We're paying for Clinton's mismanagement

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are correct. That would only be a 10% reduction. Our military is about 1/2 the size it was at the end of the 80s.

 

[myusername]

Gee the chart in Rip's partisan piece of crap link only show a 6% budget reduction. If you're concerned about headcount, why don't you take that up with the rightwing legislators or the military industrial complex who conspire to mis-spend all their budget on bigger and better toys to fight enemies that don't exist instead of manpower to fight the debacle we call a war in Iraq?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: chowderhead

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.

I blame GWB and the his whole administration for rushing to war and for inadequate planning. Rumsfeld is the Sec. of Defense so therefore is an important figure and is fair game. I supported the war in Afghanistan so there are things that I supported our President on. If Clinton had taken us into war in the manner that this President had, I would criticize him just as harshly. At the very least, I expect him to fire his Defense Sec. and NOT give a medal of freedom to Tenet (9-11, PreWar Iraq Intel). Secondly, if you can blame Clinton for military cuts and lowering troops strengths for at least partly being responsible for the problems today in Iraq. Fine. I disagree because GWB and Congress could have easily restored the funding and boosted recruitment if they wanted to, but we agree to disagree because I think GWB and his administration need to take responsibility.

Would you also place some blame on the Reagan and GHWB administration for actively supporting Saddam and Iraq during the 80s in their war with Iran? After, all the truth of the matter is that the effects of an administration can be seen much longer than the day after they leave. When will blaming others end and personal responsibility begin?

 

[villager]

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.

Just a small note but if you going to call someone an idiot make sure you correct your spelling.

 

[Drift3r]

Let's all thank Riprorin and friends for a great trolling post. To blame the Clinton administration solely and to ignore the previous administrations and the current administration in regards to the initial and on going down sizing of our military is a sign of a true troll. Might I also add that his open insinuations of fault for this current administration's lack of foresight and planning in regards to the war in Iraq is also the work of a true partisan hack.

If you truly want to lay the blame where it squarely belongs in regards to the down sizing of our military then you must place the blame where it does sorely belongs and that is on the heads of every politician and general after the end of the cold war who called for a reshaping of our military policy. Of which was endorsed by all the administrations, generals and houses and sessions of congress and the senate in this country prior to the Iraq war.

Of course the current blame for the lack of planning and inefficient handling of this grand adventure in Iraq goes solely to the group of people who planned and initiated this war and to no one else and we all know who they are as of today. No one forced our hand and there were no imminent threats to our national security originating from Iraq to force us to go in blindly and hastily into that nation. The fact remains that this administration chose the time and place in which to start this war. They had all the prior analysis, military data and other forms of information in regards to our equipment and troop strength that would be needed for this war. They knew about our equipment and troop capabilities or lack there of as well in regards to nation building in a worst case scenario. Claiming ignorance of the past and present for their mistakes is truly the sign of pure partisanship at work here folks. Bravo Rippy boy ! Keep up the good partisan hack work !

 

[Jhhnn]

Face it, guys, Congress and the Public were suckered by the vague wording of the Iraqi resolution.

If we'd actually been supporting UN resolution with the invasion of Iraq, it would have been at the request of the UN... that's not what happened, however, despite some transparently disingenuous attempts to represent it as such...

The whole premise of the OP is faulty, anyway. Our military was perfectly capable of defending us against any truly military threat, and of meeting any obligations to our allies, but that's not what happened, either, is it?

The Bush Admin has made sure that they're mired in a guerrilla conflict where the vast majority of the population is either hostile to our presence or actively supporting the insurgency... at troop strengths obviously inadequate for the task at hand, as many in the military command had warned.

Blame that on Clinton, if you can...

 

[villager]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Face it, guys, Congress and the Public were suckered by the vague wording of the Iraqi resolution.

If we'd actually been supporting UN resolution with the invasion of Iraq, it would have been at the request of the UN... that's not what happened, however, despite some transparently disingenuous attempts to represent it as such...

The whole premise of the OP is faulty, anyway. Our military was perfectly capable of defending us against any truly military threat, and of meeting any obligations to our allies, but that's not what happened, either, is it?

The Bush Admin has made sure that they're mired in a guerrilla conflict where the vast majority of the population is either hostile to our presence or actively supporting the insurgency... at troop strengths obviously inadequate for the task at hand, as many in the military command had warned.

Blame that on Clinton, if you can...

If 140,000 soldiers were not in Iraq, would there be a debate about the size of the military? Bush's blunders caused the military to be overextended in Iraq.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Face it, guys, Congress and the Public were suckered by the vague wording of the Iraqi resolution.

Disagree.

Say what you would like about politicians, but when talking about their own element rarely can you term one a sucker. Aside from the direct language of the resolution to use the U.S. military in Iraq that I posted earlier, both the House and the Senate approved of the use of force by a wider margin than in the preceding vote in 1991.

House Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota): The threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri): "I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio): "All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq. All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."

These are the thoughts in 2002 of prominent elected Democrats. They knew what they were getting into, and the public did elect them there to cast a vote in their behalf. There was no vague wording or trickery at play in this resolution.

Source

If we'd actually been supporting UN resolution with the invasion of Iraq, it would have been at the request of the UN... that's not what happened, however, despite some transparently disingenuous attempts to represent it as such...

Disagree.

The U.N. has never been known for consistent positions, and even in 1991 some serious campaigning was required to build a coalition to carry out Desert Storm. The United Nations is not the world's foremost authority on either morality or righteousness. Half of its members are non-democratic countries anyways, in direct opposition to the U.N.'s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

But while the U.N. has actually consistently passed resolutions condemning Iraq for non-compliance of the terms set upon Mr. Hussein's surrender, over a period of a decade-plus where outside the U.S./Britain has there been any move to bring real accountability to Saddam's regime? The U.N.'s own convenient inaction as an entity should not be a paralyzing agent upon its member nations.

It's been a pathetic game of hide-and-seek that the aforementioned Democra politicians seemed to have grasped. Sure, it was politically convenient to be pro-war in 2002 and it's convenient to be anti-war in 2004. Gotta love them politicians. But they're America's spokespeople, and they spoke plainly enough - if you cared to listen, and care enough now not to pretend you didn't have your chance to hear.

 

[Jhhnn]

As I said before, yllus, "transparently disingenuous".

Did the UN request an invasion of Iraq? No?

Then how were we supporting UN resolutions to do so? That is what the war resolution actually calls for...

Your remarks wrt Democratic representatives and senators circa 2002 are along the same vein- conveniently forgetting the ongoing fear and disinformation campaign about terrar and the Iraqis coming from the admin, and the undercurrents of that election, not to mention that there's a big difference between saber-rattling brinkmanship and going off half-cocked.

As I've pointed out previously, several times, and as you've chosen to pointedly ignore, the Iraqis apparently had no wmd's, and were in compliance with the inspection requirements a few weeks prior to the invasion, per Blix's March 7 2003 report to the UN... Threats were working, but enforcement of the UN resolutions wasn't exactly what the Bushistas had in mind, anyway...

I suppose you'll blame Clinton for the "flowers in the streets" miscalculation, too, along with the wretched and shameful way that the so-called reconstruction has proceeded, along with abu ghraib, indefinite detention w/o charge, and all the rest of it... Don't blame GWB, don't blame yourself for being duped into re-electing the guy, either- blame anybody else, preferably "Liberals", right?

GHWB had it right, there's no exit strategy- short of acts of mass murder and destruction that would make saddam look like a milquetoast... Kinda warming up to that in Fallujah, I suspect...

 

[IAteYourMother]

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.

Blah blah blah...US IMPERIALISM.. blah blah

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As I said before, yllus, "transparently disingenuous".

Did the UN request an invasion of Iraq? No?

Then how were we supporting UN resolutions to do so? That is what the war resolution actually calls for...

When did UN Resolution 678 expire in its authorizing "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990)"?

Mr. Clinton and his administration seemed to think it was still in effect in 1998. I imagine they agreed with my reading on the UN Resolution on Iraqi disarmament "stressing that the necessary conditions do not exist for the modification of the measures referred to in section F of resolution 687 (1991)".

Your remarks wrt Democratic representatives and senators circa 2002 are along the same vein- conveniently forgetting the ongoing fear and disinformation campaign about terror and the Iraqis coming from the admin, and the undercurrents of that election, not to mention that there's a big difference between saber-rattling brinkmanship and going off half-cocked.

That's making excuses for politicians not carrying out their responsibilities. Those who said 'aye' voted for use of lethal force - this wasn't a pork-barrel bill to routinely look the other way on and vote upon without looking at the full text. When are one's leaders obligated to speak their concience if at a time like that?

As I've quoted above the words weren't coming just out of the mouths of White House staff. Daschle himself helped draft the measure advocating war. Pretending otherwise also fits well into the category of disingenuity.

As I've pointed out previously, several times, and as you've chosen to pointedly ignore, the Iraqis apparently had no wmd's, and were in compliance with the inspection requirements a few weeks prior to the invasion, per Blix's March 7 2003 report to the UN... Threats were working, but enforcement of the UN resolutions wasn't exactly what the Bushistas had in mind, anyway...

This was your first post in this thread, so I don't know where I've been ignoring your statements on this supposed compliance. Dr. Blix and a number of UNSCOM inspectors sure seemed to have thought otherwise prior to the war, but speaking engagements seem to be more important than factual consistency to many these days.

Blix's report to the UN...stated that Iraq was in compliance? Please do feel free to enlighten us by perusing the text of that speech and pointing out where that conclusion was voiced.

I suppose you'll blame Clinton for the "flowers in the streets" miscalculation, too, along with the wretched and shameful way that the so-called reconstruction has proceeded, along with abu ghraib, indefinite detention w/o charge, and all the rest of it... Don't blame GWB, don't blame yourself for being duped into re-electing the guy, either- blame anybody else, preferably "Liberals", right?

I liked Mr. Clinton immensely. And I'm merely for the factual representation of data in this forum area. You folks who boil everything down to "neocon" or "liberal" can have your fun, but I don't take this place seriously enough for that.

 

[IAteYourMother]

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.

I do hope you're joking. I really do.

 

[0marTheZealot]

God I can't wait to leave this country.

 

[IronMentality]

How come Bill Clinton had over ten times with clear intelligence to destroy terrorists or disrupt terrorist networks and he did nothing? The guy just wanted to move on by like 'nothing happened on his watch.' Bill Clinton reduced the number of field agents working overseas for the CIA greatly (there were only a total of two in Iran from 1994 to 2000), did absolutely nothing after the 1993 WTC bombing, did nothing when our embassies were blown up... but then decided to launch missile strikes against Iraq when the Lewinsky scandal was full-blown in the media.

I'm sorry, Clinton may have managed a good economy (considering all he did was enact Bush 41's policies in which he was handed a booming economy) -- but it doesn't justify his #1 duty of PROTECTING AMERICANS. He did a horrible horrible job of it.

 

[IronMentality]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
God I can't wait to leave this country.

Please leave and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

 

[Klixxer]

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.

Would you be so kind to spell it out for this idiot? I mean, the exact wording, i must have gotten it wrong because "any means neccessary to ensure" does not read "full scale invasion because of a hunch" to me.

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II"

Remember that and understand that the poliics used to create a war situation in the Iraq case were NOT approved by congress, this is Bushie admins doing, don't try to shift the blame.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah, there it is, now can you find the relevant sections for me that authorizes a full scale invasion of Iraq?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As I said before, yllus, "transparently disingenuous".

Did the UN request an invasion of Iraq? No?

Then how were we supporting UN resolutions to do so? That is what the war resolution actually calls for...

When did UN Resolution 678 expire in its authorizing "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990)"?

Mr. Clinton and his administration seemed to think it was still in effect in 1998. I imagine they agreed with my reading on the UN Resolution on Iraqi disarmament "stressing that the necessary conditions do not exist for the modification of the measures referred to in section F of resolution 687 (1991)".

Your remarks wrt Democratic representatives and senators circa 2002 are along the same vein- conveniently forgetting the ongoing fear and disinformation campaign about terror and the Iraqis coming from the admin, and the undercurrents of that election, not to mention that there's a big difference between saber-rattling brinkmanship and going off half-cocked.

That's making excuses for politicians not carrying out their responsibilities. Those who said 'aye' voted for use of lethal force - this wasn't a pork-barrel bill to routinely look the other way on and vote upon without looking at the full text. When are one's leaders obligated to speak their concience if at a time like that?

As I've quoted above the words weren't coming just out of the mouths of White House staff. Daschle himself helped draft the measure advocating war. Pretending otherwise also fits well into the category of disingenuity.

As I've pointed out previously, several times, and as you've chosen to pointedly ignore, the Iraqis apparently had no wmd's, and were in compliance with the inspection requirements a few weeks prior to the invasion, per Blix's March 7 2003 report to the UN... Threats were working, but enforcement of the UN resolutions wasn't exactly what the Bushistas had in mind, anyway...

This was your first post in this thread, so I don't know where I've been ignoring your statements on this supposed compliance. Dr. Blix and a number of UNSCOM inspectors sure seemed to have thought otherwise prior to the war, but speaking engagements seem to be more important than factual consistency to many these days.

Blix's report to the UN...stated that Iraq was in compliance? Please do feel free to enlighten us by perusing the text of that speech and pointing out where that conclusion was voiced.

I suppose you'll blame Clinton for the "flowers in the streets" miscalculation, too, along with the wretched and shameful way that the so-called reconstruction has proceeded, along with abu ghraib, indefinite detention w/o charge, and all the rest of it... Don't blame GWB, don't blame yourself for being duped into re-electing the guy, either- blame anybody else, preferably "Liberals", right?

I liked Mr. Clinton immensely. And I'm merely for the factual representation of data in this forum area. You folks who boil everything down to "neocon" or "liberal" can have your fun, but I don't take this place seriously enough for that.

Excuse me, but can the US enforce UN resolutions?

All statements stands or falls with the answer to that question and the answer is, of course, no, only the UN can.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bush is a Disaster compared to Clinton

 

[arsbanned]

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.

Perhaps you should e-mail your Repub leaders then, who seem to be attacking Rumsfeld daily. Oh, and this is a stupid, derivative post.

 

[Tylanner]

Clinton was inept, and we, as a people paid for it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tylanner
Clinton was inept, and we, as a people paid for it.

Yeah with prosperity.

 

[outriding]

This has to be the DUMBEST thread ever.

U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: outriding
This has to be the DUMBEST thread ever.

U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender

Hey world domination is not cheap

 

[outriding]

Clinton to ask for more money for the military