JustAnAverageGuy
Diamond Member
- Aug 1, 2003
- 9,057
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
With respect to...?
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
With respect to...?
With respect to any decision that actually had any impact on the country?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
With respect to...?
With respect to any decision that actually had any impact on the country?
Do you means as egregious as Clinton's decimating of the military?
Originally posted by: Ozoned
You know, Riprorin, they do have a point. You remember the "new tone" thing? Where Bush thought he could get along with the Left wing nutcases? That was a bad decision, I guess. Heh heh..
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
With respect to...?
With respect to any decision that actually had any impact on the country?
Do you means as egregious as Clinton's decimating of the military?
No, any level of 'screwed up' will be suffice.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Riprorin
FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.
Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.
In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.
In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.
Link
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.
Wow, can't wait for the spin to 2008. At this rate the RRR FLL's will still be blaming Clinton in 3004.
And we're not supposed to blame Clinton for 8 years of decimating the military because...?
Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
What we need is someone who served in the military under Clinton and the prior two administrations to comment on this. I sometimes find first hand information very helpful.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Even with the Clinton-era cutbacks, your nation spent more on their military than the next 10 (IIRC) nations combined.
Yes, but we have more than 1 running tank.
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Even with the Clinton-era cutbacks, your nation spent more on their military than the next 10 (IIRC) nations combined.
Yes, but we have more than 1 running tank.
If no other nation has more than one running tank, why do you need so many?
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
Originally posted by: wiin
Pandaren said:
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
You must know something that the rest of us don't.
America's military is made up of volunteers. You can't just grab somebody from the street and place them in the military. All those people criticizing rumsfeld and the bush administration are the same people
who did nothing to stop clinton from decimating the military. This is what rumsfeld was referrng to when he said that you go with what you have.
Inhofe says Clinton's cuts made Iraq mess
"Eight years of Bill Clinton decimated the military to almost half of what it was in 1990," he said during a stop in Muskogee.
Clinton Cut the Military
RUSH: In 1992, total active military personnel, 1,913,750. Total active military personnel the year 2000, eight years later is 1,371,000, a reduction of nearly 600,000 active military personnel during the eight years of Bill Clinton. That's just the personnel side of the story.
Originally posted by: villager
Originally posted by: wiin
Pandaren said:
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
You must know something that the rest of us don't.
America's military is made up of volunteers. You can't just grab somebody from the street and place them in the military. All those people criticizing rumsfeld and the bush administration are the same people
who did nothing to stop clinton from decimating the military. This is what rumsfeld was referrng to when he said that you go with what you have.
Inhofe says Clinton's cuts made Iraq mess
"Eight years of Bill Clinton decimated the military to almost half of what it was in 1990," he said during a stop in Muskogee.
Clinton Cut the Military
RUSH: In 1992, total active military personnel, 1,913,750. Total active military personnel the year 2000, eight years later is 1,371,000, a reduction of nearly 600,000 active military personnel during the eight years of Bill Clinton. That's just the personnel side of the story.
Didn't Clinton have a GOP congress for 6 years? In any case who complained about the military size until Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq? Did not Bush say the occupation of Iraq would be short and easy?
Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.
And you think you can rebuild the military overnight, especially during war time?
Hahaha.
They had 4 years to rebuild the military. Clinton didn't reduce the training or technical expertise (as far as I can tell), he just reduced manpower. In fact, I've seen numerous sources suggest that our military was intentionally moving towards a smaller, more mobile and better trained force instead of the traditional cold war approach.
Either way, that leaves two open questions...well, actually three:
1) Why wasn't the Bush administration able to increase numbers in the military over the 4 years they were in charge in order to undo the decreases of Clinton's administration? I know Clinton had 8 years to cut the military, but can we still place all the blame on him when Bush has had 4 years to fix it?
2) Has anyone actually shown this wasn't part of a plan and that our CAPABILITY has really been reduced? Are we "paying" for anything, or would we have problems even without Clinton's cuts. I know the answer seems obvious here, but there's more to a military than numbers....just think about it a little bit.
3) Isn't this just a 20/20 hindsight criticism? Given the situation during Clinton's terms, was there a reason we NEEDED a more powerful military? In other words, assuming reduction in troop levels has been a problem, would it even have been possible to plan for that during Clinton's terms, or was he making a decision everyone agreed with AT THE TIME? You use the word mismanagement in the title, but would anyone have identified it as mismanagement at the time?
Edit: I have also heard that our military is intended more as a quick reaction force, NOT an occupying force. Just something to keep in mind, maybe Bush is trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, eh?
Originally posted by: Phokus
After bush's ridiculous invasion of iraq, expect the number of people who are interested in joining the military to drop to record lows.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Riprorin:
I have a single question for you and nobody else.
Has Bush ever screwed anything up?
With respect to...?
With respect to any decision that actually had any impact on the country?
Do you means as egregious as Clinton's decimating of the military?
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.
You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.
You miss the point. The point is that had it not been for eight years of Clinton, Bush wouldn't have had to rebuild the military!