BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 To think that we should have maintained Cold War levels of military spending is crazy. Clinton should have made huge cuts, but he didn't because we are in the pockets of the military manufacturing companies. What's even crazier is thinking that defense spending cuts somehow cause terrorism or stop our ability to fight it. The gullibility of some people is astounding. when I was in during the Clinton era he was allowing up to 6 month early outs with JUST your CO's approval. And most 1 year early outs were being approved like they were lepers asking. The amount of bases he closed in the early 90s was amazing as well. Bases that were important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 when I was in during the Clinton era he was allowing up to 6 month early outs with JUST your CO's approval. And most 1 year early outs were being approved like they were lepers asking. The amount of bases he closed in the early 90s was amazing as well. Bases that were important. we should close more bases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 we should close more bases wow, thats smrt right thur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 To think that we should have maintained Cold War levels of military spending is crazy. Clinton should have made huge cuts, but he didn't because we are in the pockets of the military manufacturing companies. What's even crazier is thinking that defense spending cuts somehow cause terrorism or stop our ability to fight it. The gullibility of some people is astounding.The assertion was the President Clinton was the cause Your fact ignores that The huge amounts of waste in military spending is one thing, the CIA is another. I'm not saying Clinton didn't do that, but that your fact hardly makes the argument logically valid. Wait: Did Liberty give his account to Chomerics and said don't forget to underline some things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 To think that we should have maintained Cold War levels of military spending is crazy. Clinton should have made huge cuts, but he didn't because we are in the pockets of the military manufacturing companies. What's even crazier is thinking that defense spending cuts somehow cause terrorism or stop our ability to fight it. The gullibility of some people is astounding. Agreed. The military spending slowdown actually began under Republican President Bush Sr. And it was part of the Reagan strategy to outspend the Soviets but I don't think it was ever planned that spending would ramp up forever even after the Soviet Union crumbled. I don't think those budgets are all that indicative of our ability to fight the GWOT. Agree with your point though, F-22s and aircraft carriers don't fight terrorism. According to politifact, Clinton did increase intelligence spending beginning in 1997. SHF is right though, those figures are not available. Tenet said that he'd made considerable headway in boosting the agency's resources prior to the 9/11 attacks. "Between 1999 and 2001, our human agent base against the terrorist target grew by over 50 percent," he said. Then again, you should take that with a grain of salt. This is the same guy who said our intelligence on Iraq's wmd program was a "slam dunk" and then proceeded to write a book lying about the context of that quote. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/19/rudy-giuliani/hes-on-point-but-still-off-base/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 **** man, even after you guys win you just keep piling on with the Bush bashing. There is such a thing as being poor winners too and a lot of you are qualifying yourselves for that position. What goes around comes around I suppose. No reason to take it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 umm...aircraft carriers DO in fact fight terrorism. where do you think those fighter planes are coming from? The navy actually has a bigger air force then the actual air force itself does. Those F-18's, A-6's, F-14's (when they were around still) arent coming from SA or Germany mainly..they are coming from that carrier sitting in the Gulf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 What goes around comes around I suppose. No reason to take it personally. yeah, burgold pointed that out to me and it made sense. i dont like it on either side but youre right...no need to get worked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Satirists are often among the best minds in a community. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Satirists are often among the best minds in a community. ~Bang If you do say so yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 umm...aircraft carriers DO in fact fight terrorism. where do you think those fighter planes are coming from? The navy actually has a bigger air force then the actual air force itself does. Yeah you're right. They do fight terrorism to an extent. But it's probably not the most efficient way and certainly not what they were designed for. Those F-18's, A-6's, F-14's (when they were around still) arent coming from SA or Germany mainly..they are coming from that carrier sitting in the Gulf Not sure which battle you're referring to here. I would imagine the drones that are bombing AQ in Palistan right now are taking off from Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yeah you're right. The do fight terrorism to an extent. But it's probably not the most efficient way and certainly not what they were designed for. you realize that they are called F/A because it means fighter and attack. they are and have been used to drop missles and bombs for a long time (at least 16 years when I was in). Not sure which battle you're referring to here. I would imagine the drones that are bombing AQ in Palistan right now are taking off from Afghanistan. when you see that shock and Awe, where do you think most of that is coming from? answer; those ships sitting in the gulf. carriers or small boys they are the ones lobbing those missles at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 when I was in during the Clinton era he was allowing up to 6 month early outs with JUST your CO's approval. And most 1 year early outs were being approved like they were lepers asking. The amount of bases he closed in the early 90s was amazing as well. Bases that were important. We've had this discussion before. (That's the Tailgate "we".) Military spending went up under Clinton. (After adjusting for inflation, it went down by, IIR, 0.8% per year.) (By contrast, under Bush 1, military spending went down by, IIR, 4.5% per year.) (And if you split out the spending for the two wars we're fighting, then military spending under Bush 2 has gone down, as well. But I hate those "well, if you ignore this fact, then you can create a statistic that says so-and-so" kinds of statistics.) Military personnel under Clinton went down, quite a bit. To which, I keep pointing out that I saw, once, while clicking through the channels, the Joint Chief of Staff, testifying before Congress on the subject of military appropriations. What made me stop changing the channels was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs telling Congress "We don't need any more money. The money we've got is enough." That got my attention, for obvious reasons. And what the CJCS said, testifying to Congress, was that there's more than enough money in the defense budget, right now, (meaning, "right now, under the Clinton budget"), to keep the military operating just fine, thank you. But that what's happening is that Congress was earmarking so much of the Defense budget towards spending on new purchases and contracts, that there wasn't enough money left over for personnel, training, and maintenance For several years in Tailgate, Sarge and I would have this discussion every month or two. I'd point out that spending increased. He'd point out that the number of units went down, and that from his personal experience, that maintenance of the units he was in went downhill quite a bit. I'd point out that the CJCS had an explanation for why that could be. (Increased spending, decreased personnel and maintenance.) He'd point out that I wasn't in the military. Or he'd point out, again, that the number of units went down. Or he'd point out that, if you counted the final year of Bush 1's defense cuts as though they were Clinton's, then you could claim that Clinton cut defense spending by more like 1.3% per year, after inflation. (What he wouldn't do was admit that what we had, here, were two facts: That defense spending under Clinton was pretty much constant, that personnel and maintenance went down drastically. That the CJCS had an explanation that fit those facts. But that the explanation wasn't "Clinton is a Communist who hates the military".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He did neither. I'm going to disagree here on military... In 1993, National Defense spending was around $290B and 4.8% of GDP... Over the next 6 years he dropped spending to the $270B level and 3% of GDP. In 1999 it approached spending levels that were in existence when he was in office. If you have prosperity, how can you not invest some of that new wealth into National defense? Are budgets not supposed to rise? Should your military all take pay cuts and new weapon systems all be price controlled so they aren't anymore expensive to build than maintaining old weapon systems? I can't find actual data on the CIA/NSA/DIA, and I think that information may not be public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 what do you think he was spending the money on if it wasnt troops and bases? maybe he was just trying to increase the UAV vehicles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm going to disagree here on military... In 1993, National Defense spending was around $290B and 4.8% of GDP... Over the next 6 years he dropped spending to the $270B level and 3% of GDP. In 1999 it approached spending levels that were in existence when he was in office. Examine that highlighted sentence again, and then please repeat your statement that you disagree with my assertion that "defense spending, during Clinton's administration, rose in real dollars, and declined by tiny levels when adjusted for inflation". You might also consider the fact that Clinton left office in 2001, not 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 what do you think he was spending the money on if it wasnt troops and bases?maybe he was just trying to increase the UAV vehicles? Didn't read my post #38, did you? (No, that's not a slam. I know that I sometimes miss people's posts, too. And I'm perfect.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Didn't read my post #38, did you? (No, that's not a slam. I know that I sometimes miss people's posts, too. And I'm perfect.) that quote went past me. it was too much politics and not enough real answers for me. I notice bases closing and personnel being let out a year earlier then supposed to and I wonder what the money is being spent on. thats not a slam on your post. I am sure most on here get it but I didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 So, what does The Onion say about Obama? "black man asks nation for change" was my favorite obama onion headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 that quote went past me. it was too much politics and not enough real answers for me. I notice bases closing and personnel being let out a year earlier then supposed to and I wonder what the money is being spent on.thats not a slam on your post. I am sure most on here get it but I didnt. The summary is: according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, "what the money got spent on" was "Congress raided the military's budget for personnel pay and retention, maintenance, and training, and gave it to the defense contractors". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The ironic thing is, their over-the-top predictions came true. Pity that. To the letter. Wow. I remember telling my buddy's wife during the Bush-Gore election that if GW Bush becomes prez, we'd spend the entire term at war. I had no idea it would turn out to be two terms. That's an opinion. Show me some objective data. You know, things like budget numbers, that aren't just somebody's opinion. Bill Clinton increased defense spending. (In constant dollars. Allowing for inflation, defense spending went down a bit less than 1% per year.) That's a fact. Do NOT mess with Larry. he will F you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 what do you think he was spending the money on if it wasnt troops and bases?maybe he was just trying to increase the UAV vehicles? Probably research for those UAVs and other weapons systems that were trashed or that we just don't know about. More fighting robots and less soldiers in harms way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 He did neither.Did SooooooWhy Spy? The Uses and Misuses of Intelligence December 12, 1996 "The Clinton administration's focus on economic espionage is based on an assumption that traditional national security problems either do not exist or are distinctly secondary concerns--that they largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War. But what if that assumption is wrong? " Here is another delicious Quote To improve the effectiveness of the intelligence agencies, two things will be necessary. First, the intelligence agencies should focus on genuine threats to national security, such as terrorism, and not on trade negotiations. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-265.html Slashing-Gutting-Declawing-Misdirecting TomAto....ToMAWto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Did Soooooo So, I see two possibilities. 1) The link you provided contained actual, objective, information which actually had something to do with supporting your claim. But you decided to cut, paste, bold, highlight, and color some other part which has absolutely no relevance to your claim whatsoever. 2) The link you provided actually has nothing whatsoever to support your claim. But you decided to cut, paste, bold, highlight, and color some irrelevant part that says something bad about Clinton, and so what if it had nothing to do with your claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 ...I see two possibilities.......I see oneLarry = Obfuscation Here is a hint Larry.....do a word search.....you like those don't you? Misdirecting as in Clinton Declawed the CIA by Misdirecting funds thereby Slashing its main purpose by Gutting its Defense component Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.