Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Because that was about the point where the cuts started to go too far. No one is arguing that the military didn't need to be downsized after Ronaldus Magnus won the Cold War. Hell, in some cases we had people practically tripping over each other.But as I posted, Bush sr said in a State of the Union address, "This far and no more". To be honest, the military was about the right size around 94-95, but the cuts kept on coming wit Klinton. We went from cutting "fat" the cutting "muscle". Think we could use an extra 600,000 troops right now? Hell, even 300,000 troops? I do. First of all, after 94-95, the combined decrease was 3 percent. Secondly, where would we be getting these 600,000 troops? The Army is struggling to reach the troop levels we currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 First of all' date=' after 94-95, the combined decrease was 3 percent.Secondly, where would we be getting these 600,000 troops? The Army is struggling to reach the troop levels we currently have.[/quote'] Opps. Meant to say 200,000 troops in the Army. 600,000 personnel overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 That's exactly right.So where did the "Peace Dividend" go during the Klinton Adminstration? What do we have to show for it? The first Balanced Budget since Kennedy? :doh: I thought that was quite a notable achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 Because that was about the point where the cuts started to go too far. No one is arguing that the military didn't need to be downsized after Ronaldus Magnus won the Cold War. Hell, in some cases we had people practically tripping over each other.But as I posted, Bush sr said in a State of the Union address, "This far and no more". To be honest, the military was about the right size around 94-95, but the cuts kept on coming wit Klinton. We went from cutting "fat" the cutting "muscle". Think we could use an extra 600,000 troops right now? Hell, even 300,000 troops? I do. Well that's another matter. I definitely think we need more personell and could sacrifice a few high tech toys so we can afford them. Still the military itself has been resisting the troop level increase. They would rather have the toys. They would much rather envision themselves winning wars rather than an occupation force. I think if we had a single enemy on the horizon who could challenge us militarily then they would have a good point. Problem is we don't, and they have to do the occupation job too. If you took the pre war Iraqi military budget of 5 billion and compared it to the 3-400 billion American budget. Money isn't really the issue. I don't think Clinton went far enough. He could have trimmed another 50 billion and still kept the man power in place and the nation would have been better off today. It's definitely how the money was spent and is being spent. Not how much money as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Well that's another matter. I definitely think we need more personell and could sacrifice a few high tech toys Still the military itself has been resisting the troop level increase. They would rather have the toys.Even so if you took the pre war Iraqi military budget of 5 billion and compared it to the 3-400 billion American budget. Money isn't really the issue. I don't think Clinton went far enough. He could have trimmed another 50 billion and still kept the man power in place and the nation would have been better off today.. It might be better off TODAY, but part of being a good steward of the military is looking toward the future. Could we do what we're doing today if we had sacrificed "toys" for people and kept on using Reagans equipment? Sure. But what looms on the horizon? That's were the toys come in. We can't keep riding equipment procured from the 70's and 80's. Most of it has already gone past it's projected usage time. It's got to be replaced. We just now find ourselves having to pay for a war and paying to replace equipment at the same time Again, had we done this in the 90's, meaning had we bought the new toys then, we could afford to keep more people today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.