Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Has Bush Weakened Our Military?  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-Bush. But sometimes I think that the President has basically allowed the Pentagon to make cuts in equipment and services that shouldn't have been cut.

Take bombers, for example. We actually had more bombers under Clinton than under Bush.

Or ships. We have fewer active naval ships than at any time in recent history, if I recall correctly. Under Reagan, we were approaching 600 major combat vessels. Under Bush, we're talking about cutting the 12 aircraft carrier groups back to 11 or even 10. Total major active vessels? Seems like we're barely breaking the 200 or so mark, these days.

That's not acceptable.

Let's look at the F-22. From a peak of hundreds, to barely a hundred or so. And the program was recently at risk of cancellation.

All this, while we're fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And in the last decade, we've retired or destroyed thousands of nukes.

I mean, come on!

Personally, I think that these results have been a disappointment. Bush is supposed to be strong on defense. But aren't we weaker today than we were in the last days of Clinton?

Something ain't right.

[Edited 2006-01-03 17:16:04]

120 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8492 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

our military ? I'm not sure .... he might have weakened yours - I dont think he has actually has anything to do with mine


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1):
our military ? I'm not sure .... he might have weakened yours - I dont think he has actually has anything to do with mine

Obviously, I meant the U.S. military. Sorry 'bout that.

But, anyway, Belgium is part of NATO, no?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

I don't think the formal cuts of troop strength would necessarily be a problem.

Much, much larger problems are:

a) creating unnecessary wars without any sound cause or strategy which overload the otherwise adequately-sized military

b) cutting support from under the feet of soldiers and veterans

Much worse than a slightly undersized military is a demoralized and exhausted one...


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

Nukes? The less of them the better in my opinion.

Do we really need hundreds of F-22's? That is an overpriced program in my opinion and I would anyways like to see a smaller military budget.

What is truly weakening to our army is to have it spread so thin. We're fighting two wars with insuffecient equipment (thank you Dumsfeld), insufficient troop numbers, and insufficient strategy. That to me makes our military weak, not the number of bombers or ships or nukes. Rather its the lack of body armor and proper vehicles for our ground troops. Its the complete lack of strategy (so it seems) for keeping the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

Hasnt the general trend since the end of WWII to be a reduction in a militaries size anyway, as it becomes more complex and technology dependant?

You dont need 100 B-52s to drop one bunker buster on a precision target.

You dont need an aircraft carrier to bomb a foreign country when you can sit off their coast and fire cruise missiles at them from a submarine.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Take bombers, for example. We actually had more bombers under Clinton than under Bush.

Well, to be accurate the number of aircraft has stabilized under the Bush administration, while the Clinton administration presided over the biggest drawdown in our military power in our history. Our military was also rather underfunded under President Clinton with a severe lack of spares and other logistics, as well as a military that was underappreciated in both attitude and pay.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 1):
our military ? I'm not sure .... he might have weakened yours - I dont think he has actually has anything to do with mine

I know that's the truth.....your military was weakened by your own government decades ago because you were protected by that giant military alliance headquartered in your country (at least where you are flagged). So, actually, yes....we weakened your military because your own government saw that we would protect you and you did not have to spend as much to do so.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Personally, I think that these results have been a disappointment. Bush is supposed to be strong on defense. But aren't we weaker today than we were in the last days of Clinton?

No, we aren't. We're also talking apples and oranges here, since we are now in a shooting war on multiple fronts.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Or ships. We have fewer active naval ships than at any time in recent history, if I recall correctly. Under Reagan, we were approaching 600 major combat vessels. Under Bush, we're talking about cutting the 12 aircraft carrier groups back to 11 or even 10. Total major active vessels? Seems like we're barely breaking the 200 or so mark, these days.

Well, we don't need the 600 ship navy any more, nor do we need the giant bomber fleet we had prior to the current strategic situation.

We are planning on greater littoral conflicts, which will call for us to use different tactics than in the past, and calls for a different TO&E.

Our re-enlistment rates are the highest ever, and our military is the most effective one out there. Are we weaker? I guess it's a matter of perspective. Do we need the forces of the 1980s when we faced that bear in the woods? No.

Can we defeat any enemy right now? Yes. It might get ugly, but there it is.

Here's a question for you......who do we need to be prepared to face right now? What forces/equipment will we need in your opinion?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8492 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
Obviously, I meant the U.S. military. Sorry 'bout that.

I was just kidding you .... I did realise that what you meant to say was "Has Bush weakened the US Military?" but I can never resist it when someone leaves me an obvious opening like that

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
But, anyway, Belgium is part of NATO, no?

Belgium is definitely part of NATO ( I go past NATO on my way to work ) ... but I'm not Belgian ... I just live here .

[Edited 2006-01-03 17:28:17]


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
What is truly weakening to our army is to have it spread so thin.

My reaction to that is to agree -- and to ask you whether we have any alternatives. I'm a guy that agrees with Rummy and the gang that we needed to invade Iraq.

But the fact is that if Rummy and the President knew we needed to do that, and other things, to fight the war against terror, then by God we also need the resources to maintain our forces. I don't get the feeling that Bush or his subordinates are putting enough pressure on the Pentagon (which, from all indications, tends to be a bit deferential) or Congress (which, from all indications, tends to be future-unaware) to fund a force necessary to implement these particular foreign policy objectives. In other words, if you're going to fight, do what Powell did and make sure you have more than enough equipment to overwhelm the enemy. What we have now is insufficient by two measures: We don't have enough to overwhelm the enemy; and we don't have enough to deter future ones.

It's a huge screw-up, in my opinion.

If the Democrats want to win, they ought to point out that Bush hasn't actually built up our military, the way that many of us thought he would, but has, by contrast, allowed Congress to de-fund it on the basis of models that don't take into account the actual costs of the war against terror.

And Bush -- despite his bounceback in polls -- needs to explain to America why the other national priorities (tax cuts, etc.) that Congress has endorsed outweigh the need to provide for both our present and our future defense.

I'm really disappointed with the President's approach to defense, and I wish he would look ten or fifteen years down the line, when future Presidents will have to deal with a rapidly dying bomber force and a fleet constrained by a lack of newer ships. It's not exactly a pretty picture, and I, for one, am royally pissed off.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Much worse than a slightly undersized military is a demoralized and exhausted one...

Who says our military is demoralized? Portions of it are certainly worn down, which is why they are being rotated as entire units.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 7):
... but I'm not Belgian ... I just live here .

OK....I was wondering about the Kiwi (NZ) part on the name....isn't there some ice cream shop chain in Belgium that has some Australian name?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8492 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9):
OK....I was wondering about the Kiwi (NZ) part on the name....isn't there some ice cream shop chain in Belgium that has some Australian name?

there is , which is really bizarre as everyone knows the best ice cream in the world is made in New Zealand ... and the second best ( or at least the funniest  Wink ) is made at "Fanny Ice Cream" in Hanoi



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9):
Who says our military is demoralized? Portions of it are certainly worn down, which is why they are being rotated as entire units.

If you stop watching newscasts looking for the story that is going to grab your attention and start actually listening to the soldiers who are in the middle of all of this, you would find out that moral isn't low and that its actually fairly high. The media doesn't focus on this because it won't sell or garner as much attention as the stories about low troop moral, or troop deaths, or troop misconduct etc.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7916 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Even if Bush has weakened your military, it is still almighty, basically invincible and swallows an incredible amount of taxes every year. So no worries.


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineLesMainwaring From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 539 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting KROC (Reply 11):
grab your attention and start actually listening to the soldiers who are in the middle of all of this

i would agree to the extent that many soldiers who are making a public statement have to consider the ramifications ... it is safer for them to say publically things are going well, rather than worry about possible reprisals for stating otherwise

its hard to get a good read on it one way or the other, in my opinion, other than look at hard numbers ...



I want something under my wheels thats plenty long and mighty dry --- Vern Demarest
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting LesMainwaring (Reply 13):
i would agree to the extent that many soldiers who are making a public statement have to consider the ramifications ... it is safer for them to say publically things are going well, rather than worry about possible reprisals for stating otherwise

If you actually search out stories and news pieces directly involving oour military members especially the pieces that break things down to a personal level, you will see their true moral. Sure not everyone has high moral but the large percentage do. And there is no fear of reprisal for saying "it sucks being over here but we have a job to do..."


User currently offlineLesMainwaring From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 539 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting KROC (Reply 14):
And there is no fear of reprisal for saying "it sucks being over here but we have a job to do..."

i'm not sure that is always the perspective many have ... i think many believe if something negative is said, then there will be negative consequences

i live in ORF, home of the world's largest navy base ... you can't get away from the military here if you tried ... there are tens of thousand of active duty, retired, and military dependents here ...

the tone i get is one of just being tired of it all


...

i will add that i don't think bush has weakend the military, i think the cuts are necessary ... i think some of the problems we've seen with deployments has come from planning issues

[Edited 2006-01-03 17:57:42]


I want something under my wheels thats plenty long and mighty dry --- Vern Demarest
User currently offlinePropatriamori From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

I think the biggest problem with the U.S. Military today is an over-reliance on Reserve Component and National Guard Forces as part of the "whole package" being deployed on the battlefield today. I also believe this is primarily a problem with one branch of the military, the Army.

As mentioned previously the Navy and Air Force no longer need to rely as heavily on big power projection platforms, so the strategic drawdowns in these areas are appropriate. Also the Reserve components of these branches, in my opinion, are better trained and equipped on the whole and are relied on to a lesser extent than elsewhere in the military.

The Air Force still has a big problem in trying to fund mega-expensive, whiz bang, super platforms to the detriment of the entire military budget on the active side. The Navy has done a better job of trying to restructure to meet the threats of the new world realistically. And the reserve components of both integrate with the active better, "filling in" rather than deploying as whole units.

The Marines, being Marines, have already structured themselves for the new threat environment. They've done it without major changes or increases in funding, using what they have on hand, and have performed their mission superbly in every deployment this century. They've shown themselves as a blueprint of a force ready for any mission, any where. And what amazes me is they consistently perform despite having some of the oldest equipment around, and being the "red-headed stepchildren" of the pentagon funding priorities. Their reserve components perform indistiguishably from active duty forces. A superbly led branch of the armed forces.

The Army on the other hand, has been slow to adopt to what is going to be needed in the 21st century. They too have been guilty of being in love with a few whiz-bang platforms, and have not adopted for the role into which they have currently been thrust. Some units, such as the 10th Mountain, 82nd and 101st Airborne, Spec Ops and others are superbly trained for the missions we now face and perform well. Others, such as the 1st Inf, 1st AD, 3rd INF, 4 INF, 1st CAV, performed exceptionally well during the initial thrust into Iraq, but have shown themselves to be poorly equipped and trained to handle the post war missions. Leadership issues? Probably, but skip the company, battalion, brigade, division levels and go all the way to the Top. These heavy forces are needed for some contingencies our military faces and have shown themselves to be superbly capable for these contingencies. But they are ill prepared for post-war "peacekeeping" missions. But they have to perform these missions because there is no-one else to do so.

Enter now the other component of the Army, the National Guard. Due to troop shortages and rotations these part time soldiers have to fill in. In most cases, these guys are some of the most experienced troops we have, but they are being inadequately trained, poorly equipped, and thrust into a situation they have no idea how to handle. You just cannot take a one weekend a month, two weeks a year soldier with vietnam era trucks, 15-20 year old HMMWVs, train them for 3-6 months and expect them to perform as well as active duty units in Iraq. Casualties in these units only further exacerbate the PR problem. These guys are doing the best job they can with what's on hand but were being pushed into the field as "gap-fillers".

The strategy of using 1/3rd to 1/2 of all deployable soldiers as Reserve/National Guard was a flawed way for past administrations and congresses to justify having a large Army "on the cheap". The Army needs to bring back more Active divisions for the missions we face today, and not "heavy" divisions. Bring back the 7th INF, 9th INF, and 5th INF as forces more structured to deal with humanitarian and Iraq/Afganistan type situations. The National Guard troops will perform honorably in the role they were originally intended for, defending the nations interests in national emergencies and humanitarian deployements at home and abroad.


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Nukes? The less of them the better in my opinion.

Agree. New technology has made the need for thousands of warheads unecessary.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Do we really need hundreds of F-22's?

Yes. Once again the more technologically superiorer you are to your enemy the better off your troops are.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
What is truly weakening to our army is to have it spread so thin.

Then you are either advocating a draft or a draw down. I personally don't think they are spread too thin. Combat fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan don't even come close to approaching other wars save the first gulf war.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 5):
You dont need 100 B-52s to drop one bunker buster on a precision target.

 checkmark 

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 5):
You dont need an aircraft carrier to bomb a foreign country when you can sit off their coast and fire cruise missiles at them from a submarine.

Or when you have a two man bomber capable of flying half way around the world, dropping percision guided munitions and returning to base.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 12):
Even if Bush has weakened your military, it is still almighty, basically invincible and swallows an incredible amount of taxes every year.

Not nearly as much tax money as our entitlement programs. The military comes in a distant 4th to those.

Quoting Propatriamori (Reply 16):
The Army needs to bring back more Active divisions for the missions we face today, and not "heavy" divisions.

Many of the cold war "heavy" divisions have gone the way of the dinosaur. Still, you can't beat a tank for knocking down a wall or for taking out an insane terrorist.
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/riflevstank.mpeg
But better yet....
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...cles/military_photos_200562221.asp


SecDef Rumsfield announced a while back that the military was going to be retooled to take on the 21st century problems of small brush fire wars. They are doing this while engaged in two hot conflicts. Anyone who has had to work with the government knows that the wheels turn incredibly slowly. I don't think our force has been weakened. It is in transition. The force that served us in the cold war will look nothing like the force that is in place after Iraq and Afghanistan nor does it need too. We no longer are facing one gargantiuan foe (unless you include China) but rather small terrorist bands that are much harder to fight. As to the NG and reserve, they are fulfilling their obligations with honor. They are doing what they were designed to do. If it was not for them, then the regular service troops would face a much quicker rotation back to the troubled areas.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-Bush. But sometimes I think that the President has basically allowed the Pentagon to make cuts in equipment and services that shouldn't have been cut.

Actually, look at what you wrote, the Pentagon is pushing for these cuts, in other words, lettting the Military, take care of the Military......



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineDan-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
Well, to be accurate the number of aircraft has stabilized under the Bush administration, while the Clinton administration presided over the biggest drawdown in our military power in our history. Our military was also rather underfunded under President Clinton with a severe lack of spares and other logistics, as well as a military that was underappreciated in both attitude and pay



Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
Well, we don't need the 600 ship navy any more, nor do we need the giant bomber fleet we had prior to the current strategic situation.

How'd we do in Afghanistan in 2001 DL? Did we win that one?

Sure we did. With Clinton's military.

The "drawdown" from cold-war force strength was begun under Bush 41 with Sec.Def. Dick Cheney- - the "peace-dividend" that resulted from Reagan telling Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" (or more likely, the East Germans wanting more MTV and fewer breadlines). Or did you conveniently forget that in your "Clinton bad, Bush good" rant?


User currently offlineKSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

I don't believe that we should be cutting the number of nukes/ships/aircraft in our military much (if at all). Better to be well prepared and ready in case something happens then to have to try and play catch-up when every second counts.

Besides, who can really know what the future holds anyways? If you polled Europeans in 1900 could any of them have foreseen the massive conflicts that would ravage their continent within half a century?

The "Big Stick" policy has worked well since TR's days, why stop with it now?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LesMainwaring (Reply 13):
i would agree to the extent that many soldiers who are making a public statement have to consider the ramifications ... it is safer for them to say publically things are going well, rather than worry about possible reprisals for stating otherwise

Soldiers will say what they feel, indeed many would not take kindly to being silenced by command, which does not do much of that anyway. They do tell troops to not divulge classified or sensitive data, but we would be seeing it in big print if there were a large number of unhappy soldiers.

Quoting KROC (Reply 14):
And there is no fear of reprisal for saying "it sucks being over here but we have a job to do..."

Indeed we hear that, and many jump on that as a sign that the troops are demoralized and worn out.

Quoting LesMainwaring (Reply 15):
i'm not sure that is always the perspective many have ... i think many believe if something negative is said, then there will be negative consequences

Again....I don't think that's the case. Ask the next group of soldiers you see. I do wonder whether the Navy and Air Force are experiencing the same pressures. I know that many sailors are spending more time deployed than usual, and that Air Force guys are being told to expect to be gone for long periods from their home bases each year.

Remember....we are in a war, and people will be more tired. They need our support and encouragement to carry on.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLesMainwaring From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 539 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):

Soldiers will say what they feel, indeed many would not take kindly to being silenced by command, which does not do much of that anyway

they may say it to their family and friends, but not to the media, and not on record ... not a lot of them, trust me, i've seen it around here, but they are no different than a lot of people ... it's really CYA

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
Again....I don't think that's the case.

again, maybe not to family and friends, but yes, to the public at large and to the media, yes

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
Remember....we are in a war,

we are in something, for sure ...

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
They need our support and encouragement to carry on.

totally agree --- i have volunteered locally with the USO, VFW and a few other agencies ... i completely support the men and women of the military, just as i do all public servants like police, fire and teachers ... even if i don't support the 'war'



I want something under my wheels thats plenty long and mighty dry --- Vern Demarest
User currently offlinePropatriamori From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 17):
As to the NG and reserve, they are fulfilling their obligations with honor.

I agree and never said otherwise...

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 17):
They are doing what they were designed to do.

In my experienced opinion, That design (or strategy) and especially its execution are fundamentally flawed.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 17):
If it was not for them, then the regular service troops would face a much quicker rotation back to the troubled areas.

That's why I advocated an increased active duty component, and an increase in the overall army size. Or up funding for the Marines and let them get the job done, but I think they've always resisted increasing the overall size of the Corps.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
b) cutting support from under the feet of soldiers and veterans

 checkmark 

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
What is truly weakening to our army is to have it spread so thin.

 checkmark  Again

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
We're fighting two wars with insuffecient equipment (thank you Dumsfeld), insufficient troop numbers, and insufficient strategy

 checkmark  yet Again

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Much worse than a slightly undersized military is a demoralized and exhausted one...

 redflag  demoralized
 checkmark  exhausted
Show me where you can find a demoralized US soldier . . .

More on this later when I'm awake . . . and the flaming will start way back with Bush 41.


25 UpstateDave : I don't understand why the US needs to have a large military. Let's face it, the old world of the constant Soviet threat is gone. And the new threat o
26 Post contains images DL021 :
27 Tbar220 : I guess thats fundamentally a difference in opinion between you and me. I feel the war in Iraq was a complete waste of tax dollars and troop strength
28 Post contains links Tbar220 : I just thought of something else. Why isn't it possible to have a smaller, more advanced, more efficient army, with the pretext that it will only be f
29 Post contains images ANCFlyer : No prblem at all except that was NEVER the plan. The plan was always to be able to handle two major conflicts in two regions of the world and maintai
30 Tbar220 : Maybe this is changing. With something like 12 Democrat Iraq War veterans running for the house or senate compared to only one Republican, perhaps a
31 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Tough question - on the surface - no other qualifiers . . . yes. One reason I voted democrat in the US Senate election here in Alaska last time. Know
32 Post contains images Boeing4ever : Let's think of Russia like a dormant volcano. They'll be back...their sham of a democracy won't hold forever...especially not with the likes of Putin
33 TWISTEDWHISPER : Your playing with high stakes, aren't you? Out of the thousands of soldiers currently in Iraq, all we have to do is to find ONE? Well, I think that s
34 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Even you can't be this naive Whisper . . . I'm painting with as broad a brush stroke as my friend Klaus did. Certainly, obviously, of course, somewhe
35 Thorben : I'm so proud of you. Great job of liberating the free and democratic Kuwait, (and its oil fields). They deserved that, especially after the US ambass
36 Propatriamori : I agree with everything you've said, except that the force needs to be smaller. Smaller forces do not allow the flexibility needed to meet missions l
37 AerospaceFan : I guess I don't understand this kind of comment. Are you saying, then, that we shouldn't have invaded Kuwait? Please answer the question. Please keep
38 NoUFO : That's rubbish. The war was more than justified no matter what the lady said to the Iraqis, let alone how the Iraqis interpreted (and maybe missread)
39 Tbar220 : Propatriamori, Perhaps I would like to see a more infantry oriented army. I don't think the size of our infantry is too many, I just think we're conce
40 Propatriamori : Tbar, I think we for the most part agree... I believe the strategy I have advocated will allow for an Army that has units with the right "force mix" f
41 Post contains images KC135R : The pay thing is a myth - pure nonsense. I have been in since 1995 and we have been getting very consistent pay raises throughout that time. The exce
42 Thorben : The thing is that the US set up a trap for the Iraqis in order to get the thing they had unleashed before back into the bottle. The US had supported
43 Falcon84 : I think he's weakend our military, but more importantly, I think he's weakened our nation. He's damaged it's good name and reputation; he's done harm
44 RAMPRAT980 : You should ask that about his predecessor
45 Thorben : That is very true. As someone from an allied country I can assure you, the the US' reputation has probably never been that low since Vietnam. Maybe e
46 KC135R : Why does everyone do that all the time? We are talking about Bush - not Clinton. Who cares what Clinton did? He's been gone for 5 years now.
47 RAMPRAT980 : True and the damage done by slick willy is still evident
48 Post contains images ANCFlyer : To be honest - in this case, CLinton and Bush 41 deserve credit where due . . . this Thread Title asks "Has Bush Weakened Our Military". The simple a
49 Post contains images Halls120 : Last time I checked, I didn't hear the Pentagon complaining about the lack of bombers. We didn't need all the bombers we used to have. Tell me, how w
50 Post contains images ANCFlyer : AND the ability to get those boots on the ground - quickly. THe US Air Force is woefully short on airlift capability. All the pretty new Strykers in
51 IRelayer : The only way Bush has weakened our military is by undermining its reputation. A volunteer army works best as a defensive tool, a deterrent. By creatin
52 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Can you expound upon this big statement? How has PotUS undermined the Reputation of the US Military? His own reputation perhaps, but I defy you to fi
53 Gilligan : Hmmmm...How long can a tank platoon stand on its own? How long can a platoon of infantry stand on its own? How long can a battery of artillery stand
54 Post contains images ANCFlyer :    Incorrect terminology. You mean "Combined Arms" . . . the only way to go. It's the reason Cavalry Units are the biggest, baddest, meanest, nasti
55 IRelayer : If you are looking for a fight you won't get one. I was merely stating my own (in your view uneducated) opinion on the subject. No need to try to imp
56 ANCFlyer : Not at all. You stated an opinion, and as you say, an uneducated one . . . I simply asked you to back up the opinion . . . apparently you can't. Or w
57 IRelayer : (It is my opinion that) Leaving 150,000 troops in a very hostile, splintered nation as an occupying force provides a fertile proving ground for terror
58 Thorben : I knew you would say something like that. But you can read about it in a book by the most respected Islam expert we have in Germany. Where did the re
59 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Yes . . . having served with, been in combat with, trained and fielded both . . . they are interchangeable. Not thirty years ago perhaps, but in 2006
60 AerospaceFan : I haven't had time to read all of the comments posted here since my last contribution to this thread. Regarding the issue of the 600-ship Navy, the me
61 Halls120 : While the requests for money and materials increasingly come from those locations, western europeans still ask the US to provide training and policy
62 Thorben : What kind of training or policy assistance does the US provide to Germany?
63 Halls120 : Well, there is of course the large German military contingent here in the US conducting flight training out in Arizona - or that's where they used to
64 Propatriamori : ANC, I have to respectfully disagree with this statement based on my personal experience. National Guard and Reserve Troops are intended to fulfill f
65 FDXMECH : On January 5, 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a speech to the National Press Club about countries the US would defend in Asia. He didn'
66 AerospaceFan : This is just another example of why the Pentagon may not have been sufficiently assertive in its requests for funding. Again, I fully realize the exi
67 Post contains images ANCFlyer : It's a clusterfuck. I worked there. Trust me on that. OK - then we'll agree to disagree - since based on my personal experiences, I've seen the Natio
68 Post contains images Gilligan : No I did not. What a shame, passed through basic there in 1977 A/1/4. When we were living in Nashville we stopped by there on the way back from my fo
69 Halls120 : That would indeed be an accurate assessment. Actually, I don't believe you can blame the lack of armored hummers on the drawdown. The Hummers should
70 Gilligan : Yeah, your probably right but someone in DOD had a hand in it I'm sure. I still get upset about that. I worked damn hard to earn both the black beret
71 UH60FtRucker : I've resisted responding to this thread, for the sole reason that I now resist responding to ANY thread that implicates my personal opinion on PRESIDE
72 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Actually, I was assigned to the Five Sided Funny farm when Shinseki made that decision . . . . and I can tell you straight from horses mouth that in
73 Halls120 : Agree completely, and your rant is shared. Every time I see some A##hole congressman force the pentagon to buy weapons it doesn't want or need, just
74 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : The Beret looks bad with the BDU. Also it means a lot to those who once had to work VERY hard to earn the right to wear it, and to see how some soldi
75 Post contains images ANCFlyer : No No and . . . . No Black Beret period, except for the Zeros - ( , sorry, Officers ) and the SF types. The DCU looks like shit. Troops I've talked t
76 Gilligan : Thanks, I wasn't going to say anything in defference to those that wear it now but it was sort of a slap in the face when it happened.
77 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I missed this earlier . . . . I went through there are a shithead in 1977 in B/2/1 . . . And later, of course, back there as a Drill Sergeant in A/3/
78 Tbar220 : It became acceptable from the day the constitution was written. We have freedom of speech. Also, under the law, the President of the United States is
79 Post contains images AerospaceFan : Yikes! It's almost worse than I thought. And this from someone (yourself) who has actually worked at the DoD. It's discouraging to read such comments
80 UH60FtRucker : Don't be an idiot. That's a crap argument and it's a little insulting. As an officer, part of your duty is not only to follow orders, but to refuse t
81 Post contains images Gilligan : What lawmaking powers? The power to make laws resides with Congress, not the President. The President can sign, veto, or do nothing and allow a bill
82 Post contains images Tbar220 : Ahhh, glad I got you to say that I just found it disturbing that you said that you don't ever question orders, just obey them. But now I know that as
83 UH60FtRucker : Respect it? Kid, I defend it. I put my life on the line for it. -UH60
84 Gilligan : The lawmaking power resides with Congress. His role is limited to signing, vetoing, or sitting on his hands. Laws are written in Congress. I never sa
85 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Small question here...........have you ever served? There's not much I can say at this point without beating the shit out of that dead horse. Morale
86 Tbar220 : Why is that relevant? If he says no, are you going to dismiss his opinion?
87 ANCFlyer : I can the man's point T-Bar . . . . and it's valid. So is yours. He may not dismiss the opinion, but it will be weighed differently and responded to
88 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Surely you of all people can understand that being involved with the subject at hand just MIGHT give you a slightly greater perspective on what's rea
89 Alessandro : I consider the economy in balance is a part of the defence, it broke the Sovietunion and I wonder if it´ll break the USofA? Currently +8,2 trillion U
90 ANCFlyer : Nope. Military Spending - for things other than this war - is not nearly as high as one might think. . . . and in fact, less than many other programs
91 Alessandro : ANCFlyer, surely the Sovietunion was doomed and saved by the allies during WW2, but wild spending on the military was definitly a contributing factor.
92 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Concur - I said as much. Disagree. Once we've gotten out of Iraq, and refocus on Afghanistan and other theaters in the Global War On Terror, you'll s
93 UH60FtRucker : Soviet spending and current American spending are completely different. On a share of national GDP, at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union w
94 Alessandro : UH60, the problem how the budget is set, you´ll lend money every single day to cover holes in the budget, that´s the problem, not where the money go
95 UH60FtRucker : I understand your point, and it's valid. But that's not what you said: Which is not really true. You could cut the military in half, but still have a
96 Tbar220 : Point taken, I'll wait for his response and then yours before I judge the question.
97 YOWza : Hey if your military gets too weak give us (Canada) a call. I'm sure our government would be happy to lend you our soldiers (all three of them) and ou
98 Post contains links ANCFlyer : Just for you Klaus . . . . http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7342740p-7254840c.html "I can't say I was having fun, but deep down inside, I knew th
99 AerospaceFan : The U.S. military remains the most potent in the world. Where else in Planet Earth could a country be fighting wars in two distant countries -- Afghan
100 ANCFlyer : As far as the military aspect of our elected officials keeping watch - we've been screwed for a while. It's what happens when most of the idiots in t
101 DL021 : All these guys who make the claim that Shinseki was some latter day Clausewitz forget a couple of key things.....he was a political appointee by Presi
102 ANCFlyer : That was SMA Jack Tilley (12th Sergeant Major of the Army) . . . Jack Tilley and I were Drill Sergeants together at Ft. Knox in the 1980s. He hated t
103 UH60FtRucker : Are you running for office or something? A lot of fluff in that "speech", but not a lot of substance. I have to admit, after reading a lot of your po
104 DL021 : I don't know where Aerospace fan is coming from here, but he's evidently been reading Global Security's site and asking himself what's going on with t
105 Alessandro : UH60, I read estimates that the 2nd Kuwait war has costed the USofA, 2 trillion US$ so far, basically one quarter of the foreign debt, so I think the
106 ANCFlyer : We've never been to war with Kuwait???? Where'd you get that rubbish?
107 UH60FtRucker : First, when did we go into Kuwait again??? The first time was to liberate them from Saddam... but that was called the Gulf War. Secondly, you can't j
108 Post contains images Propatriamori : I'm sure the "Army Values" training they are getting will take care of instilling them with the proper moral fortitude. Do you have your "Army Values
109 Usnseallt82 : Hell yes. Its called the scar from the drill instructor's foot in your ass. Need some more help understanding that? I'll point you to the nearest rec
110 AerospaceFan : Back on topic: If there is one overall thing that worries me, it's that we're simply overlooking things. There are events that happen overseas that ar
111 ANCFlyer : Source?
112 AerospaceFan : You can find it at Google (the news section).
113 Post contains links ANCFlyer : You can post it here like you're supposed to . . . it's your news, you provide the source. http://www.airliners.net/discussions/rules.main?confirm=no
114 Post contains links AerospaceFan : Here ya go: http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...nown/2006/01/11/1136956231459.html
115 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Thanks. much easier this way. Kim bears considerable watching of course - as he's quite mad. My curiosity it piqued however in that this has not made
116 Propatriamori : Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, thanks though. Seems from your attitude that you're unfamiliar with the current state of BCT and "values trai
117 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : And if you weren't so caught up in yourself, you would have realized that my comment was the same tongue-in-cheek jab towards the Army from a Navy gu
118 Propatriamori : USNseal... Slam taken where a slam is due. There is no defending the current state of Army BCT, and I am unfamiliar with the current state of Navy or
119 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Sorry - I was in my sleep cycle . . . Navy Beat Army - guess next year we'll have to use our first line players huh. . . . Can't really . . . as I am
120 AerospaceFan : Regardless of what is said above, including by me, I continue to think that America has the best fighting forces in history. The only question in my m
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Has Bush Betrayed His Social Conservative Base? posted Tue Oct 4 2005 01:34:32 by SFOMEX
Even CBS Has Bush Up By 9% posted Sat Sep 18 2004 02:31:55 by N6376M
How Many Times Has Bush Visited Your State posted Wed May 26 2004 09:24:42 by Rsmith6621a
A Moving Tribute To Our Military... posted Sat Oct 27 2001 04:32:25 by Twotterwrench
Poll: Is Bush Doing A Great Job In Our Economy? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 17:53:26 by Wardialer
Please Pray For Our Beloved President Bush.... posted Mon Feb 27 2006 22:37:36 by Alberchico
Military Now Has Facial Armor - Uuuugly posted Tue Feb 7 2006 21:39:08 by MD-90
Your Friend Has Entered You Into Our Tell A Friend Link... posted Tue Jan 3 2006 09:40:05 by Noelg
Bush Has Really Pissed Me Off Now. posted Mon Dec 19 2005 03:03:34 by LHMark
Bush Using Military To Quarantine posted Wed Oct 5 2005 00:26:18 by Dtwclipper