Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DipStick on August 05, 2004, 07:13:05 AM
-
An interesting email I received a few days ago:
Can you name this country?
709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.
500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS,AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS THIS COUNTRY:
RUSSIA? NO
CHINA? NO
GREAT BRITAIN? NO
FRANCE? WRONG AGAIN
MUST BE USA? STILL WRONG
GIVE UP?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.
IMAGINE WHAT A JOHN KERRY ADMINISTRATION WOULD LOOK LIKE CONSIDERING HIS 20 YEAR VOTING RECORD AGAINST DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS STARTING WITH HIS OPPOSITION TO RONALD REAGAN'S SDI INITIATIVE [STAR WARS] WHICH LED TO THE DEMISE OF THE SOVIET UNION.
Just think about this with an open mind. This is factual information and could very well happen again if we don't get our act together. If this country gets in a defenseless position similar to what Clinton put us in the terrorists will have a field day and it won't be in Iraq.
-
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.
500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THOSE?
SHOOT YOURSELF TO A FOOT MAYBE?
-
BTW YOUR COUNTRY IS ALREADY IN DEEP CRAP WITH ITS DEBTS; WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SINK EVEN DEEPER ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THOSE?
SHOOT YOURSELF TO A FOOT MAYBE?
Actually, the Pentagon has been developing a conventional ICBM fleet for some time now. The process has only increased its pace since 9/11. The idea is that if we are attacked, or need a target anywhere in the world destroyed quickly, we can put a bomb on it within 30 minutes of the President's approval.
Personally, I disagree with the program because there's no way to tell the difference between a conventional or unconventional ICBM. I guess the thought is that there's really nobody out there that poses a threat to us in the paradigm of 'conventional' warfare.
-
Perhaps the government doesn't have the money to support that huge army without increasing the deficit? Just asking.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Staga
BTW YOUR COUNTRY IS ALREADY IN DEEP CRAP WITH ITS DEBTS; WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SINK EVEN DEEPER ?
I'm sure we could spare an old ICBM or two for Finland. :lol
-
US active military personel.
1993 - 1,675,269
2001 - 1,384,812
Reserves (full time and part time)
1993 - 68,500 + 105,768
2001 - 65,000 + 87,304
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf
Looks like nothing more than a pack of lies so far.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
US active military personel.
1993 - 1,675,269
2001 - 1,384,812
Reserves (full time and part time)
1993 - 68,500 + 105,768
2001 - 65,000 + 87,304
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf
Looks like nothing more than a pack of lies so far.
Not trying to refute any of your numbers but I do know the military has seen the largest number of volunteers in the few years since 9-11-01 in its history, except for the few years after 12-7-41 of course. A personal friend of mine is a recruiter for the Army and he says they've been turning away volunteers by the thousands.
Can you show the same numbers from your source from 1993 (your starting point) through say 12-31-00, or even 9-10-01?
-
Isn't this a classic example of 'Lies, damm lies and statistics'?
For example the strategic bombers and nuclear subs and their associated nukes. They are no longer needed with the close of the cold war. The process was started during Reagan's administration.
You simply don't need all the combat aircraft anymore because of the increased use of precision weapons and cruise missiles. Plus just how many of them were obsolete aircraft like the A7 and the F4?
As for the country being 'defenseless' . Considering it just fought two wars more or less simultaneously while still providing a presence at airshows all over the world and other commitments like Korea. Then perhaps defenseless is the wrong word.
I doubt if any of the figures stand up to scrutiny and the email is just another example of the kind of froth that circulates on the internet posing as facts.
-
to get this correct
the numbers werent slashed all that much during clinton it wass during the first bush. This was mostly in part because of the "Red Threat" going away and a new force realignment for a stronger but leaner force.
Clinton slashed the military budgets and military spending. Dont have the numbers to back it up.......just the experience of being THERE when it happend
-
USA minus theyr millitary, whats left ? lol sorry, but i think
the strenght of a nation should not be based on how big
the millitary is, they are other things much much more important.
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by DipStick
An interesting email I received a few days ago:
Can you name this country?
709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.
500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS,AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical "Shock and Awe" slander campaign by NeoCons.
How about a couple of facts to go along with those numbers? How many bombers and ICBM's were destroyed in accord with peace treaties? How many of the decommissioned ships and subs were at the end of their duty life? If you decomission a carrier what do you do with it's airwing? How were the Army divisions restructured under the new Army logistics? You do know about the new reconstruction and deployment of Army divisions, don't you?
POSTING IN ALL CAPS MEANS IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY IS TRUE!
:rolleyes:
-
Chain letters, the ultimate source of facts.
-SW
-
I never said the email was "fact". It was copy and pasted therefore the "caps". Just said it was interesting and shared... If it bugs you do the research and find out for yourself what the 'real' numbers are. I don't care either way. Have a nice day. :)
-
Originally posted by DipStick
I never said the email was "fact".
"This is factual information...."
Nice. How about a disclaimer the next time you cut and paste this crap?
-
You should probably re-read that last non-caps paragraph then.
-SW
-
It was all cut-n-paste from top to bottom. It's obvious the only thing I typed is BOLD get a clue you morons... sheesh.
-
You are a liberal democrat. Pasting mis-information, claiming its interesting, and then getting all upity when you get called on it.
-SW
-
Originally posted by DipStick
I never said the email was "fact". It was copy and pasted therefore the "caps". Just said it was interesting and shared... If it bugs you do the research and find out for yourself what the 'real' numbers are. I don't care either way. Have a nice day. :)
You don't care either way, but you just had to post it?
(http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/images/smilies/whatever.gif)
-
theres very good reason some of that stuff was cut and the money previously spent on it was spent in better ways considering new situation. and icbm being reduced well that was part of deal with russians the guy who wrote that sheet not mention that old icbm "retired" because newer icbm more accurate and mirv capable. and for hundreth time cic cannot make those cuts alone. democrat and republican both sign of on them. and base consolidation good thing for people and fair for people no more congressman or senator keeping big base open that military dont need so he can win votes by giving his voters govt jobs that govt does not need.
-
icbm and boomer sub and infantry division no use against terrorist. twenty strategic bomber with jdam can cover any strategic area where you looking for terrorist. this guy miss whole point what needs to be remembered is how many democrat push for reduction in intelligence funding and asset because they think "with soviet union gone spies not important anymore" when all the time spies telling them with twenty fragmented enemy looking for nuke to pop in us spies even more important. kgb a threat but they never on mission to smuggle nuke into washington dc.
-
Yep, world is continuously changing. Your yesterday's enemies are your future allies and vice versa.
Couple decades ago the biggest threat was a another superpower with its nuclear arsenal and todays enemy is an old, twisted maniac with few thousand followers ready to grab an AK-47 or few kgs of Semtex.
What worked in eighties may be obsolete already, world has changed and so did rules.
-
If this country gets in a defenseless position similar to what Clinton put us in the terrorists will have a field day and it won't be in Iraq.
I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep tonight. How will we stop the terrorists now if we can't use ICBM's on them in America?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
You don't care either way, but you just had to post it?
(http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/images/smilies/whatever.gif)
This smiley it's wonderful :rofl
-
Come on guys! Take it easy on the guy. He's just trying to fit into the "In" crowd of NeoCons around here. it's was an honest mistake that he used info that was TOO easy to shoot holes in. I'm sure he'll make you proud next time. :D
-
I live the non-Americans chiming in. You guys really do hate us, dont you? Its kinda funny. ;)
-
Naah, can't hate a country where even a drunk drivers can be elected to capitol and even for President :)
-
btw if you get arrested 'cause DUI can you still become a cop or judge, for example ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw if you get arrested 'cause DUI can you still become a cop or judge, for example ?
Not in Texas. No DWI's for peace officers.
-
Ill take a drunk driver over a mass murderer any time
Hey new game how many mass murderers has europe produced over last hundred years.....
-
must be some relief for the tax payer
the dutch budget is about 1 stealthy b2
:eek:
sadly the navy is losing their orions and the fixedwing period is over for them.
nostalgia is what's left
-
Originally posted by Staga
Naah, can't hate a country where even a drunk drivers can be elected to capitol and even for President :)
I'd love to come up with a snappy comeback here but someone already hinted at Kennedy and I dont even know who the shreck the President/Prime Minister/Kommandant/King of Finland is so Im at a loss, sorry.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Not in Texas. No DWI's for peace officers.
you a cop in texas?
-
So a if a guy is convicted of DUI he can't be a cop but he can be a president of the USA?
Yeah that makes sense :)
not.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So a if a guy is convicted of DUI he can't be a cop but he can be a president of the USA?
Yeah that makes sense :)
not.
there are plenty of cops who had a dui before they were cops. i know several.
-
Kinda strange if criminals may become cops... Guess everything is really possible in US of A :(
-
Originally posted by Staga
Kinda strange if criminals may become cops... Guess everything is really possible in US of A :(
well "criminal" doesnt really explain it. say guy so-so candidate for being cop and has dui. they not hire him. say guy is usaf swat operator and had dui twelve years ago at age of twenty. cops probably figure that a decade of serious and responsible duty means he learned a lesson. is anyone same at thirty compared to twenty? and if cop gets dui hes toast from what i understand. also details of dui matter. was it .08 at four in the morning on deserted road or .21 and a hundred miles an hour in traffic? i think default is cannot have dui in previous seven years i had one buddy who has become cop and had dui long before he was in military or tried to be a cop.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
is anyone same at thirty compared to twenty?
So does this apply to Kerry too or is it reserved only for "Republican Drunk Drivers Association" ?
-
Democrats.... Hah.
Kennedy pushed for US troops in Nam...no plans for a Victory.
Carter tried to remove Army units from South Korea.
Clinton screwed up Somalia and the Haiti Contingencie... left our Boys hanging.
Democrats are best at the OLD saying of "Cut and Run".
Now Reagan didn't play chit.
Bush Sr. didn'y play chit...
GWB isn't playin chit...
Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts?... He can shove it.
He hasn't done watermelon while in the service of the USA as a Senator.
Rich lil poor boy...Piss Ant. Go Figure.
~~Now question me~~
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Can you show the same numbers from your source from 1993 (your starting point) through say 12-31-00, or even 9-10-01?
Well, they are all right there in the PDF I linked to, but sure.
Year, Active Military Personell, Full And Part Time Reservists.
1993 - 1,675,269 68,500 + 105,768
1994 - 1,581,649 65,000 + 99,833
1995 - 1,502,343 65,000 + 94,585
1996 - 1,456,266 65,000 + 92,044
1997 - 1,418,773 65,000 + 90,222
1998 - 1,381,034 65,000 + 88,149
1999 - 1,367,838 65,000 + 87,092
2000 - 1,372,352 65,000 + 86,524
2001 - 1,384,812 65,000 + 87,304
2002 - 1,411,200 66,000 + 86,866
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf
Originally posted by DipStick
I never said the email was "fact". It was copy and pasted therefore the "caps". Just said it was interesting and shared...
It boggles my mind that you think you can get away with such a transparent lie that is easily disproven.
"This is factual information "
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Democrats.... Hah.
Kennedy pushed for US troops in Nam...no plans for a Victory.
Carter tried to remove Army units from South Korea.
Clinton screwed up Somalia and the Haiti Contingencie... left our Boys hanging.
Democrats are best at the OLD saying of "Cut and Run".
Now Reagan didn't play chit.
Bush Sr. didn'y play chit...
GWB isn't playin chit...
Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts?... He can shove it.
He hasn't done watermelon while in the service of the USA as a Senator.
Rich lil poor boy...Piss Ant. Go Figure.
~~Now question me~~
Go get a history book. Reagan started the whole thing with his headlong retreat out of Lebanon.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So does this apply to Kerry too or is it reserved only for "Republican Drunk Drivers Association" ?
youre comparing driving after one or three to many beers to lying before senate about your comrades in armes commiting war crimes. youre either looking for a fight or have poor reasoning abilities. i wont even get into difference in magnitude of responsibility between president of usa and beat cop.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So does this apply to Kerry too or is it reserved only for "Republican Drunk Drivers Association" ?
oh and as far as "republican drunk driver assoc" look up teddy kennedy hugahunk.
-
Originally posted by Staga
BTW YOUR COUNTRY IS ALREADY IN DEEP CRAP WITH ITS DEBTS; WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SINK EVEN DEEPER ?
I bet we have less debt per unit of GDP than Finland.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I bet we have less debt per unit of GDP than Finland.
(http://forums.checksix.net/smileys/smiley32.gif)
-
- Annual inflation rate:
2001 Fi 2,7%, US 2,8%
2002 Fi 2,0%, US 1,6%
2003 1,3%, 2,3% US
- annual change of industrial output:
2000 Fi 11,5%, US 4,5%
2001 Fi -1,1%, US -3,9%
2002 Fi 5,0%, US -0,4%
- volume index of industrial output (1990=100)
2000 Fi 144,3, US 129,2
2001 Fi 144,4, US 124,7
2002 Fi 146,9, US 123,9
- consumer price index (1990=100)
2000 Fi 121,0, US 131,7
2001 Fi 124,1, US 135,5
2002 Fi 126,0, US 137,6
National debt of Finland:
July 2003 63353M€ = 11953€/9562$ per person
July 2004 60036M€ = 11328€/9062$ per person= 5% less than in last year
National debt of USA:
July 2003 6661149M$ = 22580$/person
July 2004 7246142M$ = 24563$/person 8% more than last year
Sources:
http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495635_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history
http://www.bloomberg.com
http://www.rahatieto.fi/kodinrah/valtiovelka.htm
http://www.tt.fi/talous/kuvat/valt2.pdf
http://www.stat.fi/tk/kk/tilastotieto.html
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I bet we have less debt per unit of GDP than Finland.
Yeah what ever n00b :)
1998 Fi national debt was 65% of GDP, Now it's 41,4% and stable
For US of A... About 65% of GDP and in a rise :aok
Well Fcked you're screwed again old buddy... Better luck next time :)
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/debt_GDP.gif
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/debt04b.pdf
http://www.suomenpankki.fi/fin/5_tilastot/5.1_Tilastografiikkaa/5.1.6_julkinen_talous/ (click Suomen julkinen talous: julkisen talouden velka)
-
So Funked... Would it be too late to accept your bet :rofl
-
Originally posted by Staga
- Annual inflation rate:
2001 Fi 2,7%, US 2,8%
2002 Fi 2,0%, US 1,6%
2003 1,3%, 2,3% US
- annual change of industrial output:
2000 Fi 11,5%, US 4,5%
2001 Fi -1,1%, US -3,9%
2002 Fi 5,0%, US -0,4%
- volume index of industrial output (1990=100)
2000 Fi 144,3, US 129,2
2001 Fi 144,4, US 124,7
2002 Fi 146,9, US 123,9
- consumer price index (1990=100)
2000 Fi 121,0, US 131,7
2001 Fi 124,1, US 135,5
2002 Fi 126,0, US 137,6
National debt of Finland:
July 2003 63353M€ = 11953€/9562$ per person
July 2004 60036M€ = 11328€/9062$ per person= 5% less than in last year
National debt of USA:
July 2003 6661149M$ = 22580$/person
July 2004 7246142M$ = 24563$/person 8% more than last year
Sources:
http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495635_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history
http://www.bloomberg.com
http://www.rahatieto.fi/kodinrah/valtiovelka.htm
http://www.tt.fi/talous/kuvat/valt2.pdf
http://www.stat.fi/tk/kk/tilastotieto.html
:lol all means crap, what dose matter is GDP
US dept is about 4.3% of GDP one of the lowes levels in 20 years, much to all Democrats carpin about it it means nothing. Dept at the end of WWII was 38% GDP, Thru the 70's is was around 7% , 80"s under Reagan it started at 4% whent to 9% and ended at 2.9% at end of his terms, thanks to tax cuts which raised revenue.:aok Clinton was around 5%.
So drop the DEPT boo hoo crying crap it means nothing.
GNP, Budget Deficits and Relative Change
In billions of dollars except percents
Fiscal Year GNP Deficit %GNP Debt %GNP % Change
1982 3130 127.9 4.1 1147.0 36.6
1983 3325 207.8 6.2 1381.9 41.6 5.0
1984 3688 185.3 5.0 1576.7 42.8 1.2
1985 3958 212.3 5.4 1827.5 46.2 3.4
1986 4177 220.7 5.3 2129.5 51.0 4.8
1987 4442 148.0 3.4 2354.3 53.0 2.0
1988 4771 155.1 3.2 2614.6 54.8 1.8
1989 5201 152.0 2.9 2881.1 55.4 0.6
Source: American Almanac, United States Budgets, et al.
USA.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.0 percent in the second quarter of 2004,
according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real
GDP increased 4.5 percent (revised).
Finland:
http://www.stat.fi/tk/tp_tied/tiedotteet/v2004/080kane.html
GDP grew by 1.3 per cent from February 2003
GDP increased by 1.3 per cent in February 2004 compared with last year's February. Of the six main industries of the monthly indicator, construction, trade, transport and other service industries grew, but manufacturing fell. The volume of primary production was at the same level as in February 2003
-
Bush LOVER!
Why don't you go f*ck him over in his flappy prettythang?
:D
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Bush LOVER!
Why don't you go f*ck him over in his flappy prettythang?
:D
Bush does better on top; after all he already screwed your kids, even the unborn ones, with his economics... :D
-
Heya Funked; Good to see ya :D