Weapon systems John Kerry wanted to cancel/cut

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-23 04:34pm

Link 1
Link 2

Some of the stuff here is faded, but you can make out some pretty important stuff; the Tomahawk and the Apache are two of the biggies here.

I'm not 100 percent sure this is real, but it looks genuine.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-02-23 04:39pm

Also add

But 20 years ago, in his first Senate campaign, Kerry talked a different language about national defense, denouncing President Ronald Reagan's military buildup and calling for cuts of about $50 billion in the Pentagon budget, including the cancellation of a long list of weapons systems, from the B-1 bomber to the Patriot antimissile system to F-14A, F-14D and F-15 fighter jets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Feb7.html

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-23 04:41pm

That battleship reactivation he wanted to stop, which ship was that? Anyone know?

Also, if a mod could please edit out the sentence fragment beginning with "ironically" in my first post.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-23 04:42pm

The Republicans will dig up everything to win the 2004 election.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-23 04:43pm

That bastard wanted to kill the Aegis?! That's a huge part of carrier group defense nowadays

Some of the aircraft were surprising(surprising that he wanted to cancel them), but I can't disagree with the battleship reactivation cancellation.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-02-23 04:50pm

Montcalm wrote

The Republicans will dig up everything to win the 2004 election

It is his 19 year Senate voting record... It is not "digging" up anything.. It is what he belived and voted it on....And its not just the BABY STEALING republicans that do it

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-23 04:56pm

Montcalm wrote:The Republicans will dig up everything to win the 2004 election.

Heaven for-fucking-bid some one call into question a SENATOR's voting record, particularly with national defense being such an issue. This isn't bring up a photo from thirty years ago nor is it dragging his personal life into it. This is asking about his stance on issues!

What's next blaming the Republicans for challenging him to a debate?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-23 04:58pm

Kerry is officially a fucking retard if these are real, Clinton on his worst day wasn't that bad.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-02-23 05:03pm

This is pretty sickening, if accurate. I didn't like Kerry before, but this absoutely sucks. It's horrific that the only choice is between him and Shrubby.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-23 05:14pm

I knew he wanted to cut major bucks out of military budgets over the years but I never knew he had specific items or projects in mind, minus shit like Star Wars and other huge projects.

AH 64's
AV8B's
F15's
F14's(and its Phenoix missiles)
Ageis cruisers
Tomahawks

My god, thats a healthy chuck of our modern day weapon systems. What the hell haven't we done in the last decade or so, that we havn't used these weapon systems?

Whoa, bad news for Kerry.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-02-23 05:17pm

Er, how could he be cancelling programs like the F-14A and Pheonix missles in 1984, never mind the Sparrow (unless that refers to an upgrade)? Or is this scrapping it?

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-23 05:20pm

Okay, wha tis wrong? He has opposed certain budget expenses in the past. Has he supported spending? Yes. What was te context of these decisions? What was the time at which he would oppose them? WHat bill were they in?

What's wrong with opposing some defense spending. Some if it is waste. Congress buys weapons systems that the military say don't work or are unnecessary, just to look good at home.

It takes more than a memo to make any real points. But when you have Karl Rove working for you , you don't even need that to make damning claims.

So if the logic then that he will gut the military (like Clinton, can't forget that, the Reublicans mustn't let you forget that, oh no)? Do you think he'll be sinking the navy, firing the army, etc. No. He didn't think buying certain pieces of equipment were warranted for purchase. I'd like to see why he's wrong over the various peices, and if they were actually popularly supported and passed. Should we have bought them all? Did he have a point? Oh yeah, let's just shrug say democrats and just vote Republican. Why think about and see through the crafty Rove electioneering haze?

It'll be treated like the exagerations about Clinton. He slashed the military, no he didn't have a Cold War to fund, and as such didn't need massive armored calvaries to rush acorss Europe. His military was degraded and falling apart. Seemed pretty ready and able to go to war for Bush. Seemed to work well then (or did Bush finally use his third wish, after wishing to be governor then president). Heck they went quick from belittling the amred forces in the campaign to praising and using them with full confidence. Amazing how elastic the truth is.

The reason Bush has an edge here is that he's never been in the legislature, so has no votes to support. And any decision or stna dhe made as governor or businessman can eb whitewahsed, reimagined, or plain lied about. I am eager to see what happens this time around. THe media was extremly soft on him (compared to the treatment of Gore) last time around. This time will they take the kid gloves off?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 05:24pm

Some defense spending is a waste, but that's a good chunk of the military's primary offensive armament right there. I wouldn't call the Apache a waste.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-23 05:30pm

Oddysseus wrote: What's wrong with opposing some defense spending. Some if it is waste. Congress buys weapons systems that the military say don't work or are unnecessary, just to look good at home.

The systems in question make up much of the backbone of the US military to this day, it would be crippled in many fields without them, Patriot for example was needed to repalace systems that dated to the 1950's. The only one that could be called waste is DIVAD which was later canacled.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-23 05:39pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Montcalm wrote:The Republicans will dig up everything to win the 2004 election.
Heaven for-fucking-bid some one call into question a SENATOR's voting record, particularly with national defense being such an issue. This isn't bring up a photo from thirty years ago nor is it dragging his personal life into it. This is asking about his stance on issues!

What's next blaming the Republicans for challenging him to a debate?

Well anyway when Osama is brought up as an ace in GWBs winning hand for this years election Kerry will be crushed in an humiliating defeat.

And the world will be once again threatened by GWBs megalomaniacal attitude.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-23 05:43pm

Fuck. Jesus Christ. I don't know if I can vote for this man. But sure as hell I cannot and will not ever, ever vote for Bush.

God damnit.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-23 05:46pm

Montcalm wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Montcalm wrote:The Republicans will dig up everything to win the 2004 election.
Heaven for-fucking-bid some one call into question a SENATOR's voting record, particularly with national defense being such an issue. This isn't bring up a photo from thirty years ago nor is it dragging his personal life into it. This is asking about his stance on issues!

What's next blaming the Republicans for challenging him to a debate?
Well anyway when Osama is brought up as an ace in GWBs winning hand for this years election Kerry will be crushed in an humiliating defeat.

And the world will be once again threatened by GWBs megalomaniacal attitude.

What the fuck are you gibbering about you retard? This isn't about Bush at all, it's about your retarded assertion that one shouldn't bring up a goddamned Senator's record on the issues in a campaign.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-23 05:49pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Oddysseus wrote: What's wrong with opposing some defense spending. Some if it is waste. Congress buys weapons systems that the military say don't work or are unnecessary, just to look good at home.
The systems in question make up much of the backbone of the US military to this day, it would be crippled in many fields without them, Patriot for example was needed to repalace systems that dated to the 1950's. The only one that could be called waste is DIVAD which was later canacled.

Well, beside the fact that patriots are an iffy tech still...and Star Wars.

I hate to use a person's first run for office against them. Over 20 years he's changed and grown as a leader. And again, what were his positions after this? Did he come in suspicious of leery Reagan's spending spree? The cost and impact on citizens? Did he time and again try to block ALL spending, did he work to prevent needed upgrades. I somehow doubt this. What was the context of this memo anyway?

From the memo it looks like his issues was with overspending and the creation of pet projects and extra money for various states. Good points. No one applauds this fiscal responsibility?

Sadly, some people want to live in the 80's forever, democrats were inept liberal and only the reps could lead. In soundbyte world they can make it live again. But in our real world this stuff means nothing.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-02-23 05:58pm

Joe wrote:That battleship reactivation he wanted to stop, which ship was that? Anyone know?

Also, if a mod could please edit out the sentence fragment beginning with "ironically" in my first post.

Done.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 05:58pm

Howedar wrote:Fuck. Jesus Christ. I don't know if I can vote for this man. But sure as hell I cannot and will not ever, ever vote for Bush.

God damnit.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Join me, and together we can be independents like other politically disaffected individuals. It is your destiny.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-23 05:58pm

Voting record means nothing? Are you mentally deficient or something?

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-02-23 05:58pm

It's 'iffy' because of complaints its not perfect as a theatre ABM system (AFAIK it was designed only for SAM work first) and a few Friendly Fire incidents.

Never mind cancelling things like the F-15.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 05:59pm

I think the battleship in question was either Iowa or New Jersey.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-23 06:06pm

What's wrong with opposing some defense spending. Some if it is waste. Congress buys weapons systems that the military say don't work or are unnecessary, just to look good at home.

There's nothing wrong with opposing wasteful programs and pie in the sky concepts. The problem is telling the difference.

As for these, most of those listed are a core part of America's military capacity today and most of those that aren't were very necessary in light of what we potentially faced in the Cold War. That's a far cry from cutting pork.

Only Star Wars and the anti-satelite stuff can be truly considered a waste. A few others like the B-1 are perhaps marginal but hardly wastes.

(like Clinton, can't forget that, the Reublicans mustn't let you forget that, oh no)

Out side of talks on defense related issues most don't make it an overwhelming issue. But a hell of a lot of the cuts he made, the programs he cancelled, and the systems and equipment he scrapped were total wastes and ended up hurting the military. There's a lot more to strong national defense than saying you support our troops.

So if the logic then that he will gut the military ? Do you think he'll be sinking the navy, firing the army, etc. No.

He probably won't totally even if that's true (and that is a big if). But if that's an indication we can expect ships going for razor blades, important systems unfinished and needed equipement not there.

He didn't think buying certain pieces of equipment were warranted for purchase. I'd like to see why he's wrong over the various peices, and if they were actually popularly supported and passed. Should we have bought them all?

Just a quick run down of a few highlights:

Aegis/Ticonderoga-class DDG/CG: The standard setting system in naval warfare. It's the key to carrier defense and gives us a major boost in terms of naval capacity. And you might not realize, but AEGIS has been fitted to the subsequent DDG class as well.

F-14 (various): THE premier naval fighter out there. It was necessary in light of potential threats to US and allied carriers by Soviet missle equipped bombers.

F-15: Probably the best air superiority fighter ever deployed. It's definitely a keystone of the USAF today.

Tomahawk: the cruise missles we shoot off on a regular basis. Not cheap but well, well worth it.

AH-64: The Apache. Still one of the best helicopter gunships out there. Period. (On an interesting note, the Commanche was cancelled today since the Apache can still out do it potential rivals).

DIVAD and Patriot Missle: As Seaskimmer noted, necessarily to replace frighteningly dated equipment.

AV-8B Harrier: Again, the Marine Corp has made good use of them and they were a good investment.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-23 06:07pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I think the battleship in question was either Iowa or New Jersey.

Actually, given the supposed timing it was probaby the Reagen administration reactivation and modernization of all four Iowas.