and lost based on perception, I can't see the ideal ever happening.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  5. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    An interesting thing you mention Goldwater and Vietnam.

    I'm reading Ambroses's biography on Eisenhower right now and when he looked at the situation with the french in Nam, he thought it would be better to try and find an alternate to fighting the communists there. He thought a war there could not be won.

    Felt the same when he visited Korea prior to his inauguration when others were urging a broader offensive to push the Chinese to the Yalu. He wanted to negotiate a partition and a settlement.

    :eek: Eisenhower, the general, not a warmonger. Imagine that.

    That was precisely why he wasn't(well, there are some certainly. He was not like his earlier boss MacArthur in that respect, who wanted to NUKE the Chinese). But all these dopes that run around now who have never served saying we need to be tough and not give in blah blah blah.

    God, listen to your generals sometimes.

    By the way, welcome back to the party Mr44.

    We got some new digs and a new jukebox in the corner.
    Last edited by ShaneP, Sep 18, 2012
  6. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    I imagine that many military men realize the awful cost of war and thus, want to avoid it.

    Of course, you then have the MacArthurs on the other side . . . (a mix of caution and aggression is needed in war, I guess).
  7. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Whoops. I still stand by my statement with the rest, though. :p And add a round of USN cuts. Given that one of our (I'd say MOST) important roles in NATO would have been keeping the sea lanes open, I doubt that encouraged Cold War European governments much as to our allyability :p

    And yeah, welcome back 44. The Military thread is all messed up, but that's being worked on. OTOH, we could just invite Lord_Fett back and thrash him again with the way the thread is now. :p
    Last edited by DarthBoba, Sep 18, 2012
  8. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    I would say George H.W. Bush was comfortable with military force, but he wasn't a warmonger. George W. Bush on the other hand wasn't just comfortable with military force, he was eager to use it, and that's why I would consider him to be a warmonger. Obama did seem a bit overly reluctant to use force when it came to the Libya crisis, which was to be expected since we didn't want anything that smacked of the Iraq precedent. But despite Iraq I also didn't want to see the U.S. go too far in the opposite direction and become too shy or timid about intervention when the situation actually does warrant it. In the end though we did help the Libyan rebels, and that was the right call. I do think that if Iraq had never happened though, Obama (and the American public) would have been much more comfortable with intervening in Libya.
  9. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Sure, I suppose I agree with that on the micro-level. You characterize Bush that way in isolation because you hold an ideological difference with him. But that's not even half the reality. My own thrust is that US foreign policy, like any nation, is all related. What I mean is that if HW Bush finished Iraq, then it wouldn't have been allowed to fester like an open wound for a decade under Clinton, and then directly invaded under Bush. Even before that, had Reagan not used Iran and Iraq as puppets during their 80's war, Iraq wouldn't have invaded Kuwait in 1991. But Reagan wouldn't have had to use them as puppets had Carter not set the framework for the Iranian revolution during the 70's. So with a single example, we have half a dozen US Presidents, from both parties, spanning a period of no less than 40 some odd years. Out of that list, who is more of a warmonger than the other? Who is to blame for any single consequence?

    Which leads to your final example regarding Obama. Set aside 40 years of US policy, and the public might have been more comfortable with intervening in Libya...? Ok. But why Libya out of any other example in relation to their own periods? In your mind, why was it the "right call" to help the Libyan rebels as opposed to the Kurds? Or the Contras? Or the Iraqi Opposition Congress? Obama wasn't reluctant to use force in Libya. He unleashed an orgy of destruction through cruise missile-based "death from above." Is it better to be killed by a rifle bullet or a cruise missile explosion? The dead don't care either way. In the short term, what Iraq demonstrated was a reluctance to send ground troops into Libya, which Obama absolutely forbid. However, while "just doing the minimum" in Libya prevented US casualties from a perception standpoint back home, it meant that Libya was pretty much turned into an anarchy-driven wasteland, the effects of which are being felt right now in widespread protests and battles of control. What was the overall policy goal with regards to Libya? The goal should have been pursued with 100% effort, or it shouldn't have been attempted at all.
  10. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I agree with you about HW and W.
    But, this same train of thought does baffle me when comparing the perception of Reagan vs. HW Bush.

    Reagan is portrayed as a senile old crazy coot with his finger on the button and HW as some benign gent when HW was the one who went went off for GWI.

    Reagan got us out of Beirut after the barracks disaster. He bombed the Iranian oil platforms and Libya. He also invaded Grenada.

    But HW Bush also invaded Panama to arrest ol pineapple face.

    HW was just as militant as Reagan ever was. And Reagan set in motion and signed nuclear arms reduction treaties.
    Last edited by ShaneP, Sep 18, 2012
  11. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Even a hypothetical staunchly anti-war president would probably send the U.S. into battle at least once. Even though he's Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he doesn't exist in his own little bubble free from outside pressure and influence-- e.g., from his cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, Congress, the public, the media, the defense industry.
    I guess "warmonger" is highly subjective, but...
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    [quote="DarthBoba And yeah, welcome back 44. The Military thread is all messed up, but that's being worked on. OTOH, we could just invite Lord_Fett back and thrash him again with the way the thread is now. :p[/quote]

    What? That's blasphemy! On a related note, combining this topic with the miltech thread- it's just been announced that the long range projectile system round is entering final tests before production. Of course, this allows certain already examined US naval destroyers to fire projectiles with increased distances onto land.... Wait... A high explosive/penetrating round that is completely consumed at the target and leaves no detectable launch signature? Why, that sounds like the perfect weapon that could be used against a certain rogue nation and/or used in support of a different nation if it happened to attack said rogue nation by whoever happens to win the upcoming election.
    DarthBoba likes this.
  13. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I can't consider a president who invades a sovereign country to arrest a dope dealer a peacenik either.
  14. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    You're generalizing. Noriega was also the president of Panama and the harassment/murder of US servicemen who were there under treaty was just the icing on the cake to that:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/just_cause.htm

    That Marine lieutenant was killed driving through a PDF checkpoint in his privately owned vehicle, btw.
    Last edited by DarthBoba, Sep 18, 2012
  15. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Service members have been harassed and killed without the U.S. invading the country responsible, deposing its government, and causing the deaths of hundreds of noncombatants. Usually because it would be politically and militarily unfeasible, but it's still a good indication that the justification for action in Panama wasn't airtight.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Sep 18, 2012
  16. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    The big difference is that none of those other countries' government representatives were responsible. If we'd invaded Germany over the disco bombings in the 80s then you'd be correct, but you're not. When it became the Panamanian Defense Force harassing and murdering US service members and their families that their government allowed to be there to begin with that's extremely different to what you're attempting to generalize.
  17. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    lol, the Panamanian government didn't allow them to be there. The United States wanted a canal, helped a small Panamanian resistance movement break away from Colombia, bullied the new country into letting it carve out and control massive canal zone, and parked its ass there until it lightened up a bit on the whole "let the government of Panama administer its own country and control a lucrative trade route" thing-- just after 96 years.
  18. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
  19. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Let me broker a peaceful settlement between you two. The Bobas will give the guys HW for Obombya. Agree?

    Seriously, I tend to agree more with Guy though. The Panama invasion was another example of going in and becoming entangled in affairs of nations we should have given back to them long ago.

    Now I will ask the question:

    Has the GOP's insistence on sound fiscal stewardship with a tax cuts first-policy boxed them into a corner?
    Last edited by ShaneP, Sep 18, 2012
  20. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Maybe, but they'll find some excuse to spend the money that they want to spend. I've pointed out to various St Ronnie the Gipper fans the levels that their hero increased the deficit, and the response is always that, well, he had to because the only way to defeat the Soviets was to outspend them.

    If the GOP comes into power and then wants to spend money, there will be some reason why they "have to."
    Jedi Merkurian and Valairy Scot like this.
  21. PRENNTACULAR VIP

    Member Since:
    Dec 21, 2005
    star 6
    IDK. They had the excuse of "we have to do this or the economy will reaslistically collapse" with the debt ceiling crap, and did nothing. I don't have faith that even they know what money they want to spend they're so discombobulated right now.
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Killing people. They want to spend money on killing people.

    I'm sorry, I mean defense.
  23. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Exactly. That's what I meant earlier--so-called "defense" (when the leader of the last group who attacked us is dead) and "nation building" (which definitely does not involve sending Habitat for Humanity over to these countries to build houses) is the only thing they want to spend money on, and they are very good at making excuses for why they "have to."

    And before anyone says it, yes, I remember the 80s and the Soviets.
  24. CQuigley Guest

    Member Since:
    Most repubs just fall in line when it comes to defense spending, But i am curious how voter will react in this post-Tea Party era whne there is much less respect for the party leadership respect. I think young republicans are more open to defense cuts but i doubt that they are significant constituency.
  25. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Well, this obviously hinges hugely on the outcome of the election. I personally just can't imagine how much longer this farce of a party can last in its present manifestation. Then again, repulsive as I find it, it does seem to legitimately represent the views of a substantial portion of Americans, so it's probably here to stay. I just seriously can't believe there are tens of millions of people in this country who think Sarah Palin would make a great President. It's unbelievable.
    NYCitygurl and Valairy Scot like this.