Winning with Clinton's military
midtowng
Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning
hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the
United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain,
they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too
far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was
poor.
But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the
military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war
against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to
a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.
Some might wish to give the young Bush administration and its
impressive secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, primary credit for
the performance of American forces in Afghanistan. The administration
developed an effective war plan that defeated the Taliban and Al
Qaeda, and it has a sound broader strategy in the struggle against
terrorism.
But it is still Bill Clinton's military that has actually been winning
this war. The Bush administration had barely started to make its mark
on defense policy before hostilities in Afghanistan began. Last
spring, it provided a $5 billion supplemental appropriation for the
2001 defense budget, but that constituted less than 2 percent of
defense spending for the year and had hardly begun to be noticed
before the war began.
The Bush administration also announced the results of a new strategic
review on Sept. 30. But such a review cannot affect military
operations that begin within days of its release. Moreover, the review
did not reverse any of Bill Clinton's military force cuts, despite the
claims of the Bush campaign last year that those reductions had gone
too far. In most respects, the review looked very much like what one
might have expected a Clinton or Gore administration to produce.
Bill Bonde
midtowng wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/opinion/01OHAN.html
>
> Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning
> hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the
> United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain,
> they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too
> far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was
> poor.
>
> But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the
> military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war
> against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to
> a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.
>
Have we fought against a modern military since Clinton took over and
toasted the military? No.
Jeffrey Davis
When was the last time we fought a war against a country
which was our equal in technology? 1945.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net>
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/opinion/01OHAN.html
>
> Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning
> hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the
> United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain,
> they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too
> far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was
> poor.
>
> But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the
> military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him.
the problems in the military would not show up in a war
of this type, for the most part. the war was primarily a
matter of special ops, long range bombers, and naval
aviation. the problems are in the less glamoruous areas,
such as large, heavy army formations and support operations,
which have been slighted to keep the pointy end of the
spear a bit sharper.
--
Don McGregor | Osama delendo est.
|
Harold
wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/opinion/01OHAN.html
[deleted]
>But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the
>military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war
>against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to
>a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.
>
That does not make much sense. The weakness of the US military would
not be apparent when the best the targets can do is quiver in a cave.
This kind of bias is certainly typical of the NY Times.
Regards, Harold (Certified Meanie)
-----
"To (grab the public attention) we need to get some broad-based
support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course,
entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up
scary scenarios, simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we may have."
----Dr. Stephen Schneider, 1989, Discover
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Bill Bonde
Yet we lost in Vietnam and were stalemated in Korea. All the more reason
to make sure our military is in proper working order.
Jeffrey Davis
Bill Bonde wrote:
It was obviously strong enough for the stuff W put it through. Of all the knocks
on Clinton, the anti-military stuff is the weakest. Gore wanted more $$ for the
military than W did. Most of the animosity from military men seems to me to stem
from partisanship rather than policy. Gore certainly did more during Vietnam
than W did; and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
"Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
Bill Bonde
Sure, that's what he said to try to get elected. His eight years in
office show something else.
> Most of the animosity from military men seems to me to stem
> from partisanship rather than policy. Gore certainly did more during Vietnam
> than W did;
>
Neither fought directly. What does this have to do with policy?
> and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
>
Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
--
"What is death like?"
"It's like going on holiday with a bunch of Germans."
-+Rimmer
Jeffrey Davis
Bill Bonde wrote:
Gore was in Nam. Bush was helping a friend of his father get elected.
>
>
> > and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> > "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
> >
> Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
I'd have to ask them whether they trust you.
midtowng
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > > midtowng wrote:
> > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/opinion/01OHAN.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning
> > > > > > hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the
> > > > > > United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain,
> > > > > > they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too
> > > > > > far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was
> > > > > > poor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the
> > > > > > military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war
> > > > > > against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to
> > > > > > a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Have we fought against a modern military since Clinton took over and
> > > > > toasted the military? No.
> > > >
> > > > When was the last time we fought a war against a country
> > > > which was our equal in technology? 1945.
> > > >
> > > Yet we lost in Vietnam and were stalemated in Korea.
I don't know what you thought Vietnam was, but it was anything but
an equal enemy in technology.
> > > All the more reason
> > > to make sure our military is in proper working order.
Looks like it was. Our military did fine in Bosnia, Kosovo and
Afghanistan.
> >
> > It was obviously strong enough for the stuff W put it through. Of all the knocks
> > on Clinton, the anti-military stuff is the weakest. Gore wanted more $$ for the
> > military than W did.
> >
> Sure, that's what he said to try to get elected. His eight years in
> office show something else.
>
You must have missed the fact that military spending has been
going up the past couple years.
>
> > Most of the animosity from military men seems to me to stem
> > from partisanship rather than policy. Gore certainly did more during Vietnam
> > than W did;
> >
> Neither fought directly. What does this have to do with policy?
>
Only one of them was actually drafted and served in the military.
Only one of them was in sniffing distance of the war.
>
> > and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> > "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
> >
> Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
You are a partisan hack. We don't expect otherwise from you.
When partisanship means more than service to your country then you
have lost credibility.
Bill Bonde
Gore wrote articles for a military magazine in Vietnam for a year.
> >
> >
> > > and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> > > "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
> > >
> > Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
>
> I'd have to ask them whether they trust you.
>
I'm not president and I wasn't running for president.
Bill Bonde
You are an idiot. I didn't claim they were our equal in technology.
Learn how to read.
> > > > All the more reason
> > > > to make sure our military is in proper working order.
>
> Looks like it was. Our military did fine in Bosnia, Kosovo and
> Afghanistan.
>
We are out of cruise missiles and have shortages all over the place.
Just fine, yea, right.
> > > It was obviously strong enough for the stuff W put it through. Of all the knocks
> > > on Clinton, the anti-military stuff is the weakest. Gore wanted more $$ for the
> > > military than W did.
> > >
> > Sure, that's what he said to try to get elected. His eight years in
> > office show something else.
> >
> You must have missed the fact that military spending has been
> going up the past couple years.
>
After real declines for the six previous years.
> > > Most of the animosity from military men seems to me to stem
> > > from partisanship rather than policy. Gore certainly did more during Vietnam
> > > than W did;
> > >
> > Neither fought directly. What does this have to do with policy?
> >
> Only one of them was actually drafted and served in the military.
> Only one of them was in sniffing distance of the war.
>
The claim was that Gore did something during Vietnam.
> > > and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> > > "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
> > >
> > Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
>
> You are a partisan hack. We don't expect otherwise from you.
> When partisanship means more than service to your country then you
> have lost credibility.
>
Supporting the Republicans is service to my country.
Jeffrey Davis
Bill Bonde wrote:
Shoe-Other-Foot Test.
midtowng
>
> > > > > All the more reason
> > > > > to make sure our military is in proper working order.
> >
> > Looks like it was. Our military did fine in Bosnia, Kosovo and
> > Afghanistan.
> >
> We are out of cruise missiles and have shortages all over the place.
> Just fine, yea, right.
>
And yet they just kept coming. Funny how that is.
>
> > > > It was obviously strong enough for the stuff W put it through. Of all the knocks
> > > > on Clinton, the anti-military stuff is the weakest. Gore wanted more $$ for the
> > > > military than W did.
> > > >
> > > Sure, that's what he said to try to get elected. His eight years in
> > > office show something else.
> > >
> > You must have missed the fact that military spending has been
> > going up the past couple years.
> >
> After real declines for the six previous years.
>
something else?
>
> > > > Most of the animosity from military men seems to me to stem
> > > > from partisanship rather than policy. Gore certainly did more during Vietnam
> > > > than W did;
> > > >
> > > Neither fought directly. What does this have to do with policy?
> > >
> > Only one of them was actually drafted and served in the military.
> > Only one of them was in sniffing distance of the war.
> >
> The claim was that Gore did something during Vietnam.
>
couldn't bring himself to do.
>
> > > > and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> > > > "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
> > > >
> > > Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
> >
> > You are a partisan hack. We don't expect otherwise from you.
> > When partisanship means more than service to your country then you
> > have lost credibility.
> >
> Supporting the Republicans is service to my country.
I'm sure that this is what patriotism means to you.
That is exact reason why I rarely trust people who claim to be
patriots.
Bill Bonde
I wrote it just fine. Here's what he wrote and then my response:
> > > > > > > When was the last time we fought a war against a country
> > > > > > > which was our equal in technology? 1945.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet we lost in Vietnam and were stalemated in Korea.
>
As you can see now, I was saying that we lost Vietnam and stalemated in
Korea even though, 'yet', the last time we took someone on who was our
equal in tech was 1945. I'm sure you know this and don't want to go down
this road since it just proves you wrong once again.
> > > > > > All the more reason
> > > > > > to make sure our military is in proper working order.
> > >
> > > Looks like it was. Our military did fine in Bosnia, Kosovo and
> > > Afghanistan.
> > >
> > We are out of cruise missiles and have shortages all over the place.
> > Just fine, yea, right.
> >
> It seems we were "reapeatedly out of cruise missles".
> And yet they just kept coming. Funny how that is.
>
Funny how we are out of cruise missiles? We need them for certain types
of attacks.
> > > > > It was obviously strong enough for the stuff W put it through. Of all the knocks
> > > > > on Clinton, the anti-military stuff is the weakest. Gore wanted more $$ for the
> > > > > military than W did.
> > > > >
> > > > Sure, that's what he said to try to get elected. His eight years in
> > > > office show something else.
> > > >
> > > You must have missed the fact that military spending has been
> > > going up the past couple years.
> > >
> > After real declines for the six previous years.
> >
> So you admit that the "eight years in office" DON'T show
> something else?
>
Clinton reduced the size of the military and the spending to allow more
domestic spending. That is bad.
> > > > > Most of the animosity from military men seems to me to stem
> > > > > from partisanship rather than policy. Gore certainly did more during Vietnam
> > > > > than W did;
> > > > >
> > > > Neither fought directly. What does this have to do with policy?
> > > >
> > > Only one of them was actually drafted and served in the military.
> > > Only one of them was in sniffing distance of the war.
> > >
> > The claim was that Gore did something during Vietnam.
> >
> Yes, he did. He JOINED THE ARMY AND WENT THERE! Something Bush
> couldn't bring himself to do.
>
Bush joined the military.
>
> > > > > and his new spending for the military was > W's as well. Conclusion:
> > > > > "Republican" means more to those guys than the military they serve in.
> > > > >
> > > > Conclusion, they trust Bush more than Gore. Me too.
> > >
> > > You are a partisan hack. We don't expect otherwise from you.
> > > When partisanship means more than service to your country then you
> > > have lost credibility.
> > >
> > Supporting the Republicans is service to my country.
>
> I'm sure that this is what patriotism means to you.
> That is exact reason why I rarely trust people who claim to be
> patriots.
>
There's no reason for you to trust people who disagree with you.
Zepp the Weasel
How many other countries are there with $325 billion military budgets
and the technology America has?
Lucky for us that President Fustercluck the White Feather only fights
countries that can't shoot back.
Bill Bonde
We pay that money so that we can keep the number of US casualties low
and reduce collateral damage. Would you prefer unguided bombs?
> Lucky for us that President Fustercluck the White Feather only fights
> countries that can't shoot back.
>
So you'd suggest that he take on a first world country just for fun?
midtowng
> Zepp the Weasel wrote:
> > Bill Bonde <stderr_...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<3C360C6A...@mail.com>...
> > > midtowng wrote:
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/opinion/01OHAN.html
> > > >
> > > > Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning
> > > > hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the
> > > > United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain,
> > > > they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too
> > > > far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was
> > > > poor.
> > > >
> > > > But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the
> > > > military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war
> > > > against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to
> > > > a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.
> > > >
> > > Have we fought against a modern military since Clinton took over and
> > > toasted the military? No.
> >
> > How many other countries are there with $325 billion military budgets
> > and the technology America has?
> >
> We pay that money so that we can keep the number of US casualties low
> and reduce collateral damage. Would you prefer unguided bombs?
That doesn't address your own point: there ARE no nations out there
with a military equal to ours.