We're paying for Clinton's mismanagement

[justly]

Originally posted by: Martin

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?

Wow, did Clinton really kill every tenth soldier? I didn't know, thanks.

If you believe that the troops should have had body armor and armored humvees before now then yes.

 

[myusername]

Any fault of Clinton's was that of not building a new military .. he largely let the DOD set its own course, and the DOD, still in the Cold War mindset, was putting all its eggs in the Competing Nuclear Superpower (i.e. China) basket. Had there been a Republican at the helm, this policy would have also been directed from the Whitehouse. Nonetheless, given the world political situation of the 90's, it is unlikely that a Republican president would have been able to allocate more funds.

 

[Pandaren]

Fvcking bullsh!t.

It's called personal responsibility. Have you heard of it?

Clinton & Congress severely reduced military rediness in the 90's. I don't dispute that fact. In fact, if you bothered to read my posts you'd find that I disapproved.

Bush wanted to go to war. Bush was in office. Bush had a Republican Congress to help him. And with all that he still screwed up.

You know what I hate? I hate it when certain groups of people whine about how had it not been for historical oppression etc etc that they would be well off etc etc. Maybe its true to a certain extent but at some point you have to take responsibility.

This whining about Clinton is the same deal. Oh nooes, if it weren't for Clinton we'd be so much better off. Whine whine whine. Get over yourself. Your self pittying victim complex is pathetic.

Originally posted by: Condor
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!

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: Martin

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?

Wow, did Clinton really kill every tenth soldier? I didn't know, thanks.

If you believe that the troops should have had body armor and armored humvees before now then yes.

Do you read what you are typing? Even if I agree with you (which I don't) that Clinton didn't provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor for a theoretical war that never happened under Clintons' eight years, you ignore the FACT that GWB and his administration has been in office for 4 years since. Clinton is now responsible for soldiers dying because 4 years ago, he supposedly didn't provide the body armor? What? Where is GWB in all of that?

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: Martin

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?

Wow, did Clinton really kill every tenth soldier? I didn't know, thanks.

If you believe that the troops should have had body armor and armored humvees before now then yes.

Do you read what you are typing? Even if I agree with you (which I don't) that Clinton didn't provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor for a theoretical war that never happened under Clintons' eight years, you ignore the FACT that GWB and his administration has been in office for 4 years since. Clinton is now responsible for soldiers dying because 4 years ago, he supposedly didn't provide the body armor? What? Where is GWB in all of that?

Let me get this strait, you think Clinton did provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor. Then why do we need more now?

I get it, it is only a theoretical war, so you think our military should not be prepared for a real battle, smart.

Yes, Bush has been in office for four years, is there more armor now then when he took office, I bet there is.

Has everythig possible been done to maximize the amount of armor, that is questionable, but it still doesn't mean that the Clinton administration is blameless or not responsible at least in part.

What is the purpose of having a military if it is not prepared, if it was prepared then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe I should be asking you the same question you asked me "Do you read what you are typing?"

 

[imported_Nostromo]

The Post Cold War drawdown began with Bush 1, Cheney cut most of the new defense projects, Clinton really maintained what Bush 1 had started.

The point about body armor and armored Humvees is that no one in any administration thought they would be needed in high numbers.

But it appears now that Clinton should have been able to predict the future. It does in fact take many years, certainly more than the number Bush 2 has been in office, to weld some steel plates onto a Humvee.

 

[sandorski]

This is weak, even for someone who works with Weak Premises.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: Martin

Wow, did Clinton really kill every tenth soldier? I didn't know, thanks.

If you believe that the troops should have had body armor and armored humvees before now then yes.

Do you read what you are typing? Even if I agree with you (which I don't) that Clinton didn't provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor for a theoretical war that never happened under Clintons' eight years, you ignore the FACT that GWB and his administration has been in office for 4 years since. Clinton is now responsible for soldiers dying because 4 years ago, he supposedly didn't provide the body armor? What? Where is GWB in all of that?

Let me get this strait, you think Clinton did provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor. Then why do we need more now?

I get it, it is only a theoretical war, so you think our military should not be prepared for a real battle, smart.

Yes, Bush has been in office for four years, is there more armor now then when he took office, I bet there is.

Has everythig possible been done to maximize the amount of armor, that is questionable, but it still doesn't mean that the Clinton administration is blameless or not responsible at least in part.

What is the purpose of having a military if it is not prepared, if it was prepared then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe I should be asking you the same question you asked me "Do you read what you are typing?"

I never said that our military should not be prepared for a real battle.
You place the blame (dead soldiers) on Clinton for basically not having enough armor for a war that he took no part in planning or executing. We don't know if there would have been enough armor under Clinton IF he took us to war in Iraq. Would he have planned/prepared better? I dunno because it didn't happen. That is why I said theoretical because during the Clinton's term, there was no Iraq war.

What we did have was conflict in Bosnia.
Here is the thread where X-Man tried to blame Aspin and Cohen, Clinton's Sec of Defense for not having enough armor.

Why wasn't armor an issue when Aspin and Cohen were SecDefs?
Here is what happened.
SUBJECT: Body Armor for Bosnia

Seems to me that when the military requested body armor, they received it.

Now, back on topic, is this armor/manpower a matter of resources (Defense spending at record levels) or is it a matter of poor planning by the people in CURRENTLY in charge
GOP lawmaker Collins joins Rumsfeld critics

Rumsfeld told the troops that shortages of armor did not stem from a lack of money but were "a matter of physics." The manufacturers of add-on armor are producing it as fast as humanly possible, he said.

Two companies producing armor plating disputed that assertion and said they could produce as many as double the number of armor kits in a month.

http://www.time.com/time/press.../0,8599,565993,00.html

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

 

[Engineer]

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!

If Bush hadn't went to an unjust and un-necessary war in Iraq, nothing, including Iraq itself, would need to be rebuilt.

 

[Red Dawn]

Nobody complained at the time because they reaped the benefits.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: sandorski
This is weak, even for someone who works with Weak Premises.

lol

 

[Looney]

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.

When Clinton was President, the world saw the end of the coldwar, and didn't see any foreseable invasion of nations and needing to police them. And infact, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be more than enough troops to handle just Afghanistan. Or if Bush had waited for true coalition with the rest of the world, there would be enough forces in Iraq. Or if he had listened to Powell who was saying they needed more troops before invading, there probably wouldn't be as much of a mess now. Or if he had waited until the military was properly equipped before invading Iraq, there probably wouldn't be shortages now. etc etc.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: Martin

Wow, did Clinton really kill every tenth soldier? I didn't know, thanks.

If you believe that the troops should have had body armor and armored humvees before now then yes.

Do you read what you are typing? Even if I agree with you (which I don't) that Clinton didn't provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor for a theoretical war that never happened under Clintons' eight years, you ignore the FACT that GWB and his administration has been in office for 4 years since. Clinton is now responsible for soldiers dying because 4 years ago, he supposedly didn't provide the body armor? What? Where is GWB in all of that?

Let me get this strait, you think Clinton did provide sufficient armored humvees and body armor. Then why do we need more now?

I get it, it is only a theoretical war, so you think our military should not be prepared for a real battle, smart.

Yes, Bush has been in office for four years, is there more armor now then when he took office, I bet there is.

Has everythig possible been done to maximize the amount of armor, that is questionable, but it still doesn't mean that the Clinton administration is blameless or not responsible at least in part.

What is the purpose of having a military if it is not prepared, if it was prepared then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe I should be asking you the same question you asked me "Do you read what you are typing?"

I never said that our military should not be prepared for a real battle.
You place the blame (dead soldiers) on Clinton for basically not having enough armor for a war that he took no part in planning or executing. We don't know if there would have been enough armor under Clinton IF he took us to war in Iraq. Would he have planned/prepared better? I dunno because it didn't happen. That is why I said theoretical because during the Clinton's term, there was no Iraq war.

Your comment might make sence in one perspective, but it appears flawed in another. If every military action had the option to be planned out so far in advance that we had time to train troops and build what they needed then I could agree with you. The problem is maintaining a millitary is more like maintaining a fire department, they need to be prepared for what might happen, not just be prepared for a controlled fire that they themselves set.

What we did have was conflict in Bosnia.
Here is the thread where X-Man tried to blame Aspin and Cohen, Clinton's Sec of Defense for not having enough armor.

Why wasn't armor an issue when Aspin and Cohen were SecDefs?
Here is what happened.
SUBJECT: Body Armor for Bosnia

Seems to me that when the military requested body armor, they received it.

I hope you don't expect me to adress what X-man said, I was not with him and have no personal knowlage of his claims. As for your link, I think it is safe to say that there is a big differance between the 350 sets of body armor in your link and the quantities that have been requested for Iraq.

Now, back on topic, is this armor/manpower a matter of resources (Defense spending at record levels) or is it a matter of poor planning by the people in CURRENTLY in charge
GOP lawmaker Collins joins Rumsfeld critics

Rumsfeld told the troops that shortages of armor did not stem from a lack of money but were "a matter of physics." The manufacturers of add-on armor are producing it as fast as humanly possible, he said.

Two companies producing armor plating disputed that assertion and said they could produce as many as double the number of armor kits in a month.

http://www.time.com/time/press.../0,8599,565993,00.html

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

I always find it amusing when people do what you just did, pick one or two people as a target and claim it is all their fault. In reality those one or two people are accountable for what has happened but not necessarily responsible for causing the problem. If those that you accuse where omniscient and infinitely capable of providing anything and everything they needed without the use of aids or a staff or even a manufcturing company then by all means put the blame entirely on them. Since they do not possess these powers then be realistic and allow the blame to be shared. By the way I never claimed that Clinton should recieve the full blame but I do think that durring his tenure as president he allowed or possibily even caused a number of problems that the current administration is faced with. The truth of the matter is that the effects of an administration can be seen much longer than the day after they leave.

I understand how this goes and it is already happening, the liberals on this board are blaming everything on the current administration becase it is easier to accept than the possibilitity that the blame could somehow be shared by their own party. I'm sure the belief that the Clinton administration could do no wrong makes you feel good about your party so I don't expect this to stop.

I am still waiting on someone else with military experiance to come forward and state that the cutbacks had no negative effect on the military.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

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.

When Clinton was President, the world saw the end of the coldwar, and didn't see any foreseable invasion of nations and needing to police them. And infact, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be more than enough troops to handle just Afghanistan. Or if Bush had waited for true coalition with the rest of the world, there would be enough forces in Iraq. Or if he had listened to Powell who was saying they needed more troops before invading, there probably wouldn't be as much of a mess now. Or if he had waited until the military was properly equipped before invading Iraq, there probably wouldn't be shortages now. etc etc.

Given WTC1, Khobar Towers, African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, Somalia, etc, decimating the military was pretty silly.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Hardcore

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.

When Clinton was President, the world saw the end of the coldwar, and didn't see any foreseable invasion of nations and needing to police them. And infact, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be more than enough troops to handle just Afghanistan. Or if Bush had waited for true coalition with the rest of the world, there would be enough forces in Iraq. Or if he had listened to Powell who was saying they needed more troops before invading, there probably wouldn't be as much of a mess now. Or if he had waited until the military was properly equipped before invading Iraq, there probably wouldn't be shortages now. etc etc.

Given WTC1, Khobar Towers, African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, Somalia, etc, decimating the military was pretty silly.

Given that our Troop level was low invading and occupying Iraq was even sillier, especially when they posed no serious threat to us at all.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
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...?

If te Miliatry was so "decimated" then how did Bush even think about using it to launch his own personal War to grab Iraq???

 

[Klixxer]

Clinton should have seen it coming, i mean, Iraq with all those WMD's, what a great threat to US security, he should have known.

I mean, Saddam had... so very many... WMD's...

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

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.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Clinton should have seen it coming, i mean, Iraq with all those WMD's, what a great threat to US security, he should have known.

I mean, Saddam had... so very many... WMD's...

I guess that is why he ordered operation desert fox in 1998? OH yeah, that was the reason.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

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.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

No you are an idiot. Only congress can autorize war, and they did.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

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.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

No you are an idiot. Only congress can autorize war, and they did.

You need to read the Congressional records again.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Clinton should have seen it coming, i mean, Iraq with all those WMD's, what a great threat to US security, he should have known.

I mean, Saddam had... so very many... WMD's...

I guess that is why he ordered operation desert fox in 1998? OH yeah, that was the reason.

The U.N. is such a wasteful organization. Look at all the electrons it keeps unnecessarily occupied with resolutions on Iraq like this one. Chock-full of pointless text like:

Noting the announcement by Iraq on 5 August 1998 that it had decided to suspend cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all disarmament activities and restrict ongoing monitoring and verification activities at declared sites, and/ or actions implementing the above decision,

Stressing that the necessary conditions do not exist for the modification of the measures referred to in section F of resolution 687 (1991).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

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.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

No you are an idiot. Only congress can autorize war, and they did.

You need to read the Congressional records again.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

If congress did not approve this, they could use the war powers act to bring the troops home as we are past 60 days on this operation.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer
I see that a lot, but it is a false statement, because, the thing is, that the congress never said anything about warefare or invasion, neigher did the congress acknowlede the need for a full scale invasion and it did NOT give a blank check for it either.

It amazes me greatly, that i, a German know more about it than most Americans do.

You know the wording, you know the caveats, yet you still proclaim it to be supportive of a fill scale invasion of a country already contained?

At best that is utterly and entirely pathetic and you know better i am sure.

No you are an idiot. Only congress can authorize war, and they did.

You need to read the Congressional records again.

What the bloody hell are you people talking about.

Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002:

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to?
(a) AUTHORIZATION.?The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to?
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Is this going to be some nitpicker's argument as to whether Iraq posed a continuing threat, or if the UN resolution really meant the U.S. should invade and finally put Mr. Hussein out of business?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Even with the Clinton-era cutbacks, your nation spent more on their military than the next 10 (IIRC) nations combined.

That's hardly decimated.

Maybe Clinton didn't plan for unnecssary imperialistic invasions.

Decimated is removing what? 10 percent? Therefore his statement was correct.