Why Won't Democrats Fight

I think it's interesting to note from those pie charts that a higher percentage of those deployed since Sept. 11, 2001, in a combat zone, would vote for Bush, than those who were not. Seem backwards to anyone?

I'm back in the Bush camp after a brief stop at undecided.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm back in the Bush camp after a brief stop at undecided.

Not because the military vote goes to him I hope, the military always votes republican, always has always will. It goes for any country, military votes right of center.

Yes, I've read that... but the fact remains; those men and women are dodging bullets on my behalf and if a significant majority of them want Bush to be President while they're in combat than so do I. You have to admit, 2/3s is very significant, considering all the controversy.

Do tell if you encounter those stats. I'm curious too.

The goal for Democrats is to cut into the typical Republican advantage among overseas votes which, according to the International Herald Tribune, usually comes to about 3-to-1 thanks to the military vote.

Joe Republican wrote:

It's as simple as this, money. Republicans like to use government money to invest in military programs, regardless of cost. Star Wars ring a bell? Democrats like to focus the money, hold companies accountable and not give money away willy nilly to large defense contractors.

Republican programs end up like the F22. . . $80Billion to develop and $140Million a piece, where democrat programs, like the JSF, have a price tag of $15Million development and $25million cost. The difference in the F-22 and the JSF is minimal at best.

They then hear their higher ups talking about how the Republicans are for the military. I've witnessed this first hand through experience. I would be curious though what the %'s are for inlisted vs officers.

Joe, Joe. Obviously your family "history" in the DOD leaves a bit to be desired. You compare the F-22 and the JSF as if that indicates a parallel. Perhaps while you websurfed you failed to read the rest of the short news bulletins the DOD were releasing. For starters any comparison between the two is akin to the juxtaposition of a tug and a sailboat. The F-22 is a superiority fighter, while the JSF is a strike fighter as its name happens to suggest. While this most likely means nothing to you, it makes a world of difference on the ground. An F-22 is an air-to-air aircraft designed to eliminate any fighter from any air force in the world in a theater war. The JSF is a air-to-ground bird destined to replace the A-10 Warthog, among others. Since air-to-air combat is so much more complex and reliant on technological differences, the cost of producing a next generation fighter is far higher than one to produce a weapon against a target the never changes, i.e. things on the ground.

A federal prosecutor in Virginia has been investigating allegations that Druyun simultaneously conducted negotiations on the tanker deal for the Air Force while negotiating with Boeing for a job when she retired after 33 years with the Air Force.

"The defendant did so, in her view, as a 'parting gift to Boeing' and because of her desire to ingratiate herself with Boeing, her future employer," the statement of facts said.

Druyun also admitted givingBoeing (BA: Research, Estimates) what she considered to be proprietary data from its European rival Airbus, majority owned by EADS, during the tanker discussions. Airbus had sought to compete to provide the Air Force tankers.

the cost of leasing a Boeing 767 tanker is greater than the cost of buying one at $138.5 million each. The deal, as presently structured, would have the government lease 20 of the tankers and buy 80.

Another point of interest is that the F-22 was developed and fielded almost entirely during the Clinton Administration. Guess that "history" hasn't helped much.

Many of the weapons that the U.S. should be fielding now are still in development because of Clinton delays and under-funding.

The Clinton administration delayed the V-22 Osprey, F-22 Raptor, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Comanche attack helicopter. In addition, the U.S. military is still trying to make up critical shortages in the Milstar space communications program.

Battle of the F-22
For a time, the Air Force and Lockheed Martin thought 1999 might be a quiet year for the F-22. Hearings in Congress had been tame. The Balkan War had demonstrated anew the value of advanced airpower. Lawmakers were talking about USAF budget increases, not cuts. As the key to future air dominance, the Raptor was in a strong position, officials concluded.

How wrong they were. In midsummer, the fighter program suddenly was thrown into turmoil as the House, following the lead of a small band of defense appropriators, struck a major blow. It voted July 23 to deny $1.8 billion needed to buy the first six F-22s and, at the same time, put the fighter on research-only life support. The F-22 soon found itself in a fight for survival.

The attack on the F-22 came as a thunderous surprise to Pentagon and USAF officials. Leaders of the Congressional defense establishment were similarly stunned. Seldom if ever had such a limited number of lawmakers moved so swiftly, successfully, and secretively against a major program so close to production.

"Maybe we should have seen it coming, but nobody did," maintained Tom Burbage, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, the F-22's prime contractor. "We thought this would be the first year that we wouldn't have a battle." Instead, Burbage noted, it turned out to be "the biggest we've ever had."

The battle for the F-22 quickly shifted to a House-Senate conference of negotiators charged with ironing out differences in their defense appropriation bills. The two sides started out far apart. Unlike the House, the Senate had fully funded the F-22-a fighter designed to be stealthy, maneuverable, supersonic without use of afterburner, and potent in air combat or ground attack.

Also, I would think the %'s of "inlisted" vs officers would be very similar to what it is now as careerists whether "inlisted" or officer think rather alike

Actually it is very simple, republicans are conformists. Their focus on being tough on crime (those who do not conform), the inrollerance for deviance (among some of them) and the tendency to be cought up in religion are all conformist traits. The army is a very conformist organisation, in which any individualist would be bound to feel out of place.

Parados, you are wrong. Opposition, who I respect tremendously have accepted that data without hesitation. Unless you can provide opposing facts your exclamation is only a "sez me". Since I don't know you, and have no reason to trust in your expertise, that carries no weight at all. Oh, and false accusations of ignorance and stupidity don't reflect well on the accuser.

..the results of the Military Times 2004 Election Survey are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole..

Joe Republican wrote:

parados wrote:

We can argue all day about members of the military are more or less likely to be Republican but this survey proves nothing one way or the other.

A grunt on the ground in Iraq is not a likely subscriber to the Army Times. In fact the Army Times claims that most of its subscribers are lifers.

Exactly!!!

Exactly wrong. Take a look at the breakdown charts here.

From: Stephan Ward

Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Subject: From an Iraq War Vet

Mike,

I am a veteran of the war in Iraq, and I wanted to write to thank you for making a film that I believe has opened many eyes in this country to things they were once blind to. When I was deployed to Iraq, I knew we were doing a good thing for the people of Iraq; tyranny and totalitarianism had to be wiped off the slate of progress in Iraq and we were the ones to do it. But after that proverbial eraser comprised of U.S. and coalition forces liberated Iraq, we wondered, "What next?" We also wondered, "Where are all the terrorists? The al Qaeda operatives? The Syrians?" We knew that despite our noble act of freeing the oppressed peoples of Iraq, so many false guises were still being put forth as to other reasons WHY we were there in the first place. Upon hearing of the fall of Saddam Hussein's statue while I was on patrol in southern Iraq, I couldn't help but think "What next? Where do we go from here?" The tyrant had been deposed, the people liberated, but did anyone RE ALLY have any clue as to the next step? Unfortunately for the troops like myself and my brothers-in-arms still serving over there, no one did.

It was as if it was a movie playing out with an open ending; would it be drama, action, or heartbreaking despair? Where was the crescendo, the climax, and most importantly, the stereotypical part in every movie where the loose ends are wrapped up and the story comes to a neat close? I was under the impression that the Bush administration seemed to have a great idea for every single step of the way during Operation Iraqi Freedom, but as to whether I actually believed that a war without a plan would work, no. No way in hell. And while I gained an incredible life experience out of it, I don't know how much I will have to show for it in ten years when it comes to W's "mission accomplished" claim. Will it be another Vietnam, perhaps? Somalia? I wonder whether it will be yet another neo-imperialist action that ends totally in tragedy. At the same time, I see that the aforementioned tragedy has no foreseeable end and is nothing but a long, continuing scene in the "reality T V war" that is being played out before our very eyes.

Sincerely and respectfully,

SPC Stephen Ward

Funny, "The Army Times" agrees with me on this one. You can't use the survey to represent the entire military or even to calculate the views of the readers. Again, I state categorically, Lusatain is misrepresenting this poll by claiming it shows what the military as a whole thinks when he started this thread. Anyone that continues to think it does at this point is no longer ignorant but just plain stupid.