| Author |
Message |
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
 Fri May 13, 2005 8:27 pm |
|
We're defended enough. We can turn the world into glass if we so choose. We still have the world's largest military force. Why do a few dozen domestic base closings bother people so? The Pentagon obviously believes that they are not needed to maintain our defense, and it's not like most of our active-duty troops are in the country anyway.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 8:28 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | We're defended enough. We can turn the world into glass if we so choose. We still have the world's largest military force. Why do a few dozen domestic base closings bother people so? The Pentagon obviously believes that they are not needed to maintain our defense, and it's not like most of our active-duty troops are in the country anyway. |
1. Have you seen how many jobs are going to be lost? Many THOUSANDS.
2. In this day and age we need ALL THE DEFENSE WE CAN MUSTER.
3. The Pentagon's not always right, you know 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 8:40 pm |
|
I disagree on that second point, but I'll let it pass for the moment. Obviously the Pentagon is not always right, but its staff are more knowledgable on the subject of national defense than you or I, or anyone here, most likely. Jobs will be lost, but the military jobs will likely be redefined for the most part, and civilians will be able to find new employment. Jobs are lost every day. This cannot be an excuse to keep open military bases any more than excess labor or production in a company can excuse keeping open an old, unneeded factory.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 9:09 pm |
|
Republican Man please look at the foxnews.com they have a pdf file that has the list of which base from which state is closing or realigning.
I looked at that file and the only major base if I remember is closing is the one in South Dakota.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 9:21 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | I disagree on that second point, but I'll let it pass for the moment. Obviously the Pentagon is not always right, but its staff are more knowledgable on the subject of national defense than you or I, or anyone here, most likely. Jobs will be lost, but the military jobs will likely be redefined for the most part, and civilians will be able to find new employment. Jobs are lost every day. This cannot be an excuse to keep open military bases any more than excess labor or production in a company can excuse keeping open an old, unneeded factory. |
While it cannot be an "excuse," it is NECESSARY that we keep all the bases open, because we need the BEST DEFENSE POSSIBLE. The government is starting to really play politics with national security--even the likes of President Bush--and I am not happy about it. I am becoming more and more cynical of government and this administration as time progresses.
And borgslayer, I got confused. Thanks for laying that out; I thought that SD was one of many, but you're right. I forgot what were being shut down. But nonetheless...we should not close down these bases, and government should STOP playing politics with our national security.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 9:41 pm |
|
I honestly don't believe this will have any appreciable effect on our national security as it stands now.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 9:48 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | I honestly don't believe this will have any appreciable effect on our national security as it stands now. |
And I honestly believe that we need all the military bases, etc. we can muster. The President should quit being stupid and pandering to the Liberals. First the guest worker program and border security, and now this. What's next, Mr. President? What's next?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:04 pm |
|
In equal representation, the views of all sides must be taken into account. That Bush considers viewpoints outside his own is not out of line for anyone, especially a leader. As in the past, I urge you to keep partisan arguments out of this. Nothing can come from bringing faulty ad-hominem logic into these debates.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:10 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | In equal representation, the views of all sides must be taken into account. That Bush considers viewpoints outside his own is not out of line for anyone, especially a leader. As in the past, I urge you to keep partisan arguments out of this. Nothing can come from bringing faulty ad-hominem logic into these debates. |
Do I have a partisan argument here? Bush is a REPUBLICAN. And yet he's supporting this. If you're citing me believing that he's doing this for politics, there is NOTHING wrong with that, because it's TRUE. And what's faulty about my logic in this case? I'm simply TIRED of you attacking me like this.
Last edited by Republican_Man on Fri May 13, 2005 10:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:11 pm |
|
Wouldn't base closures allow the Pentagon to consolidate its resources so it could spend more money on things such as troops overseas and border security, and improve those bases that are remaining open?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:14 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Wouldn't base closures allow the Pentagon to consolidate its resources so it could spend more money on things such as troops overseas and border security, and improve those bases that are remaining open? |
They could cut back on OTHER things. We spend $80 billion on giving ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS education, medical coverage, etc, and other realms of money, in the millions and billions, on welfare for ABUSING citizens. Cut back on THOSE things, NOT on defense. Besides, the government is doing SQUAT about border security, and who knows why. Even with "more money" for it, they would still do NOTHING. Bush is failing to deal with this situation, and is only worsening others. He may not be the 3rd best President after all...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:30 pm |
|
RM, if you knew what ad-hominem was, you wouldn't think I was attacking you. I'm not. If it bothers you that much, you should learn what it is so you know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, stop accusing me.
My point is that, regardless of Bush's political affiliation, it is not uncalled for for him to take more liberal opinions and action plans into account. As the executive leader of the nation, in fact, it is his job to do so.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:32 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | RM, if you knew what ad-hominem was, you wouldn't think I was attacking you. I'm not. If it bothers you that much, you should learn what it is so you know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, stop accusing me.
My point is that, regardless of Bush's political affiliation, it is not uncalled for for him to take more liberal opinions and action plans into account. As the executive leader of the nation, in fact, it is his job to do so. |
Take them into account, yes. But pander to them, no. And I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. Please, do explain what an "ad-hominem" is.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:53 pm |
|
Making an argument that ascribes its validity to a person or group instead of substantial fact (taken in this case from "The President should quit being stupid and pandering to the Liberals.") There's probably a better way of phrasing it in an official reference book, but that's basically what it is.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
