RRC Archives

Crankmas wrote:in fact I loath the military

Funny, but it's interesting that the president who so loathed the military was the executive of the same administration that so successfully transitioned the US military from it's cold war structure to the multi-conflict capable military of today. I won't waste my time hunting for the quotes/links, but both Rumsfled and Cheney had to publicly praise the job the Clinton administration did to create the US military that could so quickly invade Iraq and Afghanistan and overthrow their respective regiemes.

Clinton may not have had the warm fuzzies for the military, but as a smart, responsible president, he knew that it was critical to America's future to shift the US military away from it's bi-polar, cold war structure and to create a new structure that could deal with several simultaneous conflicts in our current multi-polar world, including peace keeping and nation building. Clinton managed to do this with what was a generally cooperative military. (At the same time, Clinton bears a good deal of blame for increasing the role of for-profit contractors in providing serices that were formerly performed by troops).

This stands in contrast to the bozo B.ush II administration - prior to 9/11/01, Rumsfled spent most of his time trying to do two things. First, was to re-start the "Star Wars" missle defense system (evidence of how much the administration wasn't listening to all the people telling them that the #1 treat was from non-governmental agents, aka 'terrorists') Second, Rumsfled was in serious conflict with the 'brass' over his plans to radically restructure the military to drastically reduce the number of active duty troops. (Boy, that was great idea!) Of course, they went on to force the invasion of Iraq, fail to listen to the military who said that more troops were needed to secure the peace, generally bungle the post-invasion period, and do all this without adequate equipment for troops in the field and inadequate medical care for the thousands of wounded troops coming home.

So, Clinton hated the military and B.ush II supports the troops? Ah yes, black is white, up is down!

nice post too bad it all a lie

Dept Of Defense records for the last 40 yrs are black and white, during Dimocrud regimes and fortunately that was just two, military and intelligence agencies suffered major funding cuts resulting from not only the lefts' lack of an understanding of military culture but an utter disdain for it, (retired Lt. Col Robert "Buzz" Patterson USAF) getting Clinton and Carter out of D.C. was the best thing to happen to the U.S. military in the last 100 years, you don't fuck with the U.S. military the only way to defeat them is in Washington and the left proved that in Viet Nam and cunts like Pelosi, Reid, Durbin and Murtha are at it today, Moveon.org all you like but it don't make that shit wash.

Tomdarch,
I may have read it wrong, as youll tell me I'm sure, but Clinton started RIF (Reduction in force) I know, because I lost my job due to his cuts. I was hurt in an accident after Desert Storm, I would have recovered enough to perform my duties, but in his infinite wisdom, he started cutting heavily into some of the best soldiers. Clinton was a wannabe tech warrior, it is no secret he loved cruise missles more than soldiers, he was a push button commando. I know someone will say, better missles wasted than soldiers dead, but you can bomb people into the stone ages, but if there are not troops to hold the ground, the enemy will come back, dust off, pick up they're ak 47's and keep right on fighting. Bush #1 was a troops president, I agree with you totally on Bush #2 though, every year I was in, I got a raise and never needed anything, beans, bullets, and bandaids. I swear to you, the minute the Clinton Regime assumed power, things changed drastically. Overnight, soldiers were being cut and supplies started to become thin, we only fired live ammo 2 x a year if lucky, and I was normal Infantry, the special forces were firing about 3-4 times a year. I dont know how anyone was expected to maintain the type of tactical edge with no real training or supplies, and people wonder why the Army has no one in it now. I don't pretend it was all roses with Bush or even that Clinton was responsible for all the problems I saw/experienced first hand, but I lived it, so no articles/links/spun facts will ever make me believe different. I would have been allowed to have "temporary duty retirement" at half pay until I was healed and then resumed full pay and duties. Then I got Med boarded out about six months after his picture (Clinton) was hung on the chain of command wall and was told by the Col. who gave me my walking papers that it had come down from the new regime to get rid of #1. downsize all combat arms, no matter how. (strike one for me) #2. get rid of all injured personnel (strike two) #3. get rid of anyone who is passed over for rank (strike 3, could'nt advance rank due to injury) So to even say Clinton was good for the troops is as ass backwards as anything I have heard on this board in a long time. I will not pretend to know all the facts, but my experience in life in the Military, during this time we are questioning, tells me different. As always my 2cents......

I'm gonna distill a couple of things that have been in my heard:

1. Everyone that disagrees with Republicans is doing it for purely political reasons.

I don't really understand this but this is the way it is in the rhetoric of the right these days. It's as if the GOP is made up of saintly angels that only wish to do good in this world. On the other hand, all Democrats are craven fools and cowards, digging in the nastiest sewer for change or outright devils wishing to end civilization through their peace mongering.

I find a wealthy thief to be much more disgusting than a poor thief. Maybe I'm just a romantic...

2. The military budget has been too small at any point.

The military budget of this country has never been too small. It has been a bloated giant since WWII, full of needless and secret crap. Any "conservative" that bitches and moans about "funding the troops" should take a look at where our military tax dollars go. Most of them go to weapons systems for which we have no need (gunslinga, you wanna know why you didn't have enough bullets to go target practice weekly?):

--The F-22 raptor: development costs $22.4billion, $200million per plane. The F-15 is faster, carries a heavier payload, and can not be touched by any other plane on this planet. If I remember correctly it would take $1.8million per plane to modify the F-15 fleet to outperform the F-22 and the F-15 as it is (and the F-16 for that matter) would win in a dog fight. Why are we buying this plane? Because it keeps the wealthy Republican Dons good and rich.

--Nuclear submarines: yep, we're stilling building these things which are nothing but mobile transports for nuclear missiles at a cost of $4.3billion. WTF?!?

--The B-2 Stealth Bomber: $2.1 BILLION per plane, it's delicate, doesn't work well, and we have no enemy that can shoot down a B-52, much less a B-1, so why do we need it? So the wealthy can become more wealthy.

--The missile defense system: Why do we need this? North Korea? If North Korea actually manages to build a missile that can hit the US we can destroy his entire military infrastructure in less than twelve hours. You can't shoot missiles if they're smoking rubble. So why build these things? To fill the pockets of the right wing pigs at the trough.

3. We should trust this administration.

EVERYTHING this administration has said and/or done in Iraq has been WRONG. It is the most corupt, most secretive, least receptive, and just all around worst administration ever. Why in the world should we do anything but the opposite of what they say? Incompetence is not the same as leadership.

I wish I had more time for this shit. I miss it.

So, what's your beef?