Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on September 28, 2003, 11:07:29 AM
-
A commander in chief leads a military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...... and when that war [Gulf War I] ended, the first thing I did was place a call to California, and say thank you to Ronald Reagan.
Dick Cheney, The Southern Center for International Studies - August 2000
Do ya think Rumsfeld has thanked Bill Clinton?
-
For making him call up the Guard/Reserves for extended periods?
:lol
-
Thanked him for what? Leaving us with a deficit of forces that is going to require troops to spend a year deployed, come back home for 2 weeks, then deploy for another year? Yeah, thanks alot Bill.
-
Well, we could have a million more troops and give the tax cuts back.
-
Great idea!
Think what that would do for the unemployment stats!
;)
-
Thanked him for what? Leaving us with a deficit of forces that is going to require troops to spend a year deployed, come back home for 2 weeks, then deploy for another year? Yeah, thanks alot Bill.
Heaven forbid we actually ask our forces to *gasp* fight in a foreign land!
-
Cheney was right, our military isn't half what it was (literally) prior to '92. He probably thanked Bill alright, gave him the ole one finger salute.
-
What changed in 1991 AKIron? And I'm talking from a global stand-point.
-
Well, we whipped the Soviet's of course. Guess Bill figured we wouldn't need a strong military any more. A few cruise missiles oughta do it, right?
-
And was every nation involved in the Cold War doing regarding military strength?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do ya think Rumsfeld has thanked Bill Clinton?
You just can't be serious, it is a troll, and a very successfult one.
Fresh fish tonight at MT household.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't understand why you keep whining about Clinton. The force ratio is even more favourable now than 12 years ago, since the rest of the world has reduced their militaries more than the US. Stop whining!
Well, before it didn't look like we were gonna have to whip all of yas. ;)
-
You just can't be serious, it is a troll
oh really. Didn't we go to Afghanisan with a military that was virtually the same as when Clinton was in office?
And less than a year later, do you think it was very different? THe truth is that this military is the finest in the world and was the same under Clinton. I cant believe you boneheads sometimes.
We droped 90% smart bombs/JDAMS this time compared to 10% last time. There are new generation f16 and f18s, new patriots, aegis is improved and there are new generation destroyers and cruisers and our troops communicate a lot better in the field and get a lot better tactical picture. TIme on target from target ID went from hours to minutes between the 2 wars.
And as far as the national guard/reserves being called up, the gulf warI was the largest activation of guards and reservists in history, I was one of those activated.
Clinton may have had his faults, but he wasn't all bad. The repubs hate him because he ran in the center and stole their thunder (fiscal responsibiliy/law and order)
So all you who want to continue bashing Clinton (which is actually kind of funny nowadays) need to know that when you cannot even acknowledge somthing like this it just exposes your prejudice against him.
here is a clue for you - dont believe everything Rush tells you. You can tell he is lying when his lips are moving.
strk
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Heaven forbid we actually ask our forces to *gasp* fight in a foreign land!
After you move out of mommy and daddy's house and deploy to a combat zone I might consider your opinion. Until then, piss off.
-
So all you who want to continue bashing Clinton (which is actually kind of funny nowadays) need to know that when you cannot even acknowledge somthing like this it just exposes your prejudice against him.
Good point.
I think that some need to keep that in mind about Bush too - I mean of course as they are doging falling rafters while the roof is caving in on America - right?
-
Originally posted by strk
The repubs hate him because he ran in the center and stole their thunder (fiscal responsibiliy/law and order)
Some of us just hate him because he disgraced us in so many ways.
-
At least he admits that the left is pro crime and fisacally defunct. ;)
-
Nobody hated Bill untill he shook his finger at us and lied on national TV... He turned the White House into a circus donkey and bimbo act... I voted dem those years across the board...never again though... Unless a Dem comes forward that has some integrity in the future that can sway my vote...
IS it possible that a small reason we are in Iraq with as much national guard units present is to create vacancies in the job market here at home..?
Add that to the list of conspiracy theories.
1K0N
-
Well, I will give you the perspective of someone who has been in the military since 1985 and as someone who was in Kuwait for six months (got home early this month). I am not a big Bill Clinton fan. That being said:
What happened to the US military from 92 to 2000 was IMHO probably correct. At the beginning of Bill Clinton's term the entire military was built with one thing in mind, the defeat of the Warsaw Pact. With the fall of the Warsaw Pact we really didn't need the forces available. There was room for cuts and they did them. I can disagree with how the cuts were done, and with the force structure but there were people in the Pentagon with a greater perspective on the force need than I was. Still we were way too big for what was perceived to be the threat in 1992-2000.
Is the force too small for this job? No but it is barely big enough. I can't blame Clinton for that. Very few countries are totally prepared for the next war that comes along and keeping a standing army in place for the potential next war is an expensive prospect. There is a force there, he didn't totally ruin the military like during the Carter era. He didn't improve it as much as he could but as I said, there wasn't a major compelling need.
There is a compelling need now and I am sure the military will grow in size due to it. More money will be appropriated and more equiptment secured. The problems with troops in Iraq being there for a year is serious, yet every one knew that when they deployed that they could be there for a year. My orders said 364 days or until mission complete. I came home due to family problems and the kindness of the command but I was ready to stay until March if I had to. I didn't like it, but that is my job.
-
Send Hillary to Iraq, all the Iraqi men will recoil in horror and leave the country. I hate that woman with a passion.
dago
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, we could have a million more troops and give the tax cuts back.
That would be fine by me:D
I think it would be worth it so the fellas over there would not have to stay so long at one time.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Heaven forbid we actually ask our forces to *gasp* fight in a foreign land!
Are you prepared to go fight in a foreign land?
If you have are you ready to do it again?
Of course not now STFU
-
Originally posted by wklink
Well, I will give you the perspective of someone who has been in the military since 1985 and as someone who was in Kuwait for six months (got home early this month). I am not a big Bill Clinton fan. That being said:
What happened to the US military from 92 to 2000 was IMHO probably correct. At the beginning of Bill Clinton's term the entire military was built with one thing in mind, the defeat of the Warsaw Pact. With the fall of the Warsaw Pact we really didn't need the forces available. There was room for cuts and they did them. I can disagree with how the cuts were done, and with the force structure but there were people in the Pentagon with a greater perspective on the force need than I was. Still we were way too big for what was perceived to be the threat in 1992-2000.
Is the force too small for this job? No but it is barely big enough. I can't blame Clinton for that. Very few countries are totally prepared for the next war that comes along and keeping a standing army in place for the potential next war is an expensive prospect. There is a force there, he didn't totally ruin the military like during the Carter era. He didn't improve it as much as he could but as I said, there wasn't a major compelling need.
There is a compelling need now and I am sure the military will grow in size due to it. More money will be appropriated and more equiptment secured. The problems with troops in Iraq being there for a year is serious, yet every one knew that when they deployed that they could be there for a year. My orders said 364 days or until mission complete. I came home due to family problems and the kindness of the command but I was ready to stay until March if I had to. I didn't like it, but that is my job.
HOOAAH:D
-
Originally posted by Dago
Send Hillary to Iraq, all the Iraqi men will recoil in horror and leave the country. I hate woman with a passion.
dago
fixed
-
No, no,no. You don't understand. Bill Clinton is to blame for military enlistment, AIDS, the blackout, unemployment, thinning hair lines, shrinking rainforests, global warming, Regan's Alzheimer's, drought, Florida election chad, Princess Diana's death, flood, The Red Sox not winning the World Series, Fonzie jumping the shark (actually that one was Hillary's evil plot),ENRON, and anything else the right wingers want to come up with.:rolleyes:
It's kind of like that old 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game. Give them a subject and they will connect it to Bill in some outlandish way or another.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do ya think Rumsfeld has thanked Bill Clinton?
I have heard that he did. The version of the "thankyou" that I heard went something like this:
Mr. Clinton,
Thankyou for leaving some of the military in-tact. How's the ***** doing?
Donald
At least... that's what I heard.
MiniD
-
Admit it RPM... Bill PAID you post that.
-
Cheney has a good point. If the Bush administration was basically incommunicado with the intelligence services prior to 9/11 then I can see how they had little - if any - impact on the military that took down the Taliban a couple months later.