|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
irisheyes 
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 06 2004,11:06 pm |
|
   |
| Quote (minnow fan @ Mar. 06 2004,12:40:am) | | Amazing irsheyes. We agree. |
Yep, sometimes even your friend minnow & I agree (it scares me when that happens).
I realize that Liberal, but their were and probably still are atleast a dozen main tribes in Afganistan, many were associated with the Taliban and Al Qaida. Even after 9-11 our CIA and special forces supplied money and weapons to many of those tribes. Some of which were formerly in the Taliban, but when they realized we would win they switched sides (if you can't beat em, join em). I don't see anything wrong with this.
If we wouldn't have had the intelligence, knowledge of terrain, and manpower of many of these former terrorists, their would have been a lot more "boots on the ground" needed, and a lot more casualties for our side. When we took control of the country, we did it with only about 200 CIA paramilitary forces, and about 200 special forces. Most of the work was done by Afgans riding horseback, our guys mostly supplied money, weapons, intelligence, and targeted lazer guided bomb targets for the Air Force.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 07 2004,11:39 am |
|
 |
| Quote |
I realize that Liberal, but their were and probably still are atleast a dozen main tribes in Afganistan, many were associated with the Taliban and Al Qaida. Even after 9-11 our CIA and special forces supplied money and weapons to many of those tribes.
|
Ok let me see if I have this straight. Reagan and his CIA henchman/vice president George Bush Sr. arms the first group in the 80's and imports muslims from all over the world to fight the soviets. And then almost 20 years later George Bush Jr. arms another group of them to fight the first ones that his old man and Reagan armed and put in power. And then you guys want me to believe that this is all the fault of Bill Clinton for getting a hummer in the oval office?
They're shooting at Americans with weapons supplied by the expansionist Reagan republicans and you want to blame the nearest democrat you can point your finger at because he lied to you about the behavior of two consenting adults. I wonder who you are going to blame 20 years from now when we are back there arming the next generation of freedom fighters.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 07 2004,11:45 am |
|
|
Liberal--no political statement here, but just curious what DID happen to the M-16s? Why would they want a stamped-out, wooden-stocked piece of crap like an AK-47--unless it was BETTER than our M-16s?  Is it because the Russians still supply them with 7.62 Short (unique to AK-47s) ammunition, and they can't get regular 7.62 rounds? I don't know.
They KEPT the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we sent them--it was probably a Stinger that hit the El Al airliner last year, and the DHL cargo jet in Iraq this year. It is estimated that these old Stingers work about 1/3 of the time now--but they still will be deadly for another 15-20 years.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 07 2004,12:54 pm |
|
|
Both Irisheyes and Liberal make the same point--actions by any Administration can show up YEARS later. Liberal's points are historically correct--no denying that we supported and armed parts of the world--sometimes opposing factions.
Equally demonstratable, though, is the effects of the Clinton (and Carter) administrations gutting the military and the CIA. Both Presidents were thought of a weak by our adversaries. Iran took American hostages--something not done by a foreign government before or since. Libya thumbed its nose at the U.S.--until Reagan bombed Ghadaffi's palace. Clinton kept threatening to send in the U.N. to Iraq (THAT would strike fear!), choosing to lob in a few cruise missiles when they fired on our aircraft. Saddam COUNTED (incorrectly, it turns out) on this weak posturing of the U.S.--figuring the usual U.N. squabbling and inability to act would protect him.
Gutting the CIA had long-term effects as well. The existence and organization of OBL, the "ear to the ground" on impending events, the contacts on the ground when it came time to pursue him, lack of contacts with other intelligence operations (might have turned up better "intelligence" on existence of WMD than we had). There's plenty of blame to go around.
The point is--actions taken by an administration have repercussions decades down the road--and have nothing to do with Clinton's prevarications.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 08 2004,1:11 pm |
|
|
Looks like this is going to get pretty long...
If is a pretty big word cwolff. If this or if that, yea we all know about the power of the word if. We could have alot of fun with the word if, perhaps we can get into that later.
| Quote | | Cpu_slave, "many believe" ? Who the hell are you talking about? Have you been smoking pot with Minnow again? |
What are you having a problem comprehending? Let me simplify this for you, many people believe that Clintons sex life was nobodies business. Basically, he lied about something that should not have been an issue to begin with. Let me ask you this, how did his blow job affect your life in any way? Then can you also go on to explain how his lying about said blowjob affected your life?
| Quote | | I guess your right, lieing to the public should have no bearing on the President's ability to run the country! What? Are you kidding or are you really just having a melt down? |
Let us put this into perspective, one president lied about a blowjob, another lied about WMD in Iraq and Uranium from Africa. Now which president was impeached and which one was not? Which lie directly affected my life and which was nothing more than a distraction?
Now jim, in the time between the fall of the Soviet Union to just after 9/11 this country has been slowly cutting back on both the military and covert agents. This happened on Reagan’s watch as well as Bush Seniors, Clintons, and to a lesser extent the shrubs since he only had ¾ of a year of his presidency under his belt before 9/11, but as stated before was looking to close military bases and cut funding as well. Placing all the military downsizing on 8 years of over 13 is not looking at the entire picture but rather looking for an easy scapegoat.
| Quote | | Who cares what the world thinks, in most countrys their press is a joke, they only report propaganda to enrage their citizens. |
Who cares what the world thinks? You actually might want to start. Besides, the same could be said about the US press as they have been too easy on this administration. Do you really think that every country controls its press to that extent?
| Quote | | if we had been attacked |
There is that pesky word if again. Guess what? We not only were not attacked on US soil, but we also did not invade another nation in that entire time. How about if Clinton attacked Iraq and came up with no WMD, what do you think the right would be doing and saying about that now?
| Quote | | As for the Florida ballots, I've never heard of what you mentioned (people thought to be felons). |
HERE is something to help get you started.
| Quote | | but a Snipers bullet or a couple of Improvised Explosive Devices sure as hell could have nailed him. Blow Job Bill failed to use the military because he had no clue how to use it properly. |
Until shortly after 9/11, the US had a moratorium on assassinations. I guess you’re going to tell me that Clinton put it there or even better yet, that he should have ignored it and went ahead anyway. Besides, I thought the military was here to protect the US and its allies from foreign aggressors, and not to be used as a tool to make us the aggressors. I guess with an administration that wipes its ass with the constitution and the bill of rights then who really cares what they actually say anyways…
| Quote | | Bill Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote either but yet due to the Electoral college system he became President. |
Bullsh!t! Here is the proof-
Presidential election results. www.uselectionatlas.org
1992 370 to 168 electoral votes, 43.01% to 37.45% popular vote (Clinton vs. Bush Sr. – Clinton winning BOTH electoral and popular votes)
1996 379 to 159 electoral votes, 49.24% to 40.71% popular vote (Clinton vs. Dole – Clinton willing BOTH electoral and popular votes)
| Quote | | It is a known fact that when a President first takes office much of what happens in the first 6-9 months of his term is usually the aftermath of the previous administrations policies and what not. |
Again- Bullsh!t! If I recall, Bush 2 (and presidents prior) gave a ‘first 100 days in office’ speech where he took credit for all kinds of things that he 'accomplished'. I will agree about the first few months, but nowhere close to 9. I like how you use the number 9 in this case, just long enough to somehow try and blame Clinton for 9/11...
| Quote |
What happened on 9/11 can in no way be blamed on our current President because the intelligence failures can be traced back in a large part to former President Clintons Administration. |
It was not Clintons administration in office at the time that ‘mis-read’ the intelligence, it was the shrubs. Just wait until the report on 9/11 comes out and read for yourself how the intelligence about the attack came in weeks and days prior to 9/11 and was mis-handled by the current administration. If there is any intelligence failure, it is the guy currently sitting behind the desk in the oval office.
| Quote | | why waste your breathe they will never " get it". No comprende. They obviously are still under the illusion that the after effects of policies, legislation and acts do not happen overnite and on the average take 8 years. Politics 101 lesson free of charge..... |
I see we are back to the ‘Politics 101 lesson’ from about the year 1804. Policy does not take 8 years to see an effect, 18 to 24 months maximum! Just for fun, if everything takes 8 years as you claim then why is Bush out there saying that his tax cuts are directly responsible for the economic recovery? (BTW – the ‘economic recovery’ is an entirely different debate) Hell, even Bushes first tax cut was retroactive, making the effects felt immediately! Here are just two examples on how it does not take 8 years to feel the effects of policy. Care to provide some examples of things just taking effect now that were passed in 1996? Hell, I would settle on just about anything that Clinton passed during his term that has not been felt yet, because as you state we could see things up until 2008 that are somehow Clintons fault (just enough time to cover shrubs entire re-election term if that nightmare happens) I will agree that some of the unforeseen ‘ripple effects’ of certain policies can come to light as late as a decade or two after the fact, but to try and blame everything on the former administration? Nothing is ever shrubs fault is it? To you it's either Clintons fault or an intelligence failure, but god forbid if anything is bushes fault in your eyes, right?
You know what I think? Had Gore won in 2000 and all this went down the exact same way it has with Bush 2, the right would be screaming from the rooftops that it was ‘Gores fault’ since he was in office when it happened. I’m getting tired of all the Bush apologists…
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 08 2004,1:38 pm |
|
|
They still have a lot of American weapons. Our media just isn't allowed to show footage of it, just like it's not allowed to show footage of a british soldier carrying a weapon because they're sold as peace keeepers in the U.K. and not as invaders.
The media outlets don't have to follow the rules but if they don't follow them they will no longer get embedded reporters and they will get shunned at news conferences.
Do you ever wonder why you rarely see footage of the weapons seizures in Iraq? Or wonder why they call a claymore mine a "roadside explosive device" when it kills a soldier in Iraq?
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 08 2004,2:35 pm |
|
|
CPU-slave--this reply is limited to only your remarks in the paragraph quoted below:| Quote | | Now jim, in the time between the fall of the Soviet Union to just after 9/11 this country has been slowly cutting back on both the military and covert agents. This happened on Reagan’s watch as well as Bush Seniors, Clintons, and to a lesser extent the shrubs since he only had ¾ of a year of his presidency under his belt before 9/11, but as stated before was looking to close military bases and cut funding as well. Placing all the military downsizing on 8 years of over 13 is not looking at the entire picture but rather looking for an easy scapegoat. |
The collapse of the Soviet Union ocurred in Aug. 1991--(the attempt by hardliners to stage a coup)--so it wasn't on Reagan's watch, and was right at the end of Bush #41.
From the Heritage Foundation, Sept. 2000| Quote | The Facts About Readiness. In the early 1990s, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, these reductions in forces escalated rapidly, with too little defense spending, while U.S. forces were deployed more often.
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. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 (from a post WW II high of 563 under Reagan--JH)to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.
In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness.
Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s. The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998).
This dramatic increase in the use of America's armed forces has had a detrimental effect on overall combat readiness. Both people and equipment wear out faster with frequent use. Frequent deployments also take funding away from ongoing expenses such as training, fuel, and supplies. Moreover, the stress of frequent and often unexpected deployments can be detrimental to troop morale and jeopardize the armed forces' ability to retain high-quality people. |
Reagan didn't downsize the military, Bush #41 STARTED to, but the military was REALLY downsized under Clinton. In terms of personnel, the military services are down 30-40% from 1990 (even more compared with the Reagan years). The Navy has less than half the ships they had under Reagan--yet the military is being asked to do more with these fewer assets.
No wonder our adversaries consider(ed) us weak!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Wareagle11B
Group: Members
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mar. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 08 2004,6:51 pm |
|
|
Y'know I won't deny that President Bush is in part at fault for the attacks of September 11th 2001. However if we look back into the Clinton years we see that former President Clinton's idea of dealing with the terrorist threat of Al-Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden was to lob a couple of cruise missiles into countries that supported him. The ones that were fired into Afghanistan missed completely. Want to bet that a sniper wouldn't have missed Bin Laden if he had been given the oppurtunity? Furthermore I do not deny that we supported regimes that turned out to bite the hand that fed them namely the USA. We supported Saddam for many years in his fight against Iran because at that time Iran WAS a terrorist supporting nation. Iran is now becoming aware of the fact that the kind of behavior previously allowed in Iran is not gonna fly in the face of possible retaliation from the USA. Now onto another subject I have been lax in responding to.....
Mr Hanson I do agree with you in that the National Guard should not be used as it has been used these past few years. I do not want to go to Afghanistan anymore then my fellow soldiers do. I do believe it is a worthy deployment in that it will be what so many of us have trained for and would possibly never have had the chance to perform. I have been in the military for quite along time and yet this is my first actual combat deployment.I do agree that the use of the NG is not as it should be.
--------------
I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character!
Teddy Roosevelt
www.warriorlegacyfoundation.org
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
cwolff
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 08 2004,11:14 pm |
|
|
Many believe that Cpu_slave is in love with Blow Job Bill!
Don't forget Bill lied about WMD's in Iraq!
If Gore would have won his own state he would have won the election.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 09 2004,9:53 am |
|
|
Wareagle11B--does the 11B on your "handle" refer to Basic Combat Infantryman? I understand the Military Occupational Specialy system was renumbered since I was in.
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Guard troops come under the command of the State governor--and traditionally, are used in civil disasters (including martial law when declared by the governor). Reserves are just as the name implies--reserve troops to augment the Regular Army during times of crisis. The GOOD news is that National Guard and Reserve's seem to now be outfitted with more or less the same equipment given Regular Army troops, instead of making do with "hand-me-downs". (It seems we still give THOSE to the MARINES!)
If we are going to continue to deploy as many times as we have in the past 15 years (see my post, above)--we are going to have to have more troops, and the support equipment to get them deployed. We are wearing out troops, and the associated equipment to deploy them (ships and aircraft). The choices are:
A larger standing military
Continued use of the Guard and Reserve
Ability to train and raise large numbers of men quickly (draft)
With the world in turmoil, I can't see the need DECREASING in the immediate future. Not only do we need troops, but we need the equipment to support and deploy them.
Starting in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we enjoyed a "peace dividend"--cutting back the military. Military commanders were in favor of closing obsolete bases, to use the savings for better weapon systems (a move often blocked by Legislators seeking "pork" for their districts). Look how much easier it was to close a foreign base than a domestic one. Result--we have fewer foreign bases to use in a conflict (remember the problem in Iraq, when the Turks wouldn't let us use their bases?). As a result, we have placed more emphasis on aircraft carriers as MOBILE FORWARD BASES--not needing permission of a host country to operate. The only problem--we are down to 10 carriers (from 17). Considering that 1/3 are usually in port, 1/3 are in transit, and 1 always in overhaul--that only leaves 3 carriers deployed worldwide at any one time! Another problem--we don't have enough support ships to field more carrier groups.
With aircraft, we are also dangerously behind the times. The Navy's fleet defense fighter, the F-14 Tomcat, is 30 years old, and being retired. The Vietnam-era E-6 Intruder--used for air strikes, electronic surveillance and countermeasures, and tankers, HAS been retired by the Clinton Administration. Navy pilots are fighting mad--Navy aircraft can't take off with a full load of fuel and weapons, so they have to "hit a tanker" after becoming airborne. With no E-6s (capable of refueling 6 aircraft on a load of fuel), the job goes to the Viking--capable of fueling only 2 1/2 aircraft on a load of fuel. Result--severely restricted flight operations.
The Air Force fares no better. In the Middle East, our B-2 bombers had to make 24-hour round-trip flights to the Middle East from Whitehead AFB in Missouri--because there are no hangars or support facilities in Europe for the bombers! These aircraft are subsonic, have no provision for rest areas, relief crews, or even a potty for such long flights--requiring 3-4 refuelings each way. Our air superiority fighters--the F-15 and F-16 are 25 years old.
The point is--despite all the "gee-whiz" of cruise missles, JDAMs, "smart bombs", etc., our military has been cut so far back that it is difficult to put men and equipment on station. Like it or not, we will be in for a HUGE rebuilding effort in the next decade--under ANYBODYs Administration.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
