posted on June 27, 2004 10:33:49 PM new
No, bunni - What I have repeatedly read both Rumsfeld [as recent as the first of this month] and the President say is two things. First they will give the commanders more troops IF they ask for them. Your article is 2 months old.
Second, we've been pulling troops from all over the world. Do you know where they're going to be sent? I don't believe any civilians know.
Thirdly, what the administration has been working to do is get the Iraqi's army trained and to use more of their solders in fighting this war, rather than bringing in more of our troops.
And fourth - IF the clinton administration hadn't cut our troop levels to the low numbers he did....we wouldn't be having to keep those who should have already come home, on rotation, from doing so. But no....the dems who don't believe in war saw no use for a high number of troops to be available....and we are now seeing the consequences of that decision.
We NEED to make the Iraqi's start defending their own country...with their own lives.
posted on June 27, 2004 10:47:07 PM new
How did I know that some way, some how, Clinton wouldbe dropped into this? Linda, troop levels are always cut when a country is not actually at war.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 27, 2004 10:52:54 PM new
You knew, bunni, because as much as you and others would like to not have his name mentioned, he did play a part in the terrorist situation as our past president ....the same issues we are now dealing with.
And he played a part in DRASTICALLY cutting our troops. Without searching I believe it was 40-45-50% he cut. That's not minor cutting. That's because he thought NK could continue to be bribed...and everyone else could just be 'talked' out of being a threat to our nation.
posted on June 27, 2004 10:57:51 PM new
Here's one example:
During her husband's administration, U.S. troop strength was cut back from 18 active duty divisions to 10.
And I've read one where they stated troop strength was somewhere around 2.1 million when he took office, and was taken down to somewhere are 1.2 or 1.4. If I can refind the link I will.
posted on June 27, 2004 11:10:05 PM new
So? Military strength was drastically reduced between the World Wars, too. Was that Clinton's fault? Noooo...as I said, countries reduce their standing armies in times of peace.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 28, 2004 01:53:30 AM new
I couldn't disagree more with your statement bunni. And there's plenty of proof out there as to just how deep clinton cut the military during his administration. NOT just the 'normal' downsizing during peace times.
And a vote for kerry's going to be a repeat of the same thing. They BOTH marched and helped set up anti-war rallies during Vietnam.
Clinton cut the military and used it to pay off the deficits. That was more important to him that having a military ready to defend this nation.
--------
Clinton administration has cut defense since they took over in 1992 by $102 billion below what President Bush had planned for our country when he sat down with Colin Powell and other defense leaders. So he put together a blueprint for where he thought defense should go, and President Clinton, when he took over, decided to cut that blueprint by $102 billion.
....our defense budget today is well over $100 billion less on an annual basis than it was in 1986.
Let us look at what has happened as a result of these defense cuts.
First, Mr. Speaker, let me speak a little bit about what is happening with respect to mission capable rates. The mission capable rates are the rates at which your aircraft can fly out, fly from their carrier or from their home base, do their mission, and return to the United States or return to their home base.
That rate in 1991 was 83 percent for the Air Force. It is now down to 74 percent. It was 69 percent for the Navy. It is now down to 61 percent. For the Marine Corps it was 77 percent and it is now down to 61 percent.
That means that under the Clinton administration, the ability of our aircraft, for some reason, whether it is lack of pilot training, lack of pilots, lack of spare parts, lack of fuel, our aircraft are not able to rise off their carrier deck or rise off of their air base, go out and do their mission, and return home like they were just a few years ago. That is a very serious problem with our ability to project military power.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about our equipment shortages a little bit. I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement. I looked at the President's military budget for this year. That budget calls for a six-ship building program this year.
Now, Navy ships have a life of 30 to 35 years, so that means that the President's budget is building down toward a fleet of only 200 ships. When he came in we had 546 naval vessels. Now we are down to about 325. If we keep building at this low rate, we are going to be down to 200 ships in our Navy within a few years.
With respect to ammunition, we are $1,600,000,000 short in basic ammunition for the U.S. Army.
We are $193 million short in ammunition for the Marine Corps.
With respect to equipment our CH46 helicopters are 40 years old, our Amphibious Assault Vehicles average about 26 years old. We have many, many pieces of equipment, right down to Jeeps and trucks and tanks, that are extremely old.
Basically, we are living on what we had during Ronald Reagan's presidency, and we haven't replaced that equipment.
.....Americans have looked at the old pictures on television of our air strikes during Desert Storm, and they have the impression that we are able to wage a war like we waged in Desert Storm just a few years ago, but we are not able to do that.
The reason we are not able to do that is because we do not have the equipment and the force structure that we had just a couple of years ago. We have cut our military almost in half.
That is, we had 18 army divisions in 1992. We are now down to 10.
We had 546 ships during Desert Storm. We are now down to about 325.
Active airwings were down from 24 airwings to only 13. If we include reserve airwings, we are down from 36 to only 20.
What we have done under this administration is we have cut the force structure of our Armed Forces almost in half.
The tragedy is, Mr. Speaker, that while we have cut it in half, the half that we have left is not ready. It is not ready to fight.
Mr. Speaker, let me get to another very critical area. We are more than 18,000 sailors short right now in the Navy.
That means that the few sailors that we have left, and this is manning a very, very reduced fleet, the few sailors that we have left now have to shift back and forth between ships.
--------------
What I have copied and pasted here is NOT the total damage clinton did. The rest can be read on the link. The 107th Congress.
THAT is what clinton and his 7 years of cuts had done to our Armed Forces.
That's why we need to re-elect a President that has his priorities in the right place....our military prepared for whatever the future brings to this nation.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 28, 2004 01:57 AM ]
And another thing the lefties here have blamed on this President was DIRECTLY caused by clinton's action. That of being short of troops to where we couldn't rotate them in and out. And so all those angered by the fact our troops have been held over....blame clinton.
"It also means that when a sailor comes home to be with his family, he may be called the next week and told, `Instead of getting that 1- or 2- or 3-month reprieve and being able to stay home with your wife and family, you are going to have to head out again, because we don´t have enough people to man all of our ships. You are going to have to go back out and join the fleet again, and go back into these strenuous operations without seeing your family.´
That is called personnel tempo. That is the amount of time--basically, it reflects the amount of time that a soldier or sailor or airman or marine spends away from his family.
posted on June 28, 2004 02:29:32 AM new
This was on the news this morning.
"Late Sunday, Hassoun's family in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan confirmed that he was the kidnapped Marine who appeared in the videotape."
"We accept destiny with its good and bad," Hassoun family friend and spokesman Tarek Nosseir said in a brief statement Sunday to reporters. "We pray and plead for his safe release."
-------------
I hope our troops can find where these murderers are holding this soldier, and another Halliburton employee before it's too late.
posted on June 28, 2004 05:38:29 AM newWe should have simply assassinated Saddam quietly a couple years ago.
That's what I said a long time ago. But, it would have been against International Law. Ha. It's not like we haven't broken several of them already. Simply going in and assassinating the man wouldn't have given Bush the satisfaction that slaughtering innocents has. He must sleep very well at night.
posted on June 28, 2004 06:53:44 AM new
One teensy weensy point about Clinton cutting defense spending....
IF we had gone to war then we would have had the help of more than 2 allies, sorry, I refuse to count Eritrea.
Clinton had not alienated all our old friends and we would've had more countries on our side. He would've used diplomacy before slaughter...but I know our conservative friends prefer slaughter(you can make more money) so their arguments won't wash with me.
Now, remember before you cut and paste all bush's allies, Eritrea and the Netherlands don't count.
posted on June 28, 2004 07:49:06 AM new
And isn't it shameful that this U.S. Marine, a Lebanese-American would be under suspicion after 9/11 along with all other Muslim Americans per fascist US pundits.
posted on June 28, 2004 07:54:52 AM new
THAT is what clinton and his 7 years of cuts had done to our Armed Forces.
That's why we need to re-elect a President that has his priorities in the right place....our military prepared for whatever the future brings to this nation.
You are forgetting one thing Linda, Clinton wasn't planning on waging war with every Middle Eastern country. Why would we have a need to have such a large militray if we are not going to war?
Bush on the other hand, was planning war before he even got into office. He should have realized what the size of the military was before he started a war without the help of the UN or NATO. Poor planning on Bush's part if you ask me.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 28, 2004 03:59:01 PM new
fenix i suppose youre right about that, but what do the insurgents gain by capturing someone and beheading them? They know they are not going to get their prisioners freed.
Is it just a statment to other muslims that they are doing something here? Perhaps I dont have a full understanding of what logistics are involved here, but I dont understand why we cant stop them? Why cant we just get them and get it over with? Where is the US intelligence going wrong all the time? I think they need to stop pussy-footing around.
Helen DeVoid of Vendio town: theres a cute little button called ignore. Use it, if you dont like my address. All I asked was if you dont believe in God -as you've stated your an athesist, does that leave room to still believe in a soul? But you come back so full of venom, I think I already know the answer.
posted on June 28, 2004 04:25:51 PM new
Nero - you cannot stop zealots. These are people with a singular goal and nothing to fear. Remember, they believe that in death comes their ultimate reward. Their leaders have twisted the words of their religion, bastardized its teachings and instilled in them a belief that they are fighting for the very existance of Islam. They believe that Americans want to irridicate Islam (read the rants of some of our fellow posters who have said that we should do just that) and take over their lands and its resources (invading Afganistan right after their governement nixed the oil pipeline and following it up with an invasion of the second most oil rich nation in the region doesn't exactly help our cause). In their minds, they are fighting for the very existance of a religion. That's not something get someone to just stop doing.
The beheadings serve two purposes. They are scaring off western contractors and some countries. Companies are pulling out or having harder time finding people willing to go and a number of countries are pulling their forces as well. It is also serving to inflame out forces. Overt acts of aggression on our part while possibly achienving our short term goals are also helping to accomplish their long term goals of recruiting more believers to their side.
We cannot win. At this point we truly can only bow out gracefully, lend help as it is needed and requested and hope for the best.
Once we are out of there, the insurgents are a minority force fighting against the majority will of people with a new found freedom from the tyranny of Saddam. Do you think that they will allow their country to all under that kind rule again?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 28, 2004 04:33 PM ]
posted on June 29, 2004 12:56:44 AM new
yeah fenix, i forgot about that, scaring off the contractors. good point!
My hope is the iraquis can do well with their new govt and country. I dont know though..there is so much chaos, and ever impending threats of more..I cant fathom know how they live under that constant stress...but I guess its a wait and see where it goes kind of thing.
In this thread, for example, I said..."Now it's being reported on CNN that an American hostage is being held by terrorists."
Then Fenix made a rellevant comment.
Then, You say to me,
"Aw Helen, its good to laugh and smile at whatever you find amuzeing. It's good for the soul. But wait, is that God you dont believe in or can you have a soul and not a belief in God? Sorry, but I dont think thats clear to me about your belief system. ??
Then, You add,
"I applaude your efforts, though. Keep typing "have a nice day/////'' I'm sure eventually you'll come to mean it and might even feel a tad bit relaxed towards somebody you despise only because they have totally different ideas than you.
............................
Nothing in your comments was relevant to this topic or to anything that had been said about the capture of a U.S. Marine in Iraq.
Since you persist in addressing me after I have requested that you do not, will you explain the relevance and especially the irrational nature of your remark? If you are having some kind of personal problem, just let me know and I'll ignore your comments. Otherwise, I'll try to answer the ones that I consider rational.
posted on June 29, 2004 11:59:14 AM newHysterical hyenas laugh all the time. I'll bet you couldn't make it through the day without your smiley faces with their big shi!eating grins.
There is the revelency within the thread. Your own words. Which you ever so rationally digressed to, and I posted a response.
When you become the queen of England, I'll worry about addressing you...until then, its still a public board and I'll post as I want to.
ed to add:
But since I am probably one of the kindest people posting here, and I can see my words trouble you so; I'll offer to help you by again reminding you do have some options:
1.ignore.2.ignore.3.ignore4. -4 ignore 5.ignore-6.ignore-more....
posted on June 29, 2004 01:18:16 PM new
They don't know if he's a deserter or not--the military isn't saying anything other than he's listed as missing. The desertion part is just one of the rumors floating around about him--probably because he's Muslim.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
So, your remark was addressed to my comment to Linda on the first page? I don't see any relevance whatsoever to your following remark.
You said, "Aw Helen, its good to laugh and smile at whatever you find amuzeing. It's good for the soul. But wait, is that God you dont believe in or can you have a soul and not a belief in God? Sorry, but I dont think thats clear to me about your belief system. ?? "
posted on June 30, 2004 07:03:44 AM new
Spinning!! Spinning!!!! > quick, somebody call a hall monitor...NTS, are you there? I want to report this. Please stop the whiriling dervish from werking hesself into a frenzy trying to bevel up some ideas. The only offer is to repeat my lines!
oh Poor poor sweet sweet heln of devat sludge, I dont remember giving you permission to address me??
But of course, I will do the nutty thing and end this thread for you...unless you prefer to keep spinng' which really makes the uttmost sense from somebody who doesnt want to be addressed by me. (-oye vey, what some people wont do for attention!)
